I'll give it a read later. I've always found NDEs fascinating. Especially reading Jung's personal experience and learning of the psychological changes after one.

I'm well for being sick since night...happier than I have the right to be though.

Synchronicity was coined by CG Jung in 1923 while penning the Foreward of a book. It basically means meaningful coincidence. Acausal based reality stuff....

I miss the Sift as well. I pop through to vote for as much as I can and find the odd deviation(s). Your mention of the Police may have sparked free association in that I, while reading your reply, considered myself more of a traffic cop here these days.

I do relish the comparison to your venerable self. I must admit, however, variance with your comparison as being simultaneously too flattering of me and certainly too self deprecating of you.

I am glad to hear life is treating you well and, therefore, you life. And that your flare for imagery is still strong.
In reply to this comment by Kevlar:
Hey there! I've heard the term synchronicity before (even outside of The Police's Greatest Hits) but I figured I should check the Wikipedia entry just to do something seemingly enlightened today. I then managed only to read as far as a distracting graph that read 'indestructible energy' at the top, so yes, I am synchronously indestructible and I thank you for the compliment.

I'm good! Busy as heck and missing the sift, but loving life. Old man moment: You remind me of myself, commenting about 'walking out of here' as though the Sift is a physical place, with you its custodian and Keeper of Awesome, clocking out nightly when the weariness overtakes the desire for dupes and bans. I then looked at your Super Duper rank - 82 - and for me to say 'you remind me of myself' is probably akin to a worm complimenting the eagle who is busy squeezing it between its talons.

Anyway, how are you?

i apologise for assuming you liked freud - i think i have my wires crossed with someone else. in any case i am always glad to hear when people are suspicious of him, because there is good reason to be. i highly recommend reading "the unknown freud" by frederick crews.

to respond point by point:

1. yes, i agree that the human condition has been examined for thousands of years, and that 'psychology' in some form began with the ancient greeks, if not earlier. but this is oversimplifying things dramatically, and it becomes an argument of definition. i refer to psychology as psychological SCIENCE, which -is- (relatively) new. this difference is not trivial -- until the 19th century, our hypotheses about the human condition were untested. psychological science allows us to see if our philosophies about human perception, cognition, and behaviour, are demonstrably true.

2. the humanists/third wave occupied an important space and time, but were overshadowed by behaviourism/cognitivism. still, i think a lot of people outside of psychology have heard of abraham maslow and his 'hierarchy of needs'. not only that, but humanist psychologists were responsible for the development of the 'client-centered approach', which was hugely influential. i would disagree with you here and say that in research, and clinical psychology, humanist trends are vitally important. in fact, a relatively new sub-discipline within psychology called "positive psychology" is burgeoning. i would suggest that perhaps the reason it seems discouraged is because psychology is so unbelievably broad now, and neuroscience is becoming increasingly popular, that it seems as though interest in wellbeing is small. i don't think it truly is.

3. well, i suspect here we have a true divide that we can't agree on. you believe we have failed in understanding the human condition because of something i believe doesn't exist. i think we understand the human condition fairly well, given our short (scientific) time at examining it. but it is an unwieldly, hugely complex beast, and we are just at the beginning.

and with regard to your points on bashing psychology:

1. if you want to understand a human, it is useful to understand the workings of the brain. would you let a surgeon operate without training? i'm not sure what the problem is with emphasising that students of the science of human thought and behaviour learn how the biology of the mind works.

2. yes, rates are up. population is also up. ability to diagnose accurately is also up. recognition that people have problems, instead of pretending they're fine, is also up. look, i see what you're saying, and it's perfectly reasonable, but i think this problem is enormously complex, and blaming psychology is misplaced.

>> ^enoch:

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.
now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.
i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.
let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.
while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).
i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.
please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

SDGundam nailed it.
and i dont have anything against psychology as a whole,to do so would be ignoring the many MANY advancements in understanding the human mind.
that being said i have to admit a revulsion to freud (his discovery non-withstanding) i found his conclusions entirely bleak and apocalyptic as i also did neitzche.
this is my opinion but i could make a strong argument for my case.

now i am going to engage in a tactic i really dislike (the bullet argument) but i shall do so in order to maybe communicate a bit where i am coming from NOT to win/lose an argument.
because i do not see this as an argument ...just a differing of opinion based on not only my own bias and prejudice but berticus as well.(hmmm..maybe it IS an argument LOL).
1.psychological/behavioral sciences are new in name only.history reveals that understanding the human condition and mind have been studied for thousands of years see:mystery schools,jesuits etc etc.
2.i am gladdened by the new batch of "humanists",though in american higher education this is..discouraged..due to employment issues,money etc etc.those who do pursue that branch of study might as well become hippies or a talk show host.not much money in that field.
3.you are correct in the vast literature concerning the things we are talking about and should there be any surprise in that fact?
i dont think so.it is the fundamental part of being human to talk about the things that touch us,to attempt to understand ourselves as people and as a society... for good or ill.

