Re: capital punishment and innocence

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 03/28/2001 6:26:36 PM Atlantic Standard Time,

dwatkins5@... writes:

> " The natural idea of punishment if a man has committed murder is to hang

> him, kill him; then we are satisfied. That is the only real theory of

> punishment, any other is nonsense. You see, when a man commits murder,

> he has the advantage of us, because we have all wanted to do that. Once,

> at least, in a moment of affect, everybody has wanted to murder his

> fellow man, but he could not because he was decent. And then there comes

> that hell of a fellow who dares, and why should he do it when *I*

> couldn't? We are all potential murderers. Of course it does not need to

> be a cowardly murder, it can be straightforward manslaughter. Our

> ancestors have universally been murderers - it was even a virtue to

> commit murder in that way - so it is innate in us; it is in our blood.

> But we have not been allowed to do it because it is immoral. Therefore

> we say rightly, if another man has committed murder, we also have a

> right to do it. But he is one and we are many, so we must do it in

> collectivity; we call it 'law': we elect one member of our society and

> give him a sword to hack off the criminal's head. Then we are all

> pleased; now his head has been cut off and we are highly satisfied. So

> everybody has got at least his sprinkling of blood for his own

> salvation. It gives people a fine feeling to have committed a certain

> amount of crime. That is the psychology of crime, and any other way is

> just a rationalization of this primitive fact.... The original idea was

> that putting to death should be a communion of the whole people, that

> they should all share in it: it was establishing a sort of connection

> between people through a common emotion. Since they have no such chance

> now, they must read detective stories, or go to the movies; they must be

> thrilled by ugly accounts of crime. Also they must at times be very

> enthusiastic about a war because they have seen too little killing. The

> psychology of killing is the psychology of the criminal, so there are

> even murderers who want to be put to death and are not satisfied if they

> are not. "

>

> CGJ, *Nietzsche Seminars*, March 13, 1935

>

> Why the blood lust? Because I am a human being, apparently, and that is

> human

> nature - at least if the above is correct. Why would you deny your own

blood

> lust? Denying doesn't make it go away.

Hi Dan,

Jung is making a sad, somewhat cynical, commentary about the baser aspects of

human nature as he saw it in the above paragraph and is in no way saying this

is a good thing.

Regards, Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Dan, I disagree completely that one cannot believe in the ethics of not

killing a human being, and following Jung.I hardly would say one can not

espouse Xian ideas and Jungian ones at the same time. That is totally

without merit, especially as Jung considered the Christ as a symbol of

the Self.

An elitist in my book is someone who thinks human beings can be ranked

in some matters, not someone who thinks we should exterminate member of

the human race.

I would hesitate Dan to make a final judgment about the value of

anyone's life. I did not create them, and I do not have infinite

knowledge of them , so I will leave the final judgment to the creator of

life whoever or whatever IT IS.

Political systems, discussed by Jung or not,mostly say they believe in

the value of each human life. I don't want to discuss political systems.

I believe no human can have the final say on the worth of a human

being. To believe otherwise is hubris to the extreme. Who made you or

anyone else G-d.?

Human " justice " is just that. it is not a perfect system, but we must

use it to protect society. To protect, not to execute. Punishment which

gives the vengeance of human beings an expression is not synonymous with

murder. Separation from others to keep the others safe is punishment

enough. We are not here to execute vengeance on each other, but to

protect society. No more.

Who is ultimately responsible, who ultimately has virtue or not is not a

judgment we limited human beings can make. We would have to be much

better at knowing the enemy within, before we get rid of the enemy .

Why this blood lust, Dan? Why the necessity to impose your power to the

nth. degree? I am not squeamish about taking human life, I am much more

than squeamish. I believe except for self preservation we have no rights

in this at all other than separation from society.

You read too much of your own ideas into Jung. You can parse sentences

all you like, but Jung was not opposed to Christianity or its ideals,

except that Xianity left no room for the shadow in the Imago-Dei.

His political writings were his opinions about the current then

situation. I nowhere remember his denial of human worth.

