Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Professor T

Show us your EGO!

376 posts in this topic

Fun Stuff alright!!

Sorry, but...

:lol: Again, this is kind of vague and not telling me anything..

In my experience with Ego, true self, and foreign entities the Line between has always been quite defined.. Yes it widens and get's fuzzier the deeper to dive into the rabbit hole, but if one dives so deep that one looses all perspective of any form of self then one must then ask yourself "what is the point? What can I learn from this?"

The line between Ego and true or higher self's is the hardest to cross in my experience.. Actually, if I were going to plot it on an onion graph it would be a wall, not a line.. Only though Meditation can that wall be lowered and with some difficulty can it be crossed (or perhaps the line becomes blurred enough to cross).. But as far as identifying foreign aspects, Sprits, Entities... These (with some confirmation from others) I've been able to identify as not beonging to my Ego or Higher self..

Prisoner to perception?

If I percieved some of the comments in this thread with my old Ego, then I would probably be in a lot of trouble right now.. As it is, I'm not a prisoner to my perceptions.. My Ego is not in control of them, I shift my perceptions around and choose the best angle to view a topic or subject or opinion.. Sometimes I choose to percieve from my Ego, sometimes I'm surprised to find that other peoples perceptions are much better than mine.. It's not that my perceptions are a free-floating spirit.. lol.. It's that my perceptions are more open than they used to be, and are not controlled by ego.

Indeed prof. But you could not have asked the question without diving so deep. If we are talking about dissolution the point becomes contrast. Self realization needs a canvass.

Where is the line defined? It may be that spirits may be something else,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed prof. But you could not have asked the question without diving so deep. If we are talking about dissolution the point becomes contrast. Self realization needs a canvass.

Where is the line defined? It may be that spirits may be something else,

Hmmmm I think I dozed off last night.

Indeed prof. But you could not have asked the question without diving so deep. If we are talking about dissolution the point becomes contrast. Self realization needs a canvass.

Where is the line defined? What exactly is higher self? You see I have always thought the descriptions of these things were a bit vague. I have heard that the higher self is like god, or just the universal spirit, or a timeless soul that maintaines its awareness on levels of existence that is unique to each of us. Im not so sure as others seem.

I tend to agree about spirits, I have close relationships with a few. But it's in my nature to question the nature of all things. For example I am convinced shadow is an aspect of myself. If shadow is then why not the angel? Let's be straight I go with my gut in these things, so I don't think she is, but how can anyone really know. All one can do, mr walkers style, is to apply the same logic you do with any other kind of relationship. It works for me. Still, it's usefull and prudent to maintain an awareness that standard logic may not always apply.

You can change your perspective, I think that's what your were referring to, but you can only decipher what you experience. Your inputs are the key to your world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmm....

The more you mention Jung the more I like it and gravitate towards it.. Perhaps I was wrong in describing myself as leaning towards Freudian thinking, afterall, it was over a decade ago when I did a bit of study in psychology..

I still feel though that Ego is a false center.. People are not born with an Ego..

Love this song btw, It seems to capture my feelings on ego and self.

[media=]

[/media]

For me, I do not take sides, I try and keep in mind that there are many approaches and theories in Psychology. I think Jung and Freud made major contributions to the understanding of Psychology, both have ideas that have stood the test of time and both have ideas that have been discarded, replaced with current understandings.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) you have an awesome grasp on your own Ego.. But I wonder who is in control most of the time?

The reagalness and the Ballet kind of suggests that you spend more time being entertained by ego than actually experiencing life?

Or is it a case of ego masking reality or defending you from reality?

I suppose my ego does mask reality for me, to some degree in my personal life(and I am very grateful for that!), but on a wider perspective I would say no, it doesn't.

There's an awful lot going on in my head most of the time, and I guess that's where my attention is most of the time ....... in that sense I am being 'entertained' by my ego, although my thoughts may be on global subjects.

You did a good job with pictures too, btw. Thanks for doing that, it was fun, Ouija. :D

Well not really, but then again somewhat. Honestly for the most part, it was just that I could relate to the pictures she posted. Specifically the top two (except for the ballernia...lol), kinda describes my old ego; which of course I still have btw - hard to get completely rid of it. And I thought maybe she was a Leo, as well, since I am. I just know some Leo's exhibt that kind of behaviour pattern, especially the Foghorn Leghorn intolerence to ignorance, which I was really bad about in my youth. (Lol, the nerve of me, what made me think I was so much better. My ego, of course.)

When you know yourself from a self deep observation, you tend to know other people who act like or similar to you because they exhibt those same behaviour patterns and you understand them better. I think there is a lot more to that old Greek aphorism: "Know thyself" then what is traditionaly explained. Opened a lot more insight and perception for me, when I started observing myself from outside myself, with that particular aphorism.

