Re: Re: Complementation in psychology

[Guest guest]

Mats,

For me, Analytic(al) Psychology provides a rich set of concepts and tools with which to organize and self-organize a novel and subjective vocabulary and view about one's experience of meaningfulness in human context. 

You write: 

But to say that " almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning " is an hideous underestimation of Jungian psychology.

Hideous?  It has proved an extremely powerful method of understanding dreams, fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious phenomena. I find it immensely useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one can come to grips with the unconscious, and the  emancipative effect it has on the conscious ego is inestimable.

I do not question the " use value " of what you term Jungian psychology. Inasmuch as the emancipative effect is reported, the value of using the framework is demonstrated within the largely subjective domain where those effects are encountered.

The question raised, however, is: does all this understanding have to do with the efficacious belief in the Jungian psychology, or, does it have to do with the Jungian psychology itself being the correct model of human mental functioning?

For this question, of course, there is a single correct answer.regards, ---------------------------------------------------------

squareone-learning.comsquareone-learning.com/blog/the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

[Guest guest]

Mats, Dan, all,Dan! Are the only two options myth and truth? Is my "use value" to be tossed aside along with all the other positions--such as, being provisionally true, or, being as yet not ascertained, etc.?Mats, although you have affirmed for me your own belief, I think it is safe to suggest that if Dr, Jung was savvy enough to not himself make the claim that his psychology in fact presented the end truth of a model of the psyche, and granting that there is nothing in his own vast opus that could be submitted as verification of such a claim, then We're left with the undone task of refining this Jungian psychology to the point where we might eventually establish the truth of a newer model, or, more likely fold a part of what is verifiable into the incomplete current, albeit, verified model.Nothing you wrote in response does any duty on behalf of the strong claim that Jungian psychology rotates around a verified model of human mental functioning, or call mental functioning what you may.What you wrote reduces to: I understand it to be so because I understand it to be so. I know in advance you are not standing at the head of any literature or research that unequivocally or otherwise supports your claim.Regards,Sent from my iPadSent from my iPad

It works. It is not a belief-system, as you infer, although there are such overtones due to an inclination towards paganism. Jungian psychology provides largely the correct model of the mental functioning of the unconscious. Why does it work? I discuss it in this article:

http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/animism.htm

The unconscious constantly produces animistic motives, because this is how our archaic unconscious "thinks". The archetype is an expression of the animistic economy of the unconscious. This explains the great success of the archetypal notion in understanding the unconscious. The concept of the archetype in modern psychology has its roots in animistic mythological thinking, which is still part and parcel of our unconscious psychology.

Platonism and Jungian psychology are indebted to animism. It is justified regardless of the nature of the archetype. Therefore, the ontology of the archetype is not an urgent issue. However, the Platonic paradigm can trigger an animistic regression, exemplified by naive New Age notions. That's why I have argued that the trinitarian tradition of mysticism presents a way out for gone astray Jungians and New Agers.

Mats Winther

>

> >

> > Mats,

> >

>

> For me, Analytic(al) Psychology provides a rich set of concepts and tools

> with which to organize and self-organize a novel and subjective vocabulary

> and view about one's experience of meaningfulness in human context.

>

> You write:

>

> >

> > But to say that "almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an

> > accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning" is an

> > hideous underestimation of Jungian psychology.

> >

> Hideous?

>

>

> > It has proved an extremely powerful method of understanding dreams,

> > fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious phenomena. I find it immensely

> > useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one can come to grips with the

> > unconscious, and the emancipative effect it has on the conscious ego is

> > inestimable.

> >

> I do not question the "use value" of what you term Jungian psychology.

>

> Inasmuch as the emancipative effect is reported, the value of using the

> framework is demonstrated within the largely subjective domain where those

> effects are encountered.

>

> The question raised, however, is: does all this understanding have to do

> with the efficacious *belief* in the Jungian psychology, or, does it have

> to do with the Jungian psychology itself being the correct model of human

> mental functioning?

>

> For this question, of course, there is a single correct answer.

>

> regards,

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------------------------------

> squareone-learning.com

> squareone-learning.com/blog/

>

> the entire 'kit and kaboodle'

> squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

>

[Guest guest]

>All that said, the myths must in some way resonate with human nature in order to be therapeutic, even if they are myths, so there is that to consider.

