Guest guest Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Thank you, Alice! I have been deleting this thread as uninteresting to the rest of us.May you be filled with loving kindnessMay you be peaceful and at easeMay you be happyMay you be well.....To live is so startling it leaves little time for anything else."— DickinsonPause, Center, and Shift--Brugh Joy As your "Motherator", I am distressed by the creeping antagonism in some of your posts! Thus I am reminding you of the wiser of two attitudes to take on this site....I borrow them from legal language. The first is to discuss things ad rem.[to the matter] and the second is ad hominem [to the person] . I think you will agree that we are slipping into the latter! This is not the purpose of JUNG-FIRE and destroys our validity as an open forum on Jungian perspectives. We need to remember that much of this is unconscious projection of our Shadow, especially when it reveals heated negative opinions or sarcasm. In general, the common reality in today's politics, for example, is to observe, when losing an ad rem argument, the person slips into a personal attack! Thus I recommend to us all, myself included, to try to stick to the more objective approach.......this will help us maintain greater harmony yet permit our differing viewpoints. Nuff said! love ao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Discourse with fools produces foolish discourse. It is important to remember that sometimes we are the bigger fool. Something odd about. It will pass. If not, well, you're still on my bookshelf. And always will be. > > Subject: Jung-fire! > To: JUNG-FIRE > Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2012, 6:39 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > > > > > > > > As your " Motherator " , I am distressed by the > creeping antagonism in some of > your posts! Thus I am reminding you of the wiser of two > attitudes to take on > this site....I borrow them from legal language. > Â > The first is to discuss things ad > rem.[to the matter] > and the second is ad hominem [to > the person] > . > Â > I think you will agree that we are slipping into the > latter! This is not > the purpose of JUNG-FIRE and destroys our validity as an > open forum on Jungian > perspectives. > Â > We need to remember that much of this is unconscious > projection of our > Shadow, especially when it reveals heated negative opinions > or sarcasm. In > general, the common reality in today's politics, for > example, is to observe, > when losing an ad rem argument, the person slips > into a personal > attack! > Â > Thus I recommend to us all, myself included, to try to > stick to the more > objective approach.......this will help us maintain greater > harmony yet permit > our differing viewpoints. > Â > Nuff said! > Â > love > Â > ao > Â > Â > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Amazing that you would respond to Alice's plea for some " civility " by insulting everyone. I am about to delete all of you. Except for Alice of course. Have the respect to read the posts. You might learn something. We often learn the most from people we like the least. And learn to look in the mirror before you post an insult. Sometimes, as Alice pointed out, the insult is really directed at yourself. Myself included as Alice pointed out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > > > > > As your > " Motherator " , I am distressed by the creeping > antagonism in some of > your posts! Thus I am reminding you of the wiser of two > attitudes to take on > this site....I borrow them from legal > language. > Â > The first is to discuss things ad > rem.[to the matter] > and the second is ad hominem [to > the person] > . > Â > I think you will agree that we are slipping into the > latter! This is not > the purpose of JUNG-FIRE and destroys our validity as an > open forum on Jungian > perspectives. > Â > We need to remember that much of this is unconscious > projection of our > Shadow, especially when it reveals heated negative opinions > or sarcasm. In > general, the common reality in today's politics, for > example, is to observe, > when losing an ad rem argument, the person slips > into a personal > attack! > Â > Thus I recommend to us all, myself included, to try to > stick to the more > objective approach.......this will help us maintain greater > harmony yet permit > our differing viewpoints. > Â > Nuff said! > Â > love > Â > ao > Â > Â > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Since I get these emails daily, it is sometimes confusing to me how to respond without sending personal emails. The reason I don't like sending personal emails is because I don't like creating insider/outsider situations where some people become defenseless, because of a lack of transparency. It only long run creates more confusion from my experience.I really do not have the time to have the messages come to my box individually and respond, so I have tried to do it as a group and thought that the message would come up under the message where I clicked reply. It seems that is not working, and to boot I have often found an avalanche of comments in my box to my shock and tried to sort through the things I wanted to respond to, figuring people know what they personally said and not wanting to name names. I have also found that others were having some kind of similar problem and over and over and over....really