Oh come on, Purifier, you're amongst friends ...... you can confess to an 'inner ballerina' here! :lol:

I am in fact Cancer but have Leo rising. And what do you mean 'intolerance to ignorance'? Some b*ggars just need to be told what's what, and told it in no uncertain terms! :angry: hahaha!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheri

For me, I do not take sides, I try and keep in mind that there are many approaches and theories in Psychology. I think Jung and Freud made major contributions to the understanding of Psychology, both have ideas that have stood the test of time and both have ideas that have been discarded, replaced with current understandings.

Jung embraced the open-ended and ogoing nature of science, including that the progress of knowledge would inevitably overrule him on occasion. Jung always ackowledged his debts to Freud, especially for having detected the real operation of something of which we are unconscious (an extraordinary intellectual feat, when you think about it).

@8ty (Thank you for defending my ego honor), - Da nada

Prof T

People are not born with an Ego.

People can't hold their heads up at birth, etiher. For all the mammals, and for us more than many, life in the air-breathing world is a second gestation for quite a while. Eventually, though, things come together.

Star

sadly our 'ego's' do seem to be at the centre of most peoples psyche and I suppose that's why Jung put it at the centre. And if that doesn't hurt your head....... then I don't know what would

... but it wasn't supposed to stay there; kind of like our heads as babies. Time passes, and we start to be able to move the head and take a look around. After that, it still takes a while to realize that what's going on behind the direction we're currently looking in can be important, too, and very easy to forget sometimes that anything's even there. Mirrors can be downright shocking, too.

We aren't born with an ego, as Prof T reminds us, and we all, along with Jung, seem to agree. We aren't born with a self, either. The difference is that an ego will emerge, while a self will have to be built. Not of all us will have one, and maybe none of us will ever have a complete one.

The self is something we have to build, around a center, and in that center there is no thing.

What clearer blueprint could any builder possibly ask for? :)

I incorporate Jung and Egan with his person-centred approach but also work with other Psychologist's theories but there are too many to name.

My own second favorite is another Jungian, Marie Louise von Franz. R.D. Laing would be my favorite among the not consciously ( :)) Jungians, although I have no particular involvement with the clinical side of things.

Seeker

Wow I just found out there is a movie. I can't vouch for its Acuracy though. But Kira knightly is lovely to watch.

Yes, Keira is easy on the eyes. The movie is historical, however nobody knows the actual crucial private particulars of Jung's relationship with Sabina Spielrein. It depends on what you want to read into some letters between Jung and Freud and some of her own personal papers, found posthumously, which included selected correspondence with both men. The movie is one "plausible past" with a Jung-friendly tilt. Other pasts are possible, too.

It is generally agreed, however, that whatever happened in this specific instance, Mrs. Jung was very patient, and Carl gave her much to be patient about in his dealings with other women.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I do not take sides, I try and keep in mind that there are many approaches and theories in Psychology. I think Jung and Freud made major contributions to the understanding of Psychology, both have ideas that have stood the test of time and both have ideas that have been discarded, replaced with current understandings.

Good point.. :tu: I can deffinately relate to the whole taking sides senario.. And this has a lot to do with Ego too.

If one takes sides, or chooses to view a subject from a specific perspective, one looses the perspective of the other side as well as looses the ability to view a subject from multiple perspectives..

Take for instance, the conflict in the middle east of Israel v's palestine..

Now I've always been a "supporter of Palestine". and as such I lost perspective from an Israeli point of view and a world point of view because every time the Paletinians did wrong Ego saw it as justified, and every time Israel did something wrong Ego has been spitting tacks about it and wanting retribution because as a Palestinain supporter my Ego feels attacked when they are attacked. (Ego attachment)

Then A few months ago I got my Ego to let go of it's stead-fast support of palestine.. The result was a vast shift in perspective that allowed me to see more than the evil isralies and the poor palestinians.. It allowed me to see and understand that much of the conflict is unjust from both sides of the fence. But more importantly it opened me up to seeing how picking sides perpetuates the violence, and how much of the war is fed by propaganda that is designed to entice that support from peoples Egos..

Edited by Professor T
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 8ty!

Yes you’re right 8ty, the ego has to develop very early on in life and is an important part of us functioning in this crazy world and helps us to survive. Ego helps us to perceive meaning and also helps us assess our value. It gives us our ‘self-worth’ but it can become inflated and needs to be reined in at times. So therefore, there can be conflict between the ‘self’ and the ‘ego’ which normally peaks at midlife, hence the infamous‘midlife crisis’.