The question of McVeigh's guilt or innocence has nothing to do with the

problem of capital punishment in the long run. He was judged guilty and

himself confessed. That makes him guilty, not worthless. The discussion

of capital punishment is about an absolute right to exterminate those

that transgress society's laws.It is the usurping of power by might over

the final question...life.

Punishment is not synonymous with killing.

Toni

I can't believe you could have a completely different idea of what Jung

stood for, what his life's work was all about. He would never make, or

claim to make an absolute judgment on the final worth of any individual.

Dan Watkins wrote:

>

> Dear Toni,

>

>

> Nobody wants to punish the innocent. Occasionally it happens (at all

> levels of the justice system), but nobody wants it. One of the reasons I

> chose McVeigh as an example of a man who deserves to die is that I (in

> my ongoing naiveté) thought that the choice would be fairly

> non-controversial. There is no question that McVeigh committed the crime

> - he admits it himself. It's not a matter of killing a man who might be

> innocent. There is no question, I hope, that the crime was sufficiently

> heinous.

>

> I suspect that the real reason some people are squeamish about capital

> punishment is that they believe that every human life, however degraded,

> is in fact valuable. This idea is foreign to me. I just can't see it.

> Further, while it may be a Christian idea or a Buddhist idea, I don't

> think it's a Jungian idea. That's why I get frustrated and perplexed at

> the fact that it represents a near-consensus on a Jung list. Jung wrote,

> for example, that everyone has the primitive cave-man instincts, but not

> everyone has virtues. Jung also writes that socialism reflects an effort

> by the masses to bring down the valuable element of society. Etc., etc.

> One can espouse Christian values or Jungian values, but not both,

> because the two are antithetical. As far as I can see, Jung is a

> straight elitist of the old school.

>

> I was disappointed at the lack of response to the longish quote by Jung

> that I recently posted. It concerned the place of the murderer in

> society, and the reason for the necessity of his punishment. Did this

> pique no one's interest?

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan

>

>

[Guest guest]

I see in this morning's paper that yesterday the

State of California executed two-time murderer Lee Massey. Mr. Massey

killed a Mildred Weiss in 1965, for which crime he was given the death

penalty. In 1972 that sentence was commuted to life in prison. In 1978, Massey

was paroled, and in 1979 he killed liquor store proprietor Bob Naumoff during

a robbery. He was sent back to death row, and finally dispatched some 21 years

later. Naumoff died, and his family suffered that loss, because somebody

lacked the stones to exterminate this low-life the first time. It is to weep.

Thank the gods that the 60's and 70's are over. It is easy to lampoon these

decades for the silliness of their politics, but silliness sometimes has

serious consequences.

Regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

> Dan, I disagree completely that one cannot believe in the ethics of not

> killing a human being, and following Jung.I hardly would say one can not

> espouse Xian ideas and Jungian ones at the same time. That is totally

> without merit, especially as Jung considered the Christ as a symbol of

> the Self.

Yes, as *a* symbol of the Self, the most powerful symbol of the Self in the

West in our epoch. Even so, Jung is at pains to point out, the Christ symbol

as presented by the churches is an incomplete symbol of man and the Self

insofar as it takes insufficient account of both the feminine and of evil (see

*Aion*, 320-321 and footnote # 68 to that chapter). Jung writes, " Thanks to

the doctrine of the *privatio boni*, wholeness seemed guaranteed in the figure

of Christ. One must, however, take evil rather more substantially when one

meets it on the plane of empirical psychology. There it is simply the opposite

of good.... For anyone who has a positive attitude towards Christianity the

problem of the Antichrist is a hard nut to crack " (Aion, 75-77). Jung

regularly praises Christianity, but points up its limitations equally often,

it seems to me.

>

> An elitist in my book is someone who thinks human beings can be ranked

> in some matters, not someone who thinks we should exterminate member of

> the human race.

The two are not mutually exclusive. One might rank so low as to warrant

extermination.

>

>

> I would hesitate Dan to make a final judgment about the value of

> anyone's life.

I wouldn't either - I don't say that such a decision should be made by me, but

by a court.