three times over.....told people that I never said Jung was anti-Semitic. Finally, I became sarcastic about it and said to do a cut and past and find where I ever said that, because I had not in the same email.I have no idea who it is meant attacked Alice. For all I know it is me. I don't know what emails were deleted and will never now. I suppose my sarcasm to admit error or maybe it was not error was to bring some recognition of what it feels like to hear some of what was being said and the underlying consequences in what was being said instead of just laying it on and it is all okay and we can argue from here until tomorrow. Did any of you ever notice that people argue and drop names out of fear? I will defend this to the end. I do not remember who first said that Jung said Jews were more neurotic than other races, but ask yourselves for God's sake, why was it even necessary to say in context to the conversation? Someone want to answer that? Was it to see what religion I was? This is a very serious question and not sarcasm at all. Can anyone handle answering that question?I look at the abundance of emails that came out of something meaning to bring out what something feels like to others and look at the result! We already had 9/11. What are we creating in the collective unconscious with our joint beliefs? Changing oneself is often the ability to stand up for what one believes in from the center of one's being. Is it not? Is the abundance of email that came out, because there is a deep fear which that ad expressed that no one wants to deal with? I dealt with it. I deal with it every day. I have friends who are deep into conspiracy theory, and every time it comes up, I ask them what are you creating by resonating with that? I have friends who are financially invested in things which support war and depend on economic collapse and I ask them the same thing. In my classes on creativity in relationship to education and psychology, I ask please look at how creativity is defined and the fact that even Sternberg himself admitted that his book needed to be revamped to deal with this point of what is creative and what is really ultimately destructive. I do believe, and none of you have convinced me that Jung would have disagreed (in fact, some of you convinced me of quite the opposite), that the whole Armageddon and resurrection is something internal and not external, but here's the rub for me. One either believes in the collective unconscious or not. If so, the energy of people's beliefs creates and whether what was created is positive or negative as group consciousness has everything to do with how we think and feel. For me the greatest conspiracy theory (which actually has ancient predecessors....same as the Virgin Births) is the theory of Armageddon which has been externalized. I am sorry if this disturbs some people who are practicing Catholicism or Christianity in an exclusive way. I can not help that. I believe sincere practice brings sincere results, but I do not believe in bloodshed, ideas leading to the foundation of eugenics or creating a caste system here in America is what religion is all about. I have a right to that belief and what it does to the collective unconscious, don't I? I have the right to feel I don't want to be in a heaven that is founded on such things. I think there is a very deep fear that is underlying people's responses. I have some awareness of what it is, but I have meditated for over 40 yrs. in one form or another, and I have an uncanny gift to be able to move between ignoring the tapes in my mind and being present and being analytical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 OUR Shadow. ...and even stranger, I thought of the "rest of us" as one down--not one up--as in "not in front of {the 'servants'}{the 'children'}{'your choice'}.". Not that we "had servants,". I was just raised by ians.Thanks for the rich learning! I never heard my parents fight, was an only child, and still need reminding.Love the energy this discussion has brought to Jung-Fire!May you be filled with loving kindnessMay you be peaceful and at easeMay you be happyMay you be well.....To live is so startling it leaves little time for anything else."— DickinsonPause, Center, and Shift--Brugh Joy OUR shadow.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As your> "Motherator", I am distressed by the creeping> antagonism in some of > your posts! Thus I am reminding you of the wiser of two> attitudes to take on > this site....I borrow them from legal> language.> > The first is to discuss things ad> rem.[to the matter] > and the second is ad hominem [to> the person] > .> > I think you will agree that we are slipping into the> latter! This is not > the purpose of JUNG-FIRE and destroys our validity as an> open forum on Jungian > perspectives.> > We need to remember that much of this is unconscious> projection of our > Shadow, especially when it reveals heated negative opinions> or sarcasm. In > general, the common reality in today's politics, for> example, is to observe, > when losing an ad rem argument, the person slips> into a personal > attack!> > Thus I recommend to us all, myself included, to try to> stick to the more > objective approach.......this will help us maintain greater> harmony yet permit > our differing viewpoints.> > Nuff said!> > love> > ao> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.