I always understood that the ‘self’ is an unchanging part of us, whereas the ego etc,. is ever changing. Jung compared ‘self’ to a representation of ‘God within us’. So I always understood it to be transcendent. I know Jung took flak for implying the ‘self’ is God, but I believe he tried to emphasise that the ‘self’ is only an image of God within our ‘psyche’. It could be considered, what I and other religious people refer to as our ‘soul'.

Edited by Star of the Sea
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does my ego seem like to you? How do I come across online....? If you don't mind telling me. I know I am different online than I am in real life because I comment on a lot of stuff and in real life I am generally quiet.

Exactly! Same here.. that is why i joined this forums so i can share my piece of mind on stuff i usually don't talk around. :alien::gun::ph34r:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point.. :tu: I can deffinately relate to the whole taking sides senario.. And this has a lot to do with Ego too.

If one takes sides, or chooses to view a subject from a specific perspective, one looses the perspective of the other side as well as looses the ability to view a subject from multiple perspectives..

Take for instance, the conflict in the middle east of Israel v's palestine..

Now I've always been a "supporter of Palestine". and as such I lost perspective from an Israeli point of view and a world point of view because every time the Paletinians did wrong Ego saw it as justified, and every time Israel did something wrong Ego has been spitting tacks about it and wanting retribution because as a Palestinain supporter my Ego feels attacked when they are attacked. (Ego attachment)

Then A few months ago I got my Ego to let go of it's stead-fast support of palestine.. The result was a vast shift in perspective that allowed me to see more than the evil isralies and the poor palestinians.. It allowed me to see and understand that much of the conflict is unjust from both sides of the fence. But more importantly it opened me up to seeing how picking sides perpetuates the violence, and how much of the war is fed by propaganda that is designed to entice that support from peoples Egos..

Oh man this is excellent.

That example and exercise of going through that is a major lesson in understanding ego and manipulation of ego, esp in the "them v us" context. Ego does indeed attach very easily and propaganda being a form of manipulation doesn't care for the truth. It's about establishing sides completely and keeping people in the them v us mode. It doesn't just happen in politics or war, but in every day life too. We know and see it as mob mentality in schools, work place, online social sites.

Taking the stance of neutrality, and suspending ego beliefs is no easy thing to accomplish but is what is necessary to start unpicking and perceiving the truth in anything.

Edited by bLu3 de 3n3rgy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man this is excellent.

That example and exercise of going through that is a major lesson in understanding ego and manipulation of ego, esp in the "them v us" context. Ego does indeed attach very easily and propaganda being a form of manipulation doesn't care for the truth. It's about establishing sides completely and keeping people in the them v us mode. It doesn't just happen in politics or war, but in every day life too. We know and see it as mob mentality in schools, work place, online social sites.

Taking the stance of neutrality, and suspending ego beliefs is no easy thing to accomplish but is what is necessary to start unpicking and perceiving the truth in anything.

Beautifully said Blu.

The ego's greatest tool is in letting us know what we have become attached to. To observe that dispassionately and recognize that those in opposition are only acting in the exact same way as us based on what they have become attached to is a huge epithany and I think the beginning of a true sense of empathy.

" I am that". Chloe quoted that many months ago in a thread and it really resonated, can't remember where she quoted it from but it is compelling to understand that about each other I think.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the pages of this thread, but I'll just add this:

I think that Ego is not something that you 'have' or that's real part of 'you', but develops from the moment your parents, siblings, friends, neighbours, strangers and so on start commenting on how you look, behave and what you say and how you say it.

You develop a response: you reject it partly or totally or you accept it partly or totally, and then you adapt your thinking of self and how you behave.

These adaptations keep going on and on, consciously and subconsciously, until some sort of 'standing wave' has been formed between you and the others around you. This is what is called the Ego, your Identity.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Star

I always understood that the 'self' is an unchanging part of us, whereas the ego etc,. is ever changing.

That's an interesting reading of Jung's ideas about about the self. Is it a fixed something that already exists, or is it something to be constructed? It's funny; as you may know mathematicians debate whether maths are discovered or invented (built). Maybe individuation and the self are like that: ambiguous as to the precise terms of their existence.

Jung compared 'self' to a representation of 'God within us'. So I always understood it to be transcendent. I know Jung took flak for implying the 'self' is God, but I believe he tried to emphasise that the 'self' is only an image of God within our 'psyche'. It could be considered, what I and other religious people refer to as our 'soul'.

The last fifteen years of his life, after his NDE, saw a lot of movement in his thinking about God, although as a parson's son, nephew to two theologians, and descendant of both a freethinking rebel and a Catholic theologian from way back, Jung had religious thought in his blood.