> I did not create them, and I do not have infinite

> knowledge of them , so I will leave the final judgment to the creator of

> life whoever or whatever IT IS.

His management style appears to me to be rather " hands off, " and may leave

something to be desired (for one thing, He's always way behind on His child

support). It appears to be up to us, whether we like it or not.

>

>

> Political systems, discussed by Jung or not,mostly say they believe in

> the value of each human life. I don't want to discuss political systems.

> I believe no human can have the final say on the worth of a human

> being. To believe otherwise is hubris to the extreme. Who made you or

> anyone else G-d.?

Nobody made me G-d, but human beings at times are compelled to " play G-d, " if

you like to put it that way, by default. For better or worse, we inmates find

ourselves in charge of the asylum. It has been noted that Plato and Aristotle

wrote about politics as though trying to bring order to a madhouse.

>

>

> Human " justice " is just that. it is not a perfect system, but we must

> use it to protect society. To protect, not to execute. Punishment which

> gives the vengeance of human beings an expression is not synonymous with

> murder. Separation from others to keep the others safe is punishment

> enough. We are not here to execute vengeance on each other, but to

> protect society. No more.

So you assert, but are you sure? Jung seems to suggest that our needs go

beyond that (see below).

>

> Who is ultimately responsible, who ultimately has virtue or not is not a

> judgment we limited human beings can make. We would have to be much

> better at knowing the enemy within, before we get rid of the enemy .

>

>

> Why this blood lust, Dan?

I posted the following quote yesterday, but it bears repeating:

" The natural idea of punishment if a man has committed murder is to hang

him, kill him; then we are satisfied. That is the only real theory of

punishment, any other is nonsense. You see, when a man commits murder,

he has the advantage of us, because we have all wanted to do that. Once,

at least, in a moment of affect, everybody has wanted to murder his

fellow man, but he could not because he was decent. And then there comes

that hell of a fellow who dares, and why should he do it when *I*

couldn't? We are all potential murderers. Of course it does not need to

be a cowardly murder, it can be straightforward manslaughter. Our

ancestors have universally been murderers - it was even a virtue to

commit murder in that way - so it is innate in us; it is in our blood.

But we have not been allowed to do it because it is immoral. Therefore

we say rightly, if another man has committed murder, we also have a

right to do it. But he is one and we are many, so we must do it in

collectivity; we call it 'law': we elect one member of our society and

give him a sword to hack off the criminal's head. Then we are all

pleased; now his head has been cut off and we are highly satisfied. So

everybody has got at least his sprinkling of blood for his own

salvation. It gives people a fine feeling to have committed a certain

amount of crime. That is the psychology of crime, and any other way is

just a rationalization of this primitive fact.... The original idea was

that putting to death should be a communion of the whole people, that

they should all share in it: it was establishing a sort of connection

between people through a common emotion. Since they have no such chance

now, they must read detective stories, or go to the movies; they must be

thrilled by ugly accounts of crime. Also they must at times be very

enthusiastic about a war because they have seen too little killing. The

psychology of killing is the psychology of the criminal, so there are

even murderers who want to be put to death and are not satisfied if they

are not. "

CGJ, *Nietzsche Seminars*, March 13, 1935

Why the blood lust? Because I am a human being, apparently, and that is human

nature - at least if the above is correct. Why would you deny your own blood

lust? Denying doesn't make it go away.

>

>

> You read too much of your own ideas into Jung.

In fact, many of my " own " ideas come from Jung. Jung has to a large degree

shaped me.

> You can parse sentences

> all you like, but Jung was not opposed to Christianity or its ideals,

He was not opposed to it, but he did not accept it. Which of his students was

it that he lit into for returning to church?

>

> except that Xianity left no room for the shadow in the Imago-Dei.

He made a number of other criticisms as well, but this by itself is no small

failing.

>

> His political writings were his opinions about the current then

> situation.

But he expresses principles that are timeless, that transcend the particular.

His statements about tyrants, for example, are not just statements about those

particular tyrants, but about tyrants generally, and tyranny generally.

> I nowhere remember his denial of human worth.

It *does* seem that for Jung, even the criminal has his place, and hence his

" value, " as in the passage above.

Regards,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dear Dan,

Like Alice, I somehow missed this the first time, so thank you for resending

it. However, I disagree with your conclusions. I don't think that Jung was

saying that this is what **should** happen - I think he was saying that this

is base, unindividuated human nature to WANT it to happen - big difference!

To use an analogy. On Yom Kippur (Jewish Day of Atonement), at one point in

the service we accuse ourselves, AS INDIVIDUALS, of every sin known to man -

murder, rape, torture, you name it. We do it because this is a part of the

human condition which we all share, so if even one among us performs such a

vile act, it adds to collective human guilt. However, we do not run around

saying, " Well, it's human nature, so I might as well do it. "

Jung did military service and if called upon in a war situation, would have

killed if he had to, as part of his civic duty. He did, however, do whatever

he could to preserve life. He was a doctor and he said, in answer to the

biased individuals who accused him of being pro-Nazi:

" The doctor who, in wartime, gives his help to the wounded of the other side

will surely not be held a traitor to his country. "

CW X, P 1022 (A Rejoinder to Dr. Bally)

I am not an MD, but I *am*, as many of you know, training to be a Jungian

analyst. I hope to reach a place where I can say that with Jung, and MEAN

IT. If I want to make a difference, I cannot refuse people who come to me on

the grounds that they think Arafat is a great guy, for example. Nor will it

be up to me to judge their politics.

And this makes FOUR posts from me! I'm sorry, Mike! I'll be good for the

forseeable future

fa

> I posted the following quote yesterday, but it bears repeating:

>

> " The natural idea of punishment if a man has committed murder is to hang

> him, kill him; then we are satisfied. That is the only real theory of

> punishment, any other is nonsense. You see, when a man commits murder,

> he has the advantage of us, because we have all wanted to do that. Once,

> at least, in a moment of affect, everybody has wanted to murder his

> fellow man, but he could not because he was decent. And then there comes

> that hell of a fellow who dares, and why should he do it when *I*

> couldn't? We are all potential murderers. Of course it does not need to

> be a cowardly murder, it can be straightforward manslaughter. Our

> ancestors have universally been murderers - it was even a virtue to

> commit murder in that way - so it is innate in us; it is in our blood.

> But we have not been allowed to do it because it is immoral. Therefore

> we say rightly, if another man has committed murder, we also have a

> right to do it. But he is one and we are many, so we must do it in

> collectivity; we call it 'law': we elect one member of our society and

> give him a sword to hack off the criminal's head. Then we are all

> pleased; now his head has been cut off and we are highly satisfied. So

> everybody has got at least his sprinkling of blood for his own

> salvation. It gives people a fine feeling to have committed a certain

> amount of crime. That is the psychology of crime, and any other way is

> just a rationalization of this primitive fact.... The original idea was

> that putting to death should be a communion of the whole people, that

> they should all share in it: it was establishing a sort of connection

> between people through a common emotion. Since they have no such chance

> now, they must read detective stories, or go to the movies; they must be

> thrilled by ugly accounts of crime. Also they must at times be very

> enthusiastic about a war because they have seen too little killing. The

> psychology of killing is the psychology of the criminal, so there are

> even murderers who want to be put to death and are not satisfied if they

> are not. "

>

> CGJ, *Nietzsche Seminars*, March 13, 1935

>

> Why the blood lust? Because I am a human being, apparently, and that is

human

> nature - at least if the above is correct. Why would you deny your own

blood

> lust? Denying doesn't make it go away.

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > You read too much of your own ideas into Jung.

>

> In fact, many of my " own " ideas come from Jung. Jung has to a large degree

> shaped me.

>

>

>

> > You can parse sentences

> > all you like, but Jung was not opposed to Christianity or its ideals,

>

> He was not opposed to it, but he did not accept it. Which of his students

was

> it that he lit into for returning to church?

>

>

>

> >

> > except that Xianity left no room for the shadow in the Imago-Dei.

>

> He made a number of other criticisms as well, but this by itself is no

small

> failing.

>

>

>

> >

> > His political writings were his opinions about the current then

> > situation.

>

> But he expresses principles that are timeless, that transcend the

particular.

> His statements about tyrants, for example, are not just statements about

those

> particular tyrants, but about tyrants generally, and tyranny generally.

>

>

>

>

> > I nowhere remember his denial of human worth.

>

> It *does* seem that for Jung, even the criminal has his place, and hence

his

> " value, " as in the passage above.

>

> Regards,

>

> Dan

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Asyou can see, posting more than... how many is it it a day? ... is posting

more than... how many is it it a day?

And yet.

m

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

You wrote:

>

> Dear Dear Dan,

> Jung was not speaking of what " should be " , but what unconscious people

> perpetrate.Natural==unconscious. The reason we try to become conscious

> is to control the " natural " violence of natural man, or as Jung would

> say unconscious man ( well, hardly conscious man.)

> I cannot believe that you somehow think Jung is giving advice to us on

> how to act, in the part you quoted.. Someone on the way to individuation

> would have to deal with

> his shadow before he went very far. You are talking pure shadow.

> Primitive, human, natural shadow. All of us have to deal with our own

> murderous rages, and thoughts, and hates, before we can go very far down

> the road to individuation. No one, least of all me, who believes she is

> capable of the worst crimes, as are all human beings, can be so full of

> pride that he/she imagines she could not be in that criminal's place.

We have to act as we are. As for the perhaps relatively unimportant

question regarding Jung's own opinion of capital punishment, I think the

following clears up the matter:

" (I)nasmuch as murderers don't come into my analysis I cannot talk about

the possible analysis of a murderer. I also cannot say that all

murderers should be analysed, as I cannot say that all neurotics can be

analysed. For there are certain social considerations over which I am

not a lord, and I never make rules that would be good for humanity,

particularly if nobody is very likely to carry them out. They kill

murderers in France, in Italy, in England, in America, in Germany, and

in most Catholic cantons of Switzerland; only a few very enlightened and

reasonable communities have gone astray so far as not to kill murderers.

I am not speaking of our Christianity - that point of view is not valid

at all, only talk; I go by facts, and the fact is that capital

punishment is valid in nearly all the most enlightened and civilized

countries, and I am not against it. There is a very good reason why it

is so. All other ways of punishment are wrong. By putting the criminal

to death, one shares the crime; otherwise, one doesn't see the criminal

in oneself. "

CGJ, Nietzsche Seminars, May 8, 1935

I think that we can't want it plainer than that. If I am " reading

something into " this passage, or " laying my trip on it, as the hippies

used to say, then words simply have no meaning. You speak above of the

necessity for " shadow management, " and I agree with that. Jung suggests

that punishment is a necessity for shadow management within the

collective. I'm actually glad we got into this, because I think I

understand Jung's teaching on the issue much better than I did before.

Collective man is *always* (relatively) unconscious man. The shadow can

go underground, but it doesn't go away. One way or another, the devil

will have his due - hence we might just as well acknowledge the

necessity, and ritualize the means.

>

> Blood lust is a natural reaction in animals and in the collective

> unconscious, I have no doubt. But let's us not baptize it, bless it and

> bring it into human, somewhat conscious society, as a good or even as a

> necessary part of us.

>

But that it is a necessary part of us is, I think, precisely what Jung

teaches. Evil is real.

> To be the " natural " man is perhaps where we start, but it should not be

> our end. That is why we take the journey. To bring to consciousness all

> our hidden inclinations and thoughts.No own blames a lion for eating his

> prey or protecting his young by killing. He is doing what nature allows.

>

> We are supposedly thinking, feeling, somewhat conscious beings. Blood

> lust , perhaps innate must be seen within for what it is, and then once

> brought to consciousness, discarded.