i have come to the conclusion (maybe incorrectly) that the great philosophers/psychologists of our time have ultimately failed in their conclusions due to the fact that they totally ignore the ongoing battle between spirit and ego.
humanists at least recognize that there is something more.they may not call it spirit/soul but they do realize that there is a dynamic that people like freud missed entirely.
hell..freud concluded that the ego was EVERYTHING..which puts him in the douchebag column.(mass marketing anyone?).
does this dismiss freud accomplishments? no.
just as i wont dismiss neitzche (even though he was a depressive asshat who we would call EMO nowadays).
i find hegel to be particularly abominable in his conclusions but that does not detract from his brilliance.
jung and r d lang's conclusions were just as flawed and for the same reasons the freud/hegel were flawed.
their conclusions lacked a complete dynamic.
this "third wave" is beginning to address these flaws but the way i see it the elements they are bringing to the table have been in front of us for 3000 yrs.
hence my comment.

let me end this particularly long comment with a few points to why i may be perceived as bashing psychology (rightly so in my opinion).
1.greater and greater pressure put on students to pursue bio-chem for a choice in the field.
2.in america suicides are up.unhappiness is up and the new "maladies of the day" bi-polar,adhd and panic anxiety disorder are up by staggering rates.over the past 20 yrs anti-psychotics,ssri's and sedatives are up exponentially..1000's of percentage points higher than 20 yrs ago.
all with the avg time before diagnosis? 1 1/2 hrs.
i could go on for quite a bit longer but i feel these points suffice to make my point.
conclusion=epic fail.

while my comment may have had a snarky flavor my sentiments were sincere.
i am over-joyed that practical applications based on a more humanistic approach are seriously being considered instead of pumping people full of meds (with full understanding that meds are a necessity at times).

i am assisting a friend who just entered her master program for psychology and i am appalled at the depth of indoctrination and lack of opposing philosophies and understanding and she is being pressured to pursue bio-chem and marginalize any other train or pursuit.

please understand that i am self taught and most likely have gaps in not only my studies but understanding and welcome any opposing thoughts or understanding my friend.
you have always been respectful berticus and while at times we may disagree thats exactly how i look at it..a disagreement and not a forum on who we are as people.
if my thought process is wrong or misguided i would love to hear what you have to say my friend.

@berticus I believe he's referring to Eastern philosophies (in particular Buddhism) that have been saying this for thousands of years.

This talk was awesome. She's got it spot-on I think--if we could raise a whole generation of kids that believed from the start that it's okay to be vulnerable (even with no guarantees that the world will be kind in return), that we should be grateful for every moment (even the terrifying ones), and that all of us are "good enough" to be loved just by virtue of being human beings, we'd see a peaceful revolution take place around the world and real change, rather than superficial change, take place in our social and political structures.

>> ^berticus:

what on earth are you talking about?
1) psychological science is relatively new, 19th C onward.
2) the 'third wave' were interested in humanistic topics just like this.
3) there are vast literatures on all kinds of topics of emotion, love, attachment, belonging...
i don't know why you think psychology is some kinda bad guy, it's just bizarre. and aren't you the same person who is into freud / jung? it just boggles my mind.
i mean no disrespect, it is just thoroughly confusing.

what on earth are you talking about?

1) psychological science is relatively new, 19th C onward.
2) the 'third wave' were interested in humanistic topics just like this.
3) there are vast literatures on all kinds of topics of emotion, love, attachment, belonging...

i don't know why you think psychology is some kinda bad guy, it's just bizarre. and aren't you the same person who is into freud / jung? it just boggles my mind.

i mean no disrespect, it is just thoroughly confusing.

>> ^enoch:

this is a great talk but i find it interesting how western psychology is just now beginning to address this in a substantive way because this is NOT a new concept or philosophy.
WTG psychologists!!! 3000 yrs later and just NOW you are starting to get it!
woohoo!

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by enoch.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^enoch:

this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.
i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?