I understand him to have distinguished between the imago Dei and the self. What I think did confuse a lot of people is that the archetypal respresentations of God and Self were the same, at least sometimes. But I think he intended to keep all three conceptually distinct.

His "definitive statement" about God was a January 1960 letter to the BBC magazine, The Listener, after a television interview in which he said he didn't "believe" in God, but rather he said, "I know." There is a discussion of that letter here:

http://uncertaintist...owledge-of-god/

and the text of the letter itself is available from the "Unlinks" section of the blog.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all the pages of this thread, but I'll just add this:

I think that Ego is not something that you 'have' or that's real part of 'you', but develops from the moment your parents, siblings, friends, neighbours, strangers and so on start commenting on how you look, behave and what you say and how you say it.

You develop a response: you reject it partly or totally or you accept it partly or totally, and then you adapt your thinking of self and how you behave.

These adaptations keep going on and on, consciously and subconsciously, until some sort of 'standing wave' has been formed between you and the others around you. This is what is called the Ego, your Identity.

:tu:

Well put..

Ego has so many analogies because one needs to place an analogy on something that is non-physical yet obviously real enough to be percieved by 100% of the world.. It's a standing wave, a mask that hides the true self, a false center, a defence mechanism, an auto pilot.. It can't be measured or weighed or touched, and yet in this thread we have weighed and measured and even disected it..... :D how cool is that!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tu:

Well put..

Ego has so many analogies because one needs to place an analogy on something that is non-physical yet obviously real enough to be percieved by 100% of the world.. It's a standing wave, a mask that hides the true self, a false center, a defence mechanism, an auto pilot.. It can't be measured or weighed or touched, and yet in this thread we have weighed and measured and even disected it..... :D how cool is that!

I am sure you know what a "standing wave" or a "stationary wave" is, but we can't expect everyone to have a working knowledge of physics in a psychologically oriented forum like this, lol.

So, for those who don't know what it is: you and a friend are holding a stretched out rope at both ends. Your friend starts shaking the rope in a certain frequency, creating a wave. You shake, and keep shaking the rope until you get that 'standing wave". First the rope will wiggle uncontrollably, but at some point you'll get the hang of it, and shake your end of the rope in the right frequency, and the "standing wave" is formed.

But yes, as far as I remember what they taught me in high school, "psyche" is the Greek word for "mask".

It's the mask we create along the road called life.

The main problem is: most people think that that mask is their real self.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Howdy, Star

That's an interesting reading of Jung's ideas about about the self. Is it a fixed something that already exists, or is it something to be constructed? It's funny; as you may know mathematicians debate whether maths are discovered or invented (built). Maybe individuation and the self are like that: ambiguous as to the precise terms of their existence.

The last fifteen years of his life, after his NDE, saw a lot of movement in his thinking about God, although as a parson's son, nephew to two theologians, and descendant of both a freethinking rebel and a Catholic theologian from way back, Jung had religious thought in his blood.

I understand him to have distinguished between the imago Dei and the self. What I think did confuse a lot of people is that the archetypal representations of God and Self were the same, at least sometimes. But I think he intended to keep all three conceptually distinct.

His "definitive statement" about God was a January 1960 letter to the BBC magazine, The Listener, after a television interview in which he said he didn't "believe" in God, but rather he said, "I know." There is a discussion of that letter here:

http://uncertaintist...owledge-of-god/

and the text of the letter itself is available from the "Links" section of the blog.

Thanks for the link 8ty!

I think the 'self' has always existed, throughout 'eternity' and to 'infinity' I have highlighted below in red from your article Jung's hypothesis on God and his thoughts, which is very similar to something I read on Jung's viewpoint a while back regarding his idea of God. This brought me to the conclusion that the 'self' never changes as it is a part/reflection of God within. Ambiguous is a good word for trying to describe something that is essentially 'divine' as it's open to more than one interpretation. You do make a very good point though because from a Catholic point of view regarding the 'soul' or 'self' you ask is it 'built?' or is it 'fixed?' which would tie in with the RCC belief that the 'soul' or aka the 'self' does change/develop, as in different states of Grace. So you have given me much 'food for thought' there 8Bits!

Jung's words are fascinating! I will 'bookmark' this 8Bits :tu:

"I do neither commit the importance of a hypostasis, nor of an arrogant qualification such as: 'God can only be good'. Only my experience can be good or evil, but I know that the superior will is based upon a foundation which transcends human imagination

Since I know of my collision with a superior will in my own physical system, I know of God, and if I should ventrue the illegitimate hypostasis of my image, I would say, of a God beyond good and evil, just as much dwelling in myself as everywhere else: Deus est circulus cujus centrum est ubique, cuis circumferentia vero musqueam."