And they do resonate with human nature! Even to conceive a lie, must have a realization of a truth behind it.

Myths cannot be conceived out of nothing, as nothing cannot give rise to something. What man knows,

be it truth , allegory or lie, all comes from human nature, where else can it come from.

Steve Kalec

Re: Complementation in psychology

> > >> > > >> > > > Mats,> > > >> > > > > > For me, Analytic(al) Psychology provides a rich set of concepts and tools> > > with which to organize and self-organize a novel and subjective vocabulary> > > and view about one's experience of meaningfulness in human context.> > > > > > You write:> > > > > > >> > > > But to say that "almost nothing of Analytical Psychology survives as an> > > > accurate framework for understanding human mental functioning" is an> > > > hideous underestimation of Jungian psychology.> > > >> > > Hideous?> > > > > > > > > > It has proved an extremely powerful method of understanding dreams,> > > > fairytales, myths, symbols, and religious phenomena. I find it immensely> > > > useful. Through learning Jungian psychology one can come to grips with the> > > > unconscious, and the emancipative effect it has on the conscious ego is> > > > inestimable.> > > >> > > I do not question the "use value" of what you term Jungian psychology.> > > > > > Inasmuch as the emancipative effect is reported, the value of using the> > > framework is demonstrated within the largely subjective domain where those> > > effects are encountered.> > > > > > The question raised, however, is: does all this understanding have to do> > > with the efficacious *belief* in the Jungian psychology, or, does it have> > > to do with the Jungian psychology itself being the correct model of human> > > mental functioning?> > > > > > For this question, of course, there is a single correct answer.> > > > > > regards,> > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------> > > squareone-learning.com> > > squareone-learning.com/blog/> > > > > > the entire 'kit and kaboodle'> > > squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/> > >> > > >>------------------------------------"Our highest duty as human beings is to search out a means whereby beings may be freed from all kinds of unsatisfactory experience and suffering."H.H. Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th. Dalai Lama

[Guest guest]

Dan, all, 

That said, the options are truth, myth (intentionally making stuff up), mistakes (we think it's the truth but it's not), or known ignorance (open questions, and we know they're open).

Oh, the matters of degree need to be added; as well as the dependencies of context, and much more.Otherwise I agree with you. For example, in the context of keeping a church together, the congregation might depend on believing the earth is 6000 years old. A useful " truth " for the church; useless as part of an explanation about how old is the earth in another context. 

Re: truth vs. myth, it is certainly possible that myths could be therapeutically useful even if not true or not based on a true understanding of human nature. Hypothetical example: a lady patient needs to leave her husband, is persuaded to do so by her doctor on the basis of some (let's say mythical or untrue) archetypal la-la, she does it, and it works out swell.

Yup, useful. And, if you wanted you could study usages in actual contexts, you could even do so as against pharmacology, placebos. Analytical psychology strikes me as a very rich and poetic framework for evoking experiential and possibly therapeutic " self-accounts " given particularities of acculturation.

All that said, the myths must in some way resonate with human nature in order to be therapeutic, even if they are myths, so there is that to consider.

Well, resonate in a specific circumstance with " a " human nature. This would be different than insisting, for example, that a myth, or psychological system, has obtained a true and universal model of mental functioning or model " of " mind, and, in doing so has necessarily also secured a coherent metaphysical foundation.

Although it seems to me one might be satisfied with the somewhat unreasonable effectiveness of the ideas of, for example, Jungian " psychology " or young earth creationism, what seems to often happen is that an argument is raised by the devotee--outside the domain of effectiveness--that the ideas (myth, what-have-you,) are doubtlessly true in a global, material sense!

There is much that is curious about this phenomena.regards, 

 ---------------------------------------------------------squareone-learning.comsquareone-learning.com/blog/

the entire 'kit and kaboodle'squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

[Guest guest]

Mats,Thanks for your response.You write:M:Empirical data confirms this mathematical equation all the time! Yet, nobody has been able to put " energy " in a glass jar and observed it. Many physicists believe that there is no such thing as energy. As I said, belief in the positive, belief in the negative sense; still belief--in your own darn words! Yes, you experience something that works and that is the substance of your verification. I have no problem with that at all.

What we're needing to discover is a method to demonstrate, for example, that I, another subject, possess this so-called Jungian psychology. You haven't offered me anything on that problem at all. Remember, my challenge to you is to establish that the structure of global human psychology, mind, psyche, whatever you choose to call it, is explicitly the structure given in what you call Jungian Psychology.