It's really difficult for me to grasp the fact that anyone still argues such moot subjects, like it's somehow the truth of reality.. possibly.. maybe.
Lemme give an example.
You spend your entire life searching for noah's ark. As a result, one day you uncover the ruins of a previously unknown civilization.
Great, your research has embiggened world culture & history. Nevertheless it's still based in a dumb premise.
It's dumb because of our understanding that floods leave evidence.
No evidence of a global flood = no ark = issue resolved.
No need to .. ahem.. "push the envelope" any further on that one. =]
Jung may have contributed to the understanding of consciousness thru his search for the divine. But it's still stupid to say he was "edgy" for investigating questions for which we already have the answers.
I.E.
Q. Is there divine life after death?
A. No, your mind & personality is dependent on your physical brain.
Understanding all of that.
Rationalize to me how it's intellectually dishonest or lazy to avoid asking questions about a subject that is of little or no practical value or meaning?
Sayin' shit like "would you have the courage.. or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?" just makes you sound like a nutter/zealot..
[Are you willing to live in the relative safety of your certitude that flying hot pink unicorns DON"T exist.. you lazy mainstream conformist, you. ire ]
..and forces you out of the discussion.
Cause in all practical circumstances we can assert:
Gravity exists. Divine consciousness after physical death does not.

Does that clear up some people's general dismissal of jung's theories here?


genji,
your first sentence says it all.
there is no need to delve further.
the only thing you have managed to convey is your ability to think in two dimensions.
*isdupe=http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death

>> ^enoch:


this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.

i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?


It's really difficult for me to grasp the fact that anyone still argues such moot subjects, like it's somehow the truth of reality.. possibly.. maybe.

Lemme give an example.

You spend your entire life searching for noah's ark. As a result, one day you uncover the ruins of a previously unknown civilization.

Great, your research has embiggened world culture & history. Nevertheless it's still based in a dumb premise.

It's dumb because of our understanding that floods leave evidence.
No evidence of a global flood = no ark = issue resolved.
No need to .. ahem.. "push the envelope" any further on that one. =]

Jung may have contributed to the understanding of consciousness thru his search for the divine. But it's still stupid to say he was "edgy" for investigating questions for which we already have the answers.

I.E.
Q. Is there divine life after death?
A. No, your mind & personality is dependent on your physical brain.

Understanding all of that.
Rationalize to me how it's intellectually dishonest or lazy to avoid asking questions about a subject that is of little or no practical value or meaning?

Sayin' shit like "would you have the courage.. or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?" just makes you sound like a nutter/zealot..

[Are you willing to live in the relative safety of your certitude that flying hot pink unicorns DON"T exist.. you lazy mainstream conformist, you. *ire*]

..and forces you out of the discussion.
Cause in all practical circumstances we can assert:

Gravity exists. Divine consciousness after physical death does not.


Does that clear up some people's general dismissal of jung's theories here?

Aw nuts. Dammit, why can't we merge comments when we dupeof? @lucky760, I'm looking at you.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by gwiz665. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

dupeof="http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death"

>> ^rebuilder:

That doesn't mean he hasn't contributed tremendously to psychology, but how much has this supernaturalist bent held the discipline back?


I don't think he's held it back at all.

We still have the scientific, biological study of psychology, e.g. the way the brain works, its structure, and what chemicals and lesions can do to influence behavior, but Jung was of a different school. He looked at the brain not as an end but as a sort of middle ground, an interlocutor to the deeper mysteries of life.

It's the difference between knowing how a movie is made, e.g. the lighting, the special effects, the basic way that stories are told...and knowing what a movie means. Those are two different things.

I'm not going to argue Jung. I'm not here to convince anyone, or to be convinced. But I've read several of his books, and as a writer his studies have been invaluable regarding character development and plot, among other things. As a person, he's helped confirm some of the beliefs that I was already forming based on my life's experiences: that everything is somehow connected by means we cannot see or understand.

Thought alone can influence reality.

This is metaphysics, not science, and as I said before, to argue the point is wasted breath.

In a particularly appropriate example of synchronicity (considering the Jung discussion going on elsewhere), as I was driving across Indiana coming home from an interview on Friday, the radio station started playing the Sabbath performance of this song.

It's enough to make me suspect that I have indeed heard it before, but just never recognized it as Sabbath. Isn't life strange?

Enoch; it seems a discussion has been had here that doesn't really require further input from me. I'll just say this: Your questions about dreams seem irrelevant to me. It is one thing to dream of different times and another altogether for your psyche to actually be independent of time and space. This willingness to indulge in non sequiturs is what I object to in Jung as well. Too many leaps of faith. That doesn't mean he hasn't contributed tremendously to psychology, but how much has this supernaturalist bent held the discipline back?