Edited by Star of the Sea
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure you know what a "standing wave" or a "stationary wave" is, but we can't expect everyone to have a working knowledge of physics in a psychologically oriented forum like this, lol.

So, for those who don't know what it is: you and a friend are holding a stretched out rope at both ends. Your friend starts shaking the rope in a certain frequency, creating a wave. You shake, and keep shaking the rope until you get that 'standing wave". First the rope will wiggle uncontrollably, but at some point you'll get the hang of it, and shake your end of the rope in the right frequency, and the "standing wave" is formed.

But yes, as far as I remember what they taught me in high school, "psyche" is the Greek word for "mask".

It's the mask we create along the road called life.

The main problem is: most people think that that mask is their real self.

Bingo!! And Thanks..

Am reminded now of the infamous double bounce on the Trampoline trick. where instead of creating a standing wave a friend will create a double bounce or manipulate the effect of his or her friends motion or tragectory.. Am sure there is a physics term for this.. But as we are discussing Ego right now, am wondering if you are aware that this kind of manipulation occurs on an Ego Level? or to be more honest, just occured on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok what is mine, Prof. T?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bingo!! And Thanks..

Am reminded now of the infamous double bounce on the Trampoline trick. where instead of creating a standing wave a friend will create a double bounce or manipulate the effect of his or her friends motion or tragectory.. Am sure there is a physics term for this.. But as we are discussing Ego right now, am wondering if you are aware that this kind of manipulation occurs on an Ego Level? or to be more honest, just occured on you?

I'm sorry to say, but your analogy fails here.

And the physics therm is "action = -(minus) reaction"

It has nothing to do with intentionally change things.

.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say, but your analogy fails here.

And the physics therm is "action = -(minus) reaction"

It has nothing to do with intentionally change things.

.

.

Sweet as. It's quite subtle, I'll come clean regarding my intention here.

(btw, this is me picking your ego apart, which is kind of the way this thread has progressed)

Abramelin, your Ego is I think very sceptical in nature. Have not really been invoved with many of your posts, but what I've seen tells me that you are one for facts and figures, things you can measure and calculate and appreciate scientifically. Ghosts, Spirits, these kind of immesurable things are laughable in your opinion, and your big defence against these things is that they cant be measured or weighed or touched physically.. Also you measure and weigh your-self on the quality of information..

So I thought to myself, hmmmmmm, I'm going to manipulate his Ego into responding by placing emphasis on measuring the immeserable..

:tu:

Well put..

Ego has so many analogies because one needs to place an analogy on something that is non-physical yet obviously real enough to be percieved by 100% of the world.. It's a standing wave, a mask that hides the true self, a false center, a defence mechanism, an auto pilot.. It can't be measured or weighed or touched, and yet in this thread we have weighed and measured and even disected it..... :D how cool is that!

And your ego couldn't resist but respond with.

I am sure you know what a "standing wave" or a "stationary wave" is, but we can't expect everyone to have a working knowledge of physics in a psychologically oriented forum like this, lol.

So, for those who don't know what it is: you and a friend are holding a stretched out rope at both ends. Your friend starts shaking the rope in a certain frequency, creating a wave. You shake, and keep shaking the rope until you get that 'standing wave". First the rope will wiggle uncontrollably, but at some point you'll get the hang of it, and shake your end of the rope in the right frequency, and the "standing wave" is formed.

But yes, as far as I remember what they taught me in high school, "psyche" is the Greek word for "mask".

It's the mask we create along the road called life.

The main problem is: most people think that that mask is their real self.

So, going back to the "Double bounce on the trampoline analogy".. From my perspective, I just double bounced your Ego into a direction/responce.. Don't think of this physically, because there was nothing physical about it.. It was my intention to get you to respond to measurement by enguaging you Ego.

Does that make sense?

"Or am I wrong?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“ Ego is the biggest enemy of humans. ” -- The Rig Veda

[A polite request: Please don't flame. I am just inserting a relevant quote to a relevant thread.]

Thank you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Star

That's an interesting reading of Jung's ideas about about the self. Is it a fixed something that already exists, or is it something to be constructed? It's funny; as you may know mathematicians debate whether maths are discovered or invented (built). Maybe individuation and the self are like that: ambiguous as to the precise terms of their existence.

The last fifteen years of his life, after his NDE, saw a lot of movement in his thinking about God, although as a parson's son, nephew to two theologians, and descendant of both a freethinking rebel and a Catholic theologian from way back, Jung had religious thought in his blood.

