Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Sartre and Heidegger Destroy Carl Jung

Expand Messages
  • Richard Radandt
    Dear Elaine, Tommy and Sartre group this is in response to Elaine s second assignment on Jung dated may 20, 2002. this response assumes you are familiar with
    Message 1 of 1 , May 31, 2002
      Dear Elaine, Tommy and Sartre group

      this is in response to Elaine's second assignment on Jung dated may 20, 2002. this response assumes you are familiar with Sartre, and Heidegger, and Marx and of course Jung. How elaine could write something like this without also stating her objections or Sartre's to Jung i don't grasp. I wait your comments. You might want to read the last two paragraphs of this paper as a summary and then start at the top. I of course wouldn't do that and I read it straight down.
      The birth of Being is the existence of flesh and blood. There's no spirit. There's no ego-self. How is it the in itself-alone must or does [1] relinquish, [2] offers resistance, and [3] uses opposition in other to take [1] care and [2] concern for its flesh and blood. I cut my foot and the body tries to repair the damage or it dies. I'm hungry I'm aware of the ready to hand and I eat it or I go hungry or I die. His, Jung's, categories explain what? For Jung this is separation and progress, but what does that mean. Since there's no unconsciousness how do we take Jung as an analyst? What is it if it isn't a duality? What is it if it isn't a series of contradictions?


      His personality contains errors. One there's no unconsciousness. Second there's no such thing as intuition and intention. Three there isn't any connections to archetypes. Four there isn't a kinship to nature. I just discover the ready to hand and I'm aware of it and I use it. If I don't use it or I own no skills to use it, it stops Being a projecting, potential possibility for me and I move and touch something else or I die. He then gives us personality one with using direct experience. I'm aware and I don't look outward and I don't look inward, as I exist in Being in the world. Jung creates a dualism where none is of use. There are no mirror images and I don't stand in front of a window and look out. If impressions own meaning or not is of no importance! If I'm thirsty I will drink the water in the river. The water looks clear and in fact it's polluted. I will still drink the water. I might die. The process of impression or meaning never enters into my action. Jung argues my prejudices and biases prevent me from moving and touching and this isn't true.

      I don't own a concept of self and I own only Being in the world and it's a feeling I create and I call it a mood. It's never external, as I exist in Being in the world. There are no paradoxes here. The reduction of Being down into one of sharing and one of difference explains nothing. I'm not in isolation and there's no confusion as I exist in the world and I reject theology and ethics. Jung with his intellectual handicap can't reject ethics and theology. Jung in bad faith wants to deny the existence of exploitation and suppression in Capitalism and he creates this garbage of his. He looks for transcendence to a secular theology and plays with the idea of a spirit. It's not a question of multiple selves and it's a philosophy of projecting, potential possibilities. In this Being, all is creating in a freedom of choice and its living in a future and it's making it present. The possibility of the unconsciousness, the confusion, the isolation, sharing, or indifference isn't a possibility. I'm projecting the care and concern of the blood and flesh of body and not of unconsciousness. How can you project what you aren't aware? I project not an illusion or a differentiation and I project only my existence in the circumstances I'm creating. I'm free and Jung is arguing I'm not free. He's arguing I'm instrumental like an organic or inorganic vegetable, animal or mineral in the world. He's arguing you can use my labor power and pay me only a fraction of its value, as I don't really know the difference. Jung is a fascist and makes no doubt about it. Since I'm Being in the world I don't need to look outward or inward as I exist in the world and have no use of theology and ethics as the emotional cripple Carl Jung. I'm free and not a fascist as he's. I don't need critical reflection, which is Jung code for wisdom and a need of theology.

      Copyright May 2002 by richradandt@... page one of five pages

      His categories of sage, savior, healer, hero, and revolutionary are correct how many times out of a hundred. He's restricting my freedom, and my creating in my projecting, potential possibilities when he slips me into these categories. How can one touch the experience of the divine and exist in the world and the divine we are told in someplace else than Being in the world. If god is beyond human comprehension, then what use is it to Being. If I can't discover the ready to hand, I never get to use it. How does theology connect me to an unconsciousness that doesn't exist? Since I do die, how is it I want to understand soul, salvation, and meaning? This is absurd. Once again he's playing with the shadow and the nature of Being in the world. The day in and day out experiences of life aren't one of boredom, stagnation, living in the shadows, non creating, as Jung suggests. He's cynical. He critiques life and will not argue the eliminations of the capitalist system are a necessary cause and the elimination of theology and ethics is also desirable. He wants one to be dependent on the therapist making decisions for living. This is like letting Sharon of Israel determine he and his troops didn't kill any Palestine in Jenin and he's not guilty of genocide and omnicide as the old testament of Abraham and Isaac give him permission to hunt what he considers to be his enemies.