>

> No. I do not recognize within myself ,anymore, this bloodlust. But, by

> damn I had it! I told my Swiss German teacher in 1944 ( I was 13) that

> all Germans

> over the age of 5 and under fifty should be shot. I got that lovely

> notion from my mother for whom the Germans caused pain enough. I had

> rages too, and committed every deadly sin I could try . That does not

> mean that sooner or later, I would not finally see and become conscious

> of those feelings.You have to recognize them first, then use whatever

> means works to use that energy in a better way. That kind of behavior

> in us, those emotions must be challenged once seen.

> if it clashes with what one thinks one believes.and the

> values one wants to own. Integrity demands that.

>

> I am old enough and know myself well enough never to say " I could never

> do that " Under enough stress we do not know what we would do, or low we

> could sink.. But I can

> say and it is true, the only expression of bloodlust in my life is a

> good mystery story, and perhaps a good WW2 war movie..

>

> I do not accept your excuse for being only the " natural " man. You cannot

> go down into the pit again once you climb out without the will to do so.

> You actively hold certain views. You cannot blame them on Jung either.

I " blame " them on no one, because I don't consider them wrong. I learned

some of them from Jung - if, however, I " mislearned " them, I am ready to

learn that as well.

>It

> is your decision to remain attached to some collective and personal

unconsciousness.

>

> The whole point of making the world " better " is to help one person to

> realize some degree of consciousness. That is the whole point. Violence

> comes from our refusal to look within, to recognize our own shadows,

> projections, anima/animus, and to continue allowing the unconscious to

> erupt in us without any idea of where those violent feelings came from,

> and therefore no ability to refuse allowing them their own life.

>

> About Christ as symbol for the Self in the West. The harm of course

> hinges in the " privatio bono " and the notion that all good comes from

> G-d all evil from man.

Yes, with you so far - no disagreement here.

>Each Xian will have to deal with that, and come

> to an understanding of evil. As far as Jung and Xianity are concerned,

> he analyzes all facets, sacraments, ritual and doctrine from his point

> of view, added something, took away something, for example the Trinity

> vs the Quaterinity, but he found the Myth compelling and too important a

> part of Western culture to ignore it or condemn it in toto.( Dan, I can

> almost quote you chapter and verse. This is why I took to Jung in the

> first place, since he is one of the few psychologists who dealt with the

> spiritual) If you read " Answer to Job, " and believe Jung is right on the

> necessity of opposites, the problem dissolves.Otherwise you are left

> with dualism.Each of us has to work out the dualism vs the whole ,for

> herself, Xian as well as non Xian. Jung, like everyone of us, made his

> decision on whether to be part of an organized religion practiced with

> others or to go where he was led.

Toni, I believe you do this on purpose to make me crazy :-) Jung was

*not* like " everyone of us, " and many of us are unable to make any such

decision. Decision or choice (as opposed merely to going where one

lists) implies, among other things, deliberation.

>We each have to make that choice for

> ourselves, without doubting anyone elses judgment or choice.

>

> A court has a right in our society to judge the guilt or innocence of

> the accused. It has, in my opinion no right to make a final judgment on

> the worth of an individual and sanctioning civil murder. Twelve men and

> women are still twelve human beings, and the judge also judges provisionally.

>

> I am never compelled to play G-d nowadays.. I have tried it and it never

> did work.I don't think anyone else could have done it better. I just

> failed to be the absolute. However much hubris we have, in the end we do

> know how limited we are. Yes, sometimes we are forced to make difficult

> decisions which affect the lives of others, and we do the best we can.

> No sane human being convinces himself that he knows absolutely which is

> the right way. We do what we must, but I hope we are aware that as

> limited human beings, the final judgment on any action is not ours.

>

> It is my opinion that Jung was a humble man, especially near the end. He

> would not, I think have taken dignity away from any other human.

>

> Dan, we are never going to agree. My whole outlook on life, the need to

> change the world one person at a time, the dignity of each human being

> and the evil of taking an other's life except in self defense, are

> bedrock values. I found in Jung answers to " why' I behave as I do, and a

> way to see others without the blinders of projection, not all the time,

> but often.But, I had values before I met Jung, and many of those have

> not changed, but also fit into his scheme. Others may not. The point is

> digging into one's soul and trying to understand who one is, and why one

> acts the way one does, and perhaps with time to learn to become more

> conscious, less violent and more appreciative of the truths others have

> that I do not. I am sure Jung's Imago Dei and mine are not the same.