I understand him to have distinguished between the imago Dei and the self. What I think did confuse a lot of people is that the archetypal respresentations of God and Self were the same, at least sometimes. But I think he intended to keep all three conceptually distinct.

His "definitive statement" about God was a January 1960 letter to the BBC magazine, The Listener, after a television interview in which he said he didn't "believe" in God, but rather he said, "I know." There is a discussion of that letter here:

http://uncertaintist...owledge-of-god/

and the text of the letter itself is available from the "Unlinks" section of the blog.

I have always concluded that Jung was speaking of intuition, based on what I have read that his g-d sense was an analogy for intuition.

I do think that intuition is a way to perceive things that are a part of reality ( I have to add that I think that intuition is a way of perceiving but it is something that is cultivated and can be trusted if developed, by trusted I do not even imply or for one second suggest that it can vouch for g-ds or angels etc. etc. ) But I'm suggesting that for some people they can sense their way around things even when they cannot quite articulate what it is they are sensing. In fact, I think it is a common quality of one who is interested/and has a lot of experience in psychology or in working with patients.

Truthfully, I do not glean at all that Jung was arguing for a G-d from his letter or think that Jung thought there was a g-d(no shocker here as we all know my position on g-d) but instead was using this understanding as way to explain intuition.

This is Just my 2 cents, not anything more.

Edited by Sherapy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always concluded that Jung was speaking of intuition, based on what I have read that his g-d sense was an analogy for intuition.

I do think that intuition is a way to perceive things that are a part of reality ( I have to add that I think that intuition is a way of perceiving but it is something that is cultivated and can be trusted if developed, by trusted I do not even imply or for one second suggest that it can vouch for gds or angels etc. etc. ) But I'm suggesting that for some people they can sense their way around things even when they cannot quite articulate what it is they are sensing. In fact, I think it is a common quality of one who is interested/and has a lot of experience in psychology or in working with patients.

Truthfully, I do not glean at all that Jung was arguing for a G-d from his letter or think that Jung thought there was a g-d(no shocker here as we all know my position on g-d) but instead was using this understanding as way to explain intuition.

This is Just my 2 cents, not anything more.

Yes Sheri I think he saw the 'self' something akin to God as an Archetype. That's an interesting point you made on 'intuition' :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet as. It's quite subtle, I'll come clean regarding my intention here.

(btw, this is me picking your ego apart, which is kind of the way this thread has progressed)

Abramelin, your Ego is I think very sceptical in nature. Have not really been invoved with many of your posts, but what I've seen tells me that you are one for facts and figures, things you can measure and calculate and appreciate scientifically. Ghosts, Spirits, these kind of immesurable things are laughable in your opinion, and your big defence against these things is that they cant be measured or weighed or touched physically.. Also you measure and weigh your-self on the quality of information..

So I thought to myself, hmmmmmm, I'm going to manipulate his Ego into responding by placing emphasis on measuring the immeserable..

And your ego couldn't resist but respond with.

So, going back to the "Double bounce on the trampoline analogy".. From my perspective, I just double bounced your Ego into a direction/responce.. Don't think of this physically, because there was nothing physical about it.. It was my intention to get you to respond to measurement by enguaging you Ego.

Does that make sense?

"Or am I wrong?"

I am not very skeptical by nature, I have become skeptical based on my experience.

If I am only for things that can be measured, then what an I doing in a forum about philosophy and psychology?

And your analogy: if you stand on a trampoline doing nothing, you'll get bounced off, ie: something happens. If you do nothing in the standing wave analogy, nothing happens.

You think you 'made' me answer, but believe me: I could as easily have let it go and not say a word. However, I realized - like I said - that this is a forum about philosophy and psychology, so I thought it might be better to explain what I had posted before.

For me it was an interesting diversion from topics I'm usually engaged in on UM. What you don't know (and couldn't know) is that I had a board about 'spiritual things' (shamanism, philosphies, dreams and so on) for some 6 years. Hardly anything about 'hard facts' if you will.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star and Sheri

"Jung: God, Self and Ego" might be a better topic for a dissertation than a web forum posting :).

Here's my take. I omit "in my opinion" throughout, but that's all it is.

Jung didn't intend his 1959 TV statement about God to replace the 1955 version in Time magazine. He was wrong-footed in the give-and-take of conversation, and the 1960 letter "takes it back." Status quo ante is his slightly but crucially longer 1955 statement:

"I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God."

Unpacking that statement is the problem. "Something that people call God" is key, I think. Jung made a distinction between his scientific work and his personal work. "Something that people call God" is a statement about psychology, within his area of scientific expertise. What lies beyond science is what, if anything, is the external reality of this something that people call God.

