Not that I am aware of, however, I am not always aware of what has transpired...

:offtopic

I hope you trip went well!

You said,




I may also be interested in gathering information regarding an idea of Carl Jung. In order to discuss his 'ideas' it might be nice to have his name. Then, at least, I can get an idea of what we are talking about.

You like to proclaim that I don't know what I am talking about. Well, I like to know what you are talking about so I can engage in a more intelligent conversation. Or would you prefer to keep me in the dark?

If I don't know what I am talking about, I would appreciate a little information as to what you mean by that and why you think that.

google up jungian archetypes. that's the stuff that gives me nightmares







%% hijack
%% we had fun fun fun Deb,
%% I finally met Jesse (silver joy) hahaha she bounces

Jung does sound like an interesting person. Over-estimated though; as humans we tend to flock around a few centrals personalities at a time, elevating all aspects of their worldview/teachings, and ignoring contemporaries who did greater and more brilliant work.

I used to work on philosophical constructs years ago. At one point I was quite interesting in philosophy. I learned quickly about how to begin with basic unproven premises and build upward.

What I soon realized is that it's futile. You can almost predetermine a philosophy that you'd like to build just by chosing the premise that you like.

So it seemed like an exercise in futility to me. Just pick the premises that you feel are 'self-evident' and then the rest of the philosophy is just to show what logically must follow from those original premises. Supposedly you will arrive at some higher level insight that will be profound.

Historically speaking, what actually happens is that philosophers begin by laying out their foundational premises, and then build up until they have a very elaborate philosophy that fills a book or two, and contains all sorts ethics, and moral values, etc. But at the end of the book it also crashes with a bunch of paradoxes and contraditions.

No philosophy has yet been successful as being free from logical paradox or contradiction. So it's an exercise in futility.

Well, not really. Think of it more like ART.

When you're done you have a cool philosophy book to sell, and if people think you say wise things then you'll become famous.

So it's like ART.

But in the end, it's not science because in the end it always falls apart.

~~~

If I were going to start a philosophy I would begin by making some observations about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics concerning the observed nature of time, randomness, and uncertainty, and the etheral natural of physical reality.

I'd also bring in some basic observations about neurobiology and various perspectives of consciousness and what it means to be a concious being from the perspective of that experience.

I'd probably follow Descartes' lead by making my own statement, "I am aware, therefore I am". I don't care for the word 'think' in Descartes' original idea.

I would bring all of those into my philosophy as being 'self-evident' premises.

But the problem is that from there, I can go almost anywhere.

As far as I'm concern the premises themselve would be all that is required. That would be (and is) my philosophy.

It would look something like the following list,...

"I am that I am" - (self-evident)
Eternity and now are equivalent - (relativity)
There exist infinite potentiality - (quantum mechanics)
I have free will - (quantum randomness)
I create this universe - (quantum complementarity)
I am omniscient - (quantum entanglement)

If I had to expand on this philosophy I could probably build logical constructs through neurobiology to show how psychic telecommunication and telekinesis is possible and arise naturally from these basic premises.

I wouldn't even want to argue this philosophy with anyone.

I'm not out to prove it.

To argue about it would just taint it with fruitless emotions.

If someone doesn't like it, let them build their own philosophy.

oh by the way

check into the relationships between the jungian archetypes and the tarot (major arcana)

a lot of the tarot symbology is said to correspond with jungian archetypes

JB wrote...



Jung has mystical ideas of which you would surely appreciate. That opinion being based upon your expressions here.



I actually do not like to do that. It disturbs me when I allow an emotional disturbance to gain control of my conscious thought. Although it is not often, it is too often.

My apologies.

Did Carl Jung write any books?

I like it!

How about my philosophy for prime source: (God /the living Universe)

I am here now. (I exist)
Now is infinity (I have always existed)
I am divine potential.(I will always exit)
My will be done (I am all powerful)
I manifest (I am that which is.)
I am the One (I am all that is.)

In addition to producing his theory of the Collective Unconscious, Jung's work fueled the development of both word association tests and the Meyers-Briggs personality tests. A prolific writer, his best known works include The Psychology of the Unconscious (1912) and Psychological Types (1921).

http://www.nndb.com/people/910/000031817/

He did a lot of writing, I don't know how many books he wrote. Certainly his writing has formed the basis of many books by other people.

Thank you.

If your question WAS philosophy, I don't understand it as philosophy. It just looked like a question to me.

I like that. It is so true too.

You are more than welcome JB...

Philosophy is not a question or a statement per se, it is the logical process by which those things are contemplated.

http://browse.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Carl+Jung&bnrefer=GENERALDISCUSSION2

He has written quite a few books over his years...and contributed to many many more...

Lighthouse,

Thats awesome!

thank you!

His work titled, "The Undiscovered Self" has an interesting synopsis..

"In this challenging and provocative work, Dr. Carl Jung-one of history's greatest minds-argues that civilization's future depends on our ability as individuals to resist the collective forces of society. Only by understanding one's unconscious inner nature-"the undiscovered self "-can we gain essential self-knowledge and begin to cope with and resist the dangers posed by those in power. "

To be a rebel? Deviance? Is it in our "BEST" interest then to not conform? and if so, then how would society work?

is it possible to live in society without a "collective" force of some kind? if everyone resisted the collective forces of society, then would that be the collective force?

That's amazing.

Now see mine is totally grounded in science. Well, it's intuitive for me too, but still, I can give scientific support for all my premises if I had to.

Your's is probably more grounded in intuition and self-evident knowingness. Yet, look at the structure of the basic premises.

It's like we 'discovered' some cosmic truth totally coincidently using two entirely different methods.

See, you already knew what your premises are. You just state those premises as the foundation of your philosophy and build logical constructs UPWARD.

Then if anyone tries to tear down your logical constructs they'll just end up at your foundational premises which they can't argue with.

There's no arguing with foundational premises because they are given by the philosopher as 'self-evident'. Anyone who disagrees that they are self-evident simply disagrees with your philosophy. But they can't fight it with logic because they have nothing to PUSH against.

The only way they could push against something would be to offer their own unproven primal premises. But you could just reject those as not being 'self-evident' to you.

And THAT's how philosophy works.

I don't know about Jung, but I would say its in our best interest to exercise the highest level of self-determinism possible - but in many areas, choosing to behave just like a 'conforming' person is still a good thing.

Especially in ethical matters.

Dam n Abstract Arteetsts! :laugh;