> Neither one of us is right or wrong. This is a lonely journey we are on,

> and we must remain true to ourselves.We will always see only through

> our own experiences.

>

> You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of Jung. You read him

> differently than I do, and we come from different places. Sometimes we

> may agree, often we will not. Even the written word is open to different

> understandings. In all honesty, I must admit, however that I think you

> pick and chose how you interpret him, and what you concentrate on in

> your own way.

> Shalom, my friend Dan

> Toni

And peace to you as well.

Regards,

Dan

" Pleased to meet you

Won't you guess my name?

But what's puzzling you

Is the nature of my game. "

" Sympathy for the Devil "

The Rolling Stones

(The idea of sympathy for the devil scandalized me as a youth.)

" The windmills are weakening. "

Bob Newhart

[Guest guest]

Again Dan, I do not believe that his 1935 pronouncement on the

universality of capital punishment stands today, considering the only

other countries beside us or as we judge: " civilized " countries that

make us of it are Iraq(and some other Muslim countries) and China.

Furthermore, the Jung of 1935 watching Europe descend into hell is not

the Jung of the 1950-60'.

If however you would agree with him that " by putting the criminal to

death we share his crime " we would at least be starting on the same

page. That's the kicker, though and I doubt you consider capital

punishment a crime.

If the idea is we sacrifice to the devil so he may have his due....well

we would have to examine just how civilized we think we are. Perhaps we

could make it a weekly ritual to watch someone die in the electric

chair. Do we then pray to this devil too?

What Jung was saying, I would think, that each of us has to confront the

devil within. To give him his due is to acknowledge his space within

each of it. To acknowledge ourselves as possible of evil, not to put it

on someone else and then make a ritual of it.

Of course " evil is a psychic reality. It is so in each one of us.Does it

express itself always in the same way? no, I don't think so. I have

enough shadow things to contend with.I do not have to accept those I

have already brought to consciousness and gotten rid of I must be on

guard though " ..

It is possible, Dan, to become conscious of just how evil we could be,

and having gained that truth, avoid the future practice of that

particular evil.I confessed my earlier " blood lust " and I have repented

of it.

Dan, honestly I am not trying to make you crazy. I hold Jung in great

esteem, but he was after all a flawed human being like the rest of us.

Dan, I could not disagree more. You can make that decision. That's the

whole point. You simply can not spend your life straddling the fence on

matters so important to you as an individual.

The verb to deliberate can be conjugated : I deliberate, you deliberate,

he deliberates.

No one is going to give either you or Jung an iron clad guarantee that

you could not make a wrong choice.There are no absolute guarantees,

period. But, one can confess to oneself one has chosen wrongly and

retrace ones steps to another path.

You cannot wait until all the facts are in, because they will never be,

and if they were you would not recognize it. WE do have enough to make a

choice., and we really have no other option. Not to chose is to chose.

And don't blame it on Jung. You have a psyche which is just as able to

make your own choice as any . You are not making a choice for the rest

of us, just yourself.

Doesn't it say somewhere about those not committed will be " spewed out

of someone's mouth? " You do have to take the chance of losing your

money, but that is the way the game is played. It has to hurt, and one

does have to count the cost. But one does not have to paralyzed by

inaction, if one admits to being a flawed human being. And wrong choice

will not exterminate you off the face of the earth. You just go back and

learn harder.

Toni

Dan Watkins wrote:

>

> Dear Toni,.

>

> We have to act as we are. As for the perhaps relatively unimportant

> question regarding Jung's own opinion of capital punishment, I think the

> following clears up the matter:

>

> " (I)nasmuch as murderers don't come into my analysis I cannot talk about

> the possible analysis of a murderer. I also cannot say that all

> murderers should be analysed, as I cannot say that all neurotics can be

> analysed. For there are certain social considerations over which I am

> not a lord, and I never make rules that would be good for humanity,

> particularly if nobody is very likely to carry them out. They kill

> murderers in France, in Italy, in England, in America, in Germany, and

> in most Catholic cantons of Switzerland; only a few very enlightened and

> reasonable communities have gone astray so far as not to kill murderers.