That everybody is left to decide for themselves, both what's really out there and what Jung thought was really out there. He created a borderland, called "psychological reality," in which he could make "metaphysical statements" but commit himself to no more than that the statements talked about how people experienced things.

The borderland is a barrier to our looking beyond psychology through his eyes. We can only guess what Jung really thinks based on what he includes in his psychological reality. I think it is also meaningful to notice obvious things that he omits. The purpose of "psychological reality" is to compartmentlaize, so he might omit things that are too inflammatory, too revealing to include.

For example, the central events of Jung's life, both personal and professional, were his vivid encounters with Philemon, a psychologically real being whom anybody else would call an angel.

https://philemonfoun...n.org/philemon/

Jung places himself squarely within the culture that calls beings like Philemon angels, and he is indisputably steeped in that culture in real reality. But Jung doesn't call Philemon an angel.

What's up with that?

Another omission which I find crucial. Jung clearly believes that what happens in psychological reality is coordinated with or otherwise comes to pass in material reality. He will not explain how that coordination happens, but he will just leave it there that it does happen. The link is not just "agency," that someone might use material means to accomplish some goal they've adopted. But he did that, too, literally building, as in partly with his own hands, his literal dream house. Being an agent is also crucial to acquiring the experiences that promote individuation.

On that backhanded basis, I conclude that Jung's view was that Philemon is an angel, and in the most classic sense, an emissary of God. Perhaps the actual effect of "psychological reality" on Jung's perception, and so on his description, of such things is St Paul's (1 Cor 13:12)

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If so, then who or what is the God who sent Philemon? A voice, like intuition or conscience? I think Jung was quite serious about the phrase "being gripped" in 1955, and that imagery is physical. As the 1960 letter puts it, he does confront a voice of God in the form of conscience, but God is identified with fate, and - wait for it - "My fate means very much myself."

So, I think Jung's God is not an analogy for anything, and is more than any entirely interior experience, but what exactly more than that, he isn't telling. Moreover, Jung's God wouldn't easily be described in words. Duh. However an ineffable God is hardly peculiar to Jung.

If I've got Jung's God right, then I would place Self as God's partner in a kind of theosis in the Eastern Orthodox usage. Their idea is that God and each human partner can exist in a sort of union, always distinct but also always asymptotically approaching unity. That is a process that unfolds over time, and outside of time as well. (Note to Star: theoretically, theosis is the Roman Catholic Beatific Vision, or so I am told.)

Jung's Self, then, maybe the "other party" in theosis, perhaps conceived of as being formed and molded during its actively pursued and ever increasing participation, rather than, say, being some fully formed object which might, in a physical analogy, passively find itself in a decaying orbit around a massive sun.

Just as I find it significant that Jung can go on and on about Philemon without saying the A-word, I find it remarkable that he can go on and on about church history and hardly ever mention theosis. There can be no question that he knew about the concept, however, and I think it is the Ur-model of his ideas about God and Self, to the extent that anything in words might ever capture the idea.

Finally, then, we see our old friend ego. He or she's just the part of the Self that's already lit up with consciousness. Ego would at first seem hardly worth mentioning compared with the enormity of the ocean of Self on which the little boat of ego floats, or the transcendent Cosmic Field whose tugs are the ocean's tides.

But, being lit up, little ego is the only part we see clearly, and the only part we can talk about, because it's the only part that can talk. Well, talk and we can hear it talking.

For now.

Those are my thoughts. Hopefully I have clarified something, if not what Jung actually thought, then at least what I think he might have thought.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star and Sheri

"Jung: God, Self and Ego" might be a better topic for a dissertation than a web forum posting :).

Here's my take. I omit "in my opinion" throughout, but that's all it is.

Jung didn't intend his 1959 TV statement about God to replace the 1955 version in Time magazine. He was wrong-footed in the give-and-take of conversation, and the 1960 letter "takes it back." Status quo ante is his slightly but crucially longer 1955 statement:

"I could not say I believe. I know! I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God."

Unpacking that statement is the problem. "Something that people call God" is key, I think. Jung made a distinction between his scientific work and his personal work. "Something that people call God" is a statement about psychology, within his area of scientific expertise. What lies beyond science is what, if anything, is the external reality of this something that people call God.

That everybody is left to decide for themselves, both what's really out there and what Jung thought was really out there. He created a borderland, called "psychological reality," in which he could make "metaphysical statements" but commit himself to no more than that the statements talked about how people experienced things.

The borderland is a barrier to our looking beyond psychology through his eyes. We can only guess what Jung really thinks based on what he includes in his psychological reality. I think it is also meaningful to notice obvious things that he omits. The purpose of "psychological reality" is to compartmentlaize, so he might omit things that are too inflammatory, too revealing to include.

For example, the central events of Jung's life, both personal and professional, were his vivid encounters with Philemon, a psychologically real being whom anybody else would call an angel.

https://philemonfoun...n.org/philemon/

Jung places himself squarely within the culture that calls beings like Philemon angels, and he is indisputably steeped in that culture in real reality. But Jung doesn't call Philemon an angel.

What's up with that?

Another omission which I find crucial. Jung clearly believes that what happens in psychological reality is coordinated with or otherwise comes to pass in material reality. He will not explain how that coordination happens, but he will just leave it there that it does happen. The link is not just "agency," that someone might use material means to accomplish some goal they've adopted. But he did that, too, literally building, as in partly with his own hands, his literal dream house. Being an agent is also crucial to acquiring the experiences that promote individuation.

On that backhanded basis, I conclude that Jung's view was that Philemon is an angel, and in the most classic sense, an emissary of God. Perhaps the actual effect of "psychological reality" on Jung's perception, and so on his description, of such things is St Paul's (1 Cor 13:12)

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

If so, then who or what is the God who sent Philemon? A voice, like intuition or conscience? I think Jung was quite serious about the phrase "being gripped" in 1955, and that imagery is physical. As the 1960 letter puts it, he does confront a voice of God in the form of conscience, but God is identified with fate, and - wait for it - "My fate means very much myself."

So, I think Jung's God is not an analogy for anything, and is more than any entirely interior experience, but what exactly more than that, he isn't telling. Moreover, Jung's God wouldn't easily be described in words. Duh. However an ineffable God is hardly peculiar to Jung.

If I've got Jung's God right, then I would place Self as God's partner in a kind of theosis in the Eastern Orthodox usage. Their idea is that God and each human partner can exist in a sort of union, always distinct but also always asymptotically approaching unity. That is a process that unfolds over time, and outside of time as well. (Note to Star: theoretically, theosis is the Roman Catholic Beatific Vision, or so I am told.)

Jung's Self, then, maybe the "other party" in theosis, perhaps conceived of as being formed and molded during its actively pursued and ever increasing participation, rather than, say, being some fully formed object which might, in a physical analogy, passively find itself in a decaying orbit around a massive sun.

Just as I find it significant that Jung can go on and on about Philemon without saying the A-word, I find it remarkable that he can go on and on about church history and hardly ever mention theosis. There can be no question that he knew about the concept, however, and I think it is the Ur-model of his ideas about God and Self, to the extent that anything in words might ever capture the idea.

Finally, then, we see our old friend ego. He or she's just the part of the Self that's already lit up with consciousness. Ego would at first seem hardly worth mentioning compared with the enormity of the ocean of Self on which the little boat of ego floats, or the transcendent Cosmic Field whose tugs are the ocean's tides.

But, being lit up, little ego is the only part we see clearly, and the only part we can talk about, because it's the only part that can talk. Well, talk and we can hear it talking.

For now.

Those are my thoughts. Hopefully I have clarified something, if not what Jung actually thought, then at least what I think he might have thought.

@8bits/Star

Very interesting and you(8bits) could be 100 percent on this. I just see it different.

I spent a year (4 times a week) in Psychoanalysis(after my sister was murdered) My opinion only reflects this experience to be clear. In Psychoanalysis, the way I experienced it --one explores the symbolic meaning of their dreams. It is personal to each person and symbols would be a reflection of their own conditioning/ tradition/teachings/culture/religion etc. and these symbols are a way for the person to understand and explore their own life to seek clarity, work through issues and gain understandings and connect to the many aspects of a multifarious self if you will. In other words-- dream books are just a over generalized idea of what goes on in Psychoanalysis e.g. bears will not hold the same meaning for all of us. I think that is the point Jung is making, or as Star suggested is nothing more than archetypes. For ex: I dreamed often of vampires which represented my fears (yet I hold no belief in vampires-- nor do I think I have a personal one, nor do I think they are real. It was just a way to confront my fears at the time subconsciously.) I have a hunch that now a days my representation of fear would not be vampires. I do not think symbols are static. They represent a moment in time. Just my 2 cents leaving me to ponder a lot of intriguing questions.

I think That 'Philemon' for Jung was his representation of objectivity/super ego at the time --just as a vampire complete with castle was mine for fear at the time.

Of course I could be wrong and most likely am. Wouldn't it be grand to be able to have a Jung's Last Session and ask.

For now we are just left with our own ideas on things.

Great conversation 8ty and Star.

Edited by Sherapy
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.