Re: Re: updated good vs evil and religion

[Guest guest]

all,The <feelosofree> piece has a pedigree on the internet, going back many years.It's 157 pages long. I have not read the entire piece. However, it seems to me to represent a particular type of internet instigation: it gets plopped down on different forums or in different venues in parts or in its entirety.

There is no source in its background. The instigator is not evidently wishing to discuss the piece. It's extremely murky as a marker of intent. Obviously to plunk a 157 page opus on a table of strangers without any set-up is suspect.

And, when you begin to track its appearances, whatever intent might be projected onto is diminished by the piece's coming to join a large and often loony category of screes posted anonymously; and this category has a very long sociological history on the internet.

-- squareONE experiential toolmakershome | blog | music | visual | google+

[Guest guest]

I think YOU're missing the point: as says " Obviously to plunk a 157 page opus on a table of strangers without any set-up is suspect " ... Questions of good, god, evil and the devil go through here often enough (however high or low falutin' their language) - as long as there is hope and fear these questions are of the uttermost importance... at times... one does not have to push 'em down people's throats and i, for one, have always felt strongly about anything but air being pushed up my nose.

.... which is probably why i find the less theoretical questions of - for example - why we get angry, sad, happy, confused (as in what is it that makes ME angry, happy, etc?) far more fruitful.this with all due respect.

md_,___

-- mirror facing mirror

nowhere else ~ Ikkyu

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jane,You ask a few questions in your response to my--yes, correct you are--dismissive reply to the 157 page posting.

Are you offended that the raw dichotomy of good and evil still holds meaning in parts of the human community? Why are your buzz words better?Nope, doesn't cause offense at all. I don't assume that my words, buzzy or not,  are even good for me, let alone good for anybody else.

Jung was/is an important thinker whose influence in the larger culture has been lessening. I had hoped to find his recommended larger inclusiveness here.

If there is no room for outsider thinking to slide through this space, is that a thoughtful intention? What do you think the result of this could be, beyond narrowing?

The arbitration of inclusiveness, in my own experience on the list and on its predecessors over sixteen years, is a concoction of the " group psychology " most times, and on rarer occasions, a moderator does the deed.

Thus, inclusiveness and " anti-inclusiveness " has, really, nothing much to do with Dr. Jung at all--at least as I view the scene here.However, in mentioning this, there is a related matter that has to do with the differentiation between whatever psyche brings here, and, what the people here *DO* with whatever psyche brings here.

I'm not a Jungian, nor am I even an advocate of Jung or Analytic Psychology. I'm a just a lowly armchair student of psychology for a few decades. I offer this because my own opinion is: in specific circumstances Jung may well recommend inclusiveness, but, in the main Jung himself included a lot, but he doesn't strike me as being at all a proponent of inclusiveness pitched as an ethical value.

I'm may well be wrong about this sense. Anyway, I mention as much as a second way to separate including psyche as against what is the attitude toward the psyche " so included. " ***The 157 page piece popped for me as representing a genre of internet publication. This wasn't a comment on the merits of the piece's content. I stated I didn't read very much of it.

A constructive approach to its content might be to offer some of it up in condensed form, and, perhaps, this will turn out to be of interest to persons here for their own reasons. After all, basically we are here constituted to maybe narrow and broaden, yet, in the main, individuals respond in the moment to what lands here based in their " own reasons. "

regards,

..

-- squareONE experiential toolmakershome | blog | music | visual | google+

[Guest guest]

Jane, all,

 

I have no problems with people responding or not for their own reasons. I had a problem with the appearance that you were substituting your reasons for whatever reasons I or others might have had and what we did with our reasons.

I own my reasons, not those of any else. Don't see how substitution would work. However, I am capable of, and would own, behavior --such as being snobby, dismissive, aggressive, insulting, etc.. I own my own behavior when I am able to recognize it as being my own behavior. Sometimes, I can't see it for what it is; it's in my blind spot, shadow.

My impression was that the original post hadn't bothered you. My taking it seriously was improper?The 157 page offering didn't bother me at all.  It interested me firstly as a genre, then as something having a sociological context, and, next as something that in fact did yield more context with a little of bit forensics. I took it seriously in these respects. Someone else may view it seriously from other angles. I'm not arbitrating propriety, and if you think this was my intent, you'd be mistaken.

Anyone who produces an argument of such length has invested a great deal of life energy -- far beyond any effort to annoy strangers, which can be done much much more efficiently.

I look at this differently. The key fact is that the author does not engage his/her audience at all, outside of dropping the product of their life energy. As I mentioned previously, this particular product has left a small and austere trail over many years.

What does this remind me of in my experience? Alternately, it is also the historical fact that the understanding of good and evil has not turned on a deliberately anonymous literature, except maybe with a few archaic antecedents. Certainly, since the invention of the printing press, the conversation about good and evil is discoverable and does occur among people who can be identified.

That's what I implied by referring to the piece not being sourced. Again, if it contains interesting ideas, I wouldn't know of them--because I haven't read much of the piece.g'day

-- squareONE experiential toolmakershome | blog | music | visual | google+