Thanks for that Information Krsanna.
Jung can talk a lot of nonsense at times, no wonder some of the Nazis were
deceived into thinking some of his ideas justified their actions.
Jung admitted his theory attempting to explain the UFO phenomenon, did not
work completely, because it could not explain the physical evidence
sometimes left behind. So, later investigators have tried to expand on his
ideas. I am more impressed by the later amendments, than what you give as
Jung's theory in its original form.
The idea that :
"The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively
distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like
the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is not
a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up
essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have
disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or
Sounds good, but then saying in the definition :
"... the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in
and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence
exclusively to heredity......."
This is a separate idea from the first. So, he stringing together
assumptions. The second assumption could be invalid, while the first one
valid, vice versa or whatever.
His thesis is a good guess, but there are other variations that can be
constructed similar to it.
But its boring me, I would prefer to not bother any more with Jung. And the
second e-mail on Jung makes me go zzzzzzzzzz.
The point being missed about the Data that's supposed to support
Reincarnation, is that there are other theories than Reincarnation that can
be constructed to try to explain the data. So, how do you prove one theory
over the other?
----- Original Message -----
From: "TimeStar" <timestar@...>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 1:54 AM
Subject: [UFOnet] #10 Counting coup in the final conflict
> Here's Jung's definition of the collective unconscious that I promised.
> need for defining the collective unconscious was introduced by Roger
> Anderton's suggestion that the factual data Jenny Cockrell's remembered
> about a past-life might be attributed to "Jung's Collective Unconscious".
> Since the collective unconscious, as defined by Jung, is an entirely
> impersonal element of the psyche comprised of archetypes, which symbolic
> nature, neither Jenny Cockrell's discrete knowledge nor personal
> by definition, be attributed to the collective unconscious. Jenny
> Cockrell's personal knowledge of a past life could only be explained by
> personal consciousness. According to Jung, "While the personal
> is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious
> which have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or
> repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in
> consciousness, and therefore have never been individually acquired, but
> their existence exclusively to heredity."
> Gregory had written about Jenny Cockrell's apparent reincarnation with a
> short overview: "Briefly, she was living in America, getting flashbacks
> living in Ireland about 40 years previously. Not only did she find the
> place, she found the living children she once had, who were now older than
> her current life, who were very sceptical, until she shared personal
> that no one else would know."
> An explanation of Jung's method of proof for the collective unconscious is
> included in the same chapter cited below. Of course, if Roger has
> that C. G. Jung's work is not of interest to him, even though it was he
> interjected "Jung's Collective Unconscious" as an explanation for past
> memories, the following definition will have little relevance to Roger's
> fixated view. However, it might be of interest to others.
> Regards, Krsanna Duran
> THE CONCEPT OF THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS
> Excerpted from "The Archetypes And The Collective Unconscious"
> By C. G. Jung
> "Probably none of my empirical concepts has met with so much
> misunderstanding as the idea of the collective unconscious. In what
> I shall try to give (1) a definition of the concept, (2) a description of
> what it means for psychology, (3) an explanation of the method of proof,
> (4) an example.
> "1. Definition
> "The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be
> distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not,
> the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently is
> a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up
> essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which
> disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed,
> the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in
> and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their
> exclusively to heredity. Whereas the personal unconscious consists for
> most part of complexes, the content of the collective unconscious is made
> essentially of archetypes.
> "The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the
> idea of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite
> forms in the psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere.
> Mythological research calls them "motifs"; in the psychology of primitives
> they correspond to Levy-Bruh's concept of "representations collectives,"
> in the field of comparative religion they have been defined by Hubert and
> Mauss as "categories of the imagination." Adolf Bastian long ago called
> them "elementary" or primordial thoughts." From these references it
> be clear enough that my idea of the archetype - literally a pre-existent
> form - does not stand alone but is something that is recognized and named
> other fields of knowledge."
> "My thesis, then, is as follows: In addition to our immediate
> consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we
> to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal
> as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective,
> universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals.
> This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is
> It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become
> conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic