Re: [JUNG-FIRE bateson!

[Guest guest]

How lovely to know that you yoo knew !! He n his wife were good friends. I was also a teacher at Lindisfarne n I remember showing him how to dowse w/a coathanger! We also spent time together w/his wife at Esalen. He was a great big frumpy heffalump of a man w/a heart of gold.Many a tale to tell but it's too hot to sit here........

love

ao

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