      His next fallacy is the idea of intuition. That I can predict the future with a high degree of possibility and probability and use this to get what I want in my anticipations and expectations. That's I can acquire certain wisdom. I can beat the exploitation and suppression inherent in the capitalist system. I join the army because of my patriotism and the first time I hear five rifles go out in rifle practice I shit in my pants with dread. Tell me more about Jung's categories and intuition. Evolution does exist without symbols. Take Picasso the painter. Take Lewis and Clark the explorers. Take the new employee starting a job. Take the newborn baby striving to live. If you study the anthropology of the Maya and Inca Indians of Central America, you can see how un important the collective consciousness is. Evolution doesn't face a limitation in regards to shadow. I don't need a role model to critique Carl Jung. It's not intuition and wisdom allowing me to point out Jung is a fraud. I suffer the exploitation by the capitalist system and not from the shadow of images to be a medical doctor. I know what skills I don't have. I don't aspire to images with expectations and anticipations that leave me wanting to commit suicide. Sharon in Israel does this and he kills for a living. I create a circumstance to enjoy the ready to hand and not create a conflict to render my own opposition. Capitalism in stealing my labor power to produce a gun for a cop to kill me and then a legal system allowing him to claim it's self defense isn't one of my illusions, my shadows, my sucking up to images, a part of my collective unconsciousness. It's the absurdity of the capitalist system. It's the destroyer of my freedom.

      I create my suffering in I don't kill the cop before he kills me. I'm making the choice and I'm responsible for the decision. I do this not because of a love of cops as an image. I do this not to create an opposition for my freedom and my life. This isn't my determination that the cop is good and I'm evil. This isn't because I believe I'm inferior and the cop is power. This is how I deal with Being in the world. I make a decision not to be a cop. I make a decision not to be a fraud like Carl Jung. I don't kill people like Sharon.

      Copyright May 2002 by richradandt@... page two of five pages

      There's no contradiction here. I'm Being. I don't aspire to be a part of the collective. I'm feeling and it's never more than Being. The dread I face and confront each day is the multitude of projecting potential possibilities as I celebrate my flesh and blood and my freedom in choice. It's not the shadow of unconsciousness. I don't want to cling as I'm the in itself-alone and I'm Being in the world. Being doesn't need an ego or identity as I'm not a thing and you can only say what I'm when I die and if you use Jung theology you will never grasp it. In dealing with my projecting potential possibilities I don't ever know what is inferior and what's superior. After I do the action, and I experience the consequences I might and I might not. But this all states I must do the experience first and then determine for myself and this is never then collective determination. This is then never the unconsciousness. I never lose grip on reality, as I'm responsible for the creating of the possibility and enduring the consequences. There's no one to remove the condemnation of living in the world. There are no paradoxes as once I start the possibility I alone exist as responsible for it. I'm not a victim and I only make free choices. For Jung to consider me to be a victim is reason enough to reject Jung.

      Being in the world I don't hide, as there is no place to hide. The capitalist system always and not yet finds me to use my labor power either in industry or in the military process of genocide or omnicide. When they can't use this power or I charge too much for it, they discard me. I don't hide. They create facades to hide me, but others find out their deceptions, their deceit, and their betrayal of the worker by the capitalist. I do confront, eliminate, and distinguish between the ready to hand I can use and I can't use and I don't discover this to be disturbing and dangerous as this is my creating freedom of choice. This isn't a question of identity.

      I Being in the world do use concepts as I create concepts from my experience of doing with the ready to hand in the world with my labor power in a creative and free choice. At some point, this gets used by the in itself-alone and others in conjunction or without the in itself-alone. Other times it moves and touches a group or an organization or an institution at some degree of use and value. This doesn't mean the in itself-alone needs these others, the groups, or the organizations or receives or is aware of any value use of the existence of these groups. That's there's no collective consciousness. The in itself-alone doesn't sacrifice to the other, the group, or the organization. The capitalist system exploits and suppresses the individual. The in itself-alone still has the right to say no and face the consequences of the choice. I don't really sell my labor power, as I don't get the surplus value it produces. Rather I allow the other to steal my labor power. We create laws, theology, and ethics allowing for the stealing of labor power. One doesn't own an identity and one doesn't sacrifice it in living in the experience of Being in the world. The government in Washington got caught last month in trying to overthrow the government and the president of Venezuela. The people of Venezuela know George Bush and Connie Rice did this and not the workers in the United States. The collective consciousness here belongs to only George and Connie. Only Connie and George will face future trials in the international world court and not you and me.

      Copyright May 2002 by richradandt@... page three of five pages

      One doesn't abandon the soul and abandonment in the terms of the existential negates the existence of the soul. The abandonment is I'm responsible for the freedom of my choices and their consequences. I can't scapegoat my existence. In the United States, we own a corporation called Arthur Anderson. Using the systems and procedures of that corporation, it told its auditors to do certain things and the consequences are the loss of several thousand jobs, the loss in stock prices of billions of dollars, and the ultimate destruction of the corporation, as we knew it one year ago. Only now do we start to recognize organizations must be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. We reward corporations for making a profit and we now must start punishing companies for creating loss. Jung the fascist wants to blame only individuals and not corporations. I as an individual incorporate and I can't be blamed, as now I'm a corporation. It's hard to sue the Catholic Church as we see it as a corporation and not as a human being. This is a nice neat step of deception and deceit on Jung's part and this is the first step making him a fascist.

      In my use of concepts, I do create symbols and attitudes of good and evil. I create them from encountering the use of my labor power in Being in the world. I create the corporations and I must continue to ask them questions of what they are doing. To believe the president of the United States doesn't lie and the Pope of the Catholic Church is making decisions to benefit the ignorant and the poor is wishful thinking. From time to time, it's necessary to change the purpose, the process, the function, and the structure of the office of president and the office of the pope and its occupants. This might require a bloody revolution and it might require just political pressure. The corporation through the use of public relations, press officers, investor service officers, lawyers, the use of judicial system, the political parties, the police, accountants, the use of communications such as music, movies, telephone, and e-mail, patents, copyrights, buying technology and companies with stock and not cash, and monopoly positions of pricing, distribution, and manufacturing do also create symbols which are in use to exploit and suppress the individual. Chairman Mao in his revolution in the Long March and the soldiers did much to eliminate this corruption in China. Jung as a psychologist has done much to continue this corruption of exploitation and suppression of the working class and is a traitor.


      If one uses the Jung view, one continues to accept the exploitation and the suppression of the capitalist system and keeps giving freely one's labor power to the capitalist. The capitalist continues to create wealth and one faces only the glory of death. Always and not yet one can point to the success of one tenth of one percent that do succeed. Our free choice decision not to start the next Mao revolution doesn't mean we are living in our unconsciousness. This doesn't mean we are living in the shadows and don't own a life. The presence of evil in government, the corporation, and the theology and ethics of our lives does exist. Jung's ideas still pervade human resources management. There's still no need to accept the suffering and exploitation. I'm not sure it's a human weakness not to kill the terrorist and the exploiter. Each of us owns our own evolution of projecting, potential possibilities.

      Copyright May 2002 by richradandt@... page four of five pages

      I own a certain confidence and courage in letting the ignorant and poverty individual decide for themselves if they want the United States for their friend or if they want some one in their own country. I won't give Carl Jung a job shoveling shit. I certainly won't take advice from him.

      I live in my moods and let me live in my moods. There's no spirit and how does one concern oneself with a union between body and spirit. How's it there's a necessity for this garbage. I'm Being in the world and what more do I need. Being in the world might be chaos for Carl Jung and it still doesn't mean I'm unconscious. Even in this chaos, I'm aware Jung is an idiot. Even if you own five PhD's and you believe in Jung you are an idiot. I'm still creating my reality in nature as a free choice. I'm the master and not a victim. My friend own AIDS and he's not a victim and he's the master of his destiny. The problem with Jung he's homophobic and won't accept a wide diversity of behavior and sex, and sexuality. I don't refute, I don't resist, and I don't oppose the Being in the world I create.

      Copyright May 2002 by richradandt@... page five of five pages



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.