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

Re: [UFOnet] #10 Counting coup in the final conflict

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    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
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      repressed...."

      Sounds good, but then saying in the definition :

      "... the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in
      consciousness,
      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?

      Cheers Roger

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "TimeStar" <timestar@...>
      To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
      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.
      The
      > 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
      in
      > nature, neither Jenny Cockrell's discrete knowledge nor personal
      experience,
      > 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
      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
      > repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in
      > consciousness, and therefore have never been individually acquired, but
      owe
      > 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
      of
      > 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
      details
      > 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
      concluded
      > that C. G. Jung's work is not of interest to him, even though it was he
      who
      > interjected "Jung's Collective Unconscious" as an explanation for past
      life
      > 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
      follows
      > 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,
      and
      > (4) an example.
      >
      > "1. Definition
      >
      > "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 repressed,
      > the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in
      consciousness,
      > and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their
      existence
      > exclusively to heredity. Whereas the personal unconscious consists for
      the
      > most part of complexes, the content of the collective unconscious is made
      up
      > 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,"
      and
      > 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
      should
      > 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
      in
      > 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
      believe
      > to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal
      unconscious
      > 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
      inherited.
      > It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become
      > conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic
      > contents."
      >
      >
    • Autymn D. C.
      From: Roger Anderton, R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com ... If you re asking for evidence for reincarnation, check the survivalscience eGroup archives and its
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        From: Roger Anderton, R.J.Anderton@...

        >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?
        If you're asking for evidence for reincarnation, check the
        survivalscience eGroup archives and its website, or www.victorzammit.com.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.