You have established it provides the structure of your mind.***M: meaning that I subscribe blindly to a credo.I didn't say this of course and how odd to conjure a straw man.M: I observe this empirical reality continually, and I have verified that the Jungian concept of reality is both truthful and useful.As I will continue to remind you, I understand what you say here, but this can do no duty with respect to the larger problem.M: So how can I be a Jungian believer, then, if I am capable of finding faults in it? If I am stuck in a " largely subjective domain " , how come I

can criticize the framework and suggest improvements to it?What does have to do with anything? Let's rephrase what you say here: I find fault, I criticize, I suggest improvement, so, what am I?M: The point is that Jungian psychology " works " . It works in interpreting dreams and myths. I have verified this time and time again. Why do you make this same point over and over again?  It provides the original point of departure. You have verified that it works for you. Others obviously have done the same too. But, none of those local verifications address my original challenge.

M:So I know that it works, but you don't, because you don't know Jungian psychology.

You haven't tried it out. I also know that Jungian therapy works. My goodness, you prove my point. This is like fireworks! You have no evidence about either assertion you've introduced here about me, somebody you do not know. And, you especially have no evidence about the simple new form of my argument, which is this: how do you establish that non-believers possess the psyche you have supposed everybody possesses?

Your answer so far is: it works for me. Well, we know it worked for others too. All sorts of stuff works for people. I endorse workability. However, it doesn't address the challenge we're discussing.***

Now, to your side points that don't shed any light on anything.M:It's like mathematics. Mathematics works, but nobody knows why. Cosmologists are baffled by the fact that they can use mathematics to understand what took place 13 billion years ago. Scientists make use of numbers, but nobody knows what numbers are. Nobody has put a number under a microscope and verified its existence. They just work. You wouldn't know anything about my background, about my circle of academic friends, and about my colleagues. Right?Let's suppose a thought problem. Let's assume for the purposes of it that I might consider sharing what you wrote here with a handful of prominent cosmologists, physicists, philosophers of science, and, above all and especially, philosphers of mathematics/meta-mathematics? Say, I contemplate doing so using local favored resources at CWRU here in Cleveland.

Do you think I would, or should, do so?Incidentally, let's suppose every now and then an intelligent high school senior, gifted in calculus, has an epiphany and says to herself, " I wonder why it is that math works in the first place? "

She comes to me and says, how would I answer this question, ? Mats, do you think I should save her a bunch of time and tell her, " Nobody knows why it works. " ***Back to Jung.M: But the universe functions " as if " they existed.

This is not an argument. I can substitute all sorts of things for each and every concept in Jungian psychology, and then make this same remark. " As if " can't do any duty at all. 'Cars locomote as if there are hamsters running a wheel under the hood.'

M: Empirical data confirms this mathematical equation all the time! Yet, nobody has been able to put " energy " in a glass jar and observed it.The mathematical equation is useful but it also exists within a series of dependent, ordered, substantial, existent, frameworks--none of which have at their foundation being able to put something/anything in a jar. The actuality of observing energy does have standing of course.

M: The scientific motivation for all these concepts is that they " work " . How many times do I have remind you, (and, heck, I'm a ian (!)) that I'm okay with verification for your own purposes being rooted to it working for you and some others. I am compelled to qualify my affirmation because that same method of verification has well known, obvious, limitations.

On the other hand, the first person to mention science in our discussion was you. Because you are unaware of the actual context on my end of our discussion, that you mention science first is both audacious and amusing.

It's enough for me to say: I see The scientific motivation for all these concepts is that they " work " .  to be hiding an obvious tautology.***And now, comes the regression into your primary process (Freud,) via outright insulting me.

M: The conclusion is that not only do you lack knowledge in the realm of Jungian psychology, you are lacking in the understanding of the scientific paradigm. Your philosophical stance is a modern disease. People who spin themselves into a cocoon of philosophical theory and bury themselves in Heidegger, Derrida, Wittgenstein, and whatnot, resort

to a psychological defence against reality.Let's assume you are correct, based in the evidence you've gained from my disagreeing with you, that I in fact/actually lack knowledge of Jungian psychology; lack understanding of the scientific paradigm. The only advantage on my end is that I can also refer to many other person's estimation of same, based in their own more lengthy and expert experience of, ummm, me.

Still, Mats, you wouldn't then be able to describe my philosophical stance, a stance that I could render in a few sentences. Furthermore, this: resort

to a psychological defence against reality. conceals the terms for another tautology, you know the one where you use the psychology you defend as " real " to argue against someone disagreeing with you about its reality.

I do not know you. Imagine my surprise to learn that you, to the contrary, are willing to assert that you know me so well that you know my philosophical stance, you know my disease, and even know about a curative paper I could read!

And in the context, amazingly, is your implicit understanding of your own superior authority in matters of psychology and what you call the paradigm of science. And, yet, at this point in our discussion, what you end with, is, a psychological diagnosis!

One thing about your diagnosis, is that it isn't put in the terms of Jungian diagnosis. You have yet to establish any non-reflexive truth claim with respect to verifying the hypothesis that the global structure of human mind is the structure identified in, as you term it, " Jungian psychology. "

You have established that it works for you. You have brought up 'science.' I won't beg the obvious question. Yet. I recommend we now set aside the intersubjective scheme for verification since it's worthless with respect to the hypothesis on our table.

***I play on a softball team every week that includes a bunch of scientists, but I will especially look forward to laying your suppositions on my fellow outfielder , an astronomer and cosmologist.

In any case, try to lean back away from lashing out at me.regards,---------------------------------------------------------squareone-learning.com

squareone-learning.com/blog/the entire 'kit and kaboodle'squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/

[Guest guest]

Mats,I'm sorry, I have to say, " for goodness sakes. " You may know physicists who would gladly make the following assertion,M: I said that many scientists believe that there is *no* such entity as " energy " . Still, they gladly make use of the concept.

This seems to me to be nonsensical. In my world, a concept is especially valuable (in a well-defined way,) when it conceives of some portion of that which actually exists. So, for example, my principal research focus is on: constructive fortuities in adult development. Each of those terms define existing phenomena. and, if need be, in using these as part of a quantification of observations, I could, for example, count instances of fortuity, one, two, three. Etc..

Those numbers would differentiate existing instances of fortuity. Thus, I have demonstrated such numbers are useful, require no belief, and, for the purpose I've described, such numbers exist.(Hey, I could philosophize about the ontology of cardinality too, but I find easier to just count instances. As for a concept having use-value in physics after it has been shorn of being meaningfully about an existing entity of some sort, I would nt know what you possibly could be speaking of betwixt the useful concept of energy, and, the non-existing energy entity, " itself. " )

M: My point is that science is not about scientific proof of the kind that you are looking for. I am not looking for scientific proof. I never have said so. I do wish that you sketch out the means and methods by which you would verify that my own psyche is constructed along the lines of the model given in Jungian psychology.

M: You tell me to present facts to prove that the Jungian model corresponds to the psychic reality. But it isn't doable. You hit the middle of a target, here. I suspect it isn't doable.

M: Please tell the scientists to present facts to the effect that energy and numbers exist. Otherwise these entities are to be regarded as fantasies, and part of a belief system. That's how you reason. But to know that science works, and to know that Jungian psychology works, you must make use of it, read the literature, and analyse dreams. You must verify that it works and has predictive capacity.

Jeezum, you want it both ways. Is it doable, or not? Tell me how you'd design an experiment to test the predictive capacity of what you term Jungian psychology.I've already demonstrated some numbers exist, and this falsifies your notion that " no numbers exist. " I can demonstrate energy exists by reaching over and picking up a cat and putting him or her--we have four--on the floor.

M:I don't understand what you are doing in this group as you reject Jungian psychology altogether, without having any insight into it. Oh. 16 years. I hardly reject Jungian psychology. I have, over thirty-five plus years, spent the most time with the work of Thelonious Monk, C.G. Jung, and, Bateson; and this adds up to many thousands of hours. Invaluable investment.

This doesn't mean I know anything--hey we know how Jung himself characterized his own knowledge toward the end of his life--but, I surely know myself better than you do.What is impressive Mats is that you argue against me at the same time you don't actually read what I'm writing to an important extent, thus you can, with a straight face, think that I reject Jungian Psychology altogether.

Ironically, speaking to this point, I believe it is useful in someways.regards,---------------------------------------------------------squareone-learning.com

squareone-learning.com/blog/the entire 'kit and kaboodle'squareone-learning.com/blog/my-outposts/