> I am not speaking of our Christianity - that point of view is not valid

> at all, only talk; I go by facts, and the fact is that capital

> punishment is valid in nearly all the most enlightened and civilized

> countries, and I am not against it. There is a very good reason why it

> is so. All other ways of punishment are wrong. By putting the criminal

> to death, one shares the crime; otherwise, one doesn't see the criminal

> in oneself. "

>

> CGJ, Nietzsche Seminars, May 8, 1935

>

> I think that we can't want it plainer than that. If I am " reading

> something into " this passage, or " laying my trip on it, as the hippies

> used to say, then words simply have no meaning. You speak above of the

> necessity for " shadow management, " and I agree with that. Jung suggests

> that punishment is a necessity for shadow management within the

> collective. I'm actually glad we got into this, because I think I

> understand Jung's teaching on the issue much better than I did before.

> Collective man is *always* (relatively) unconscious man. The shadow can

> go underground, but it doesn't go away. One way or another, the devil

> will have his due - hence we might just as well acknowledge the

> necessity, and ritualize the means.

>

> >

> > Blood lust is a natural reaction in animals and in the collective

> > unconscious, I have no doubt. But let's us not baptize it, bless it and

> > bring it into human, somewhat conscious society, as a good or even as a

> > necessary part of us.

> >

>

> But that it is a necessary part of us is, I think, precisely what Jung

> teaches. Evil is real.

>

> >

> snip

> Toni said:.

>

> >Each Xian will have to deal with that, and come

> > to an understanding of evil. As far as Jung and Xianity are concerned,

> > he analyzes all facets, sacraments, ritual and doctrine from his point

> > of view, added something, took away something, for example the Trinit

snip

> >.Each of us has to work out the dualism vs the whole ,for

> > herself, Xian as well as non Xian. Jung, like everyone of us, made his

> > decision on whether to be part of an organized religion practiced with

> > others or to go where he was led.

> Dan said:

> Toni, I believe you do this on purpose to make me crazy :-) Jung was

> *not* like " everyone of us, " and many of us are unable to make any such

> decision. Decision or choice (as opposed merely to going where one

> lists) implies, among other things, deliberation

> Toni said:

> >We each have to make that choice for

> > ourselves, without doubting anyone elses judgment or choice.

> >

>. Yes, sometimes we are forced to make difficult

> > decisions which affect the lives of others, and we do the best we can.

> > No sane human being convinces himself that he knows absolutely which is

> > the right way. We do what we must, but I hope we are aware that as

> > limited human beings, the final judgment on any action is not ours.

> >

> > It is my opinion that Jung was a humble man, especially near the end. He

> > would not, I think have taken dignity away from any other human.

> >

> > Dan, we are never going to agree. My whole outlook on life, the need to

> > change the world one person at a time, the dignity of each human being

> > and the evil of taking an other's life except in self defense, are

> > bedrock values. I found in Jung answers to " why' I behave as I do, and a

> > way to see others without the blinders of projection, not all the time,

> > but often.But, I had values before I met Jung, and many of those have

> > not changed, but also fit into his scheme. Others may not. The point is

> > digging into one's soul and trying to understand who one is, and why one

> > acts the way one does, and perhaps with time to learn to become more

> > conscious, less violent and more appreciative of the truths others have

> > that I do not. I am sure Jung's Imago Dei and mine are not the same.

> > Neither one of us is right or wrong. This is a lonely journey we are on,

> > and we must remain true to ourselves.We will always see only through

> > our own experiences.

> >

> > You are certainly entitled to your interpretation of Jung. You read him

> > differently than I do, and we come from different places. Sometimes we

> > may agree, often we will not. Even the written word is open to different

> > understandings. In all honesty, I must admit, however that I think you

> > pick and chose how you interpret him, and what you concentrate on in

> > your own way.

> > Shalom, my friend Dan

> > Toni

>