Why did you become so sceptical to religion?

[Dejarma]

11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

If i wrote simply i could only discuss the simpler elements of complex things.

why not try simple? see how it goes

[Mr Walker]

On 6/18/2020 at 3:06 AM, Scudbuster said:

Boy, now there's an understatement. 

I was wondering, do you actually sleep at night, or perhaps just babble back and forth...? 

lol While i used to spend a few hours a day on UM i now spend less than one 

I think and type quickly, if not always totally accurately 

So Um is a small but happy part of my daily life 

I sleep from  about 1 am to 8am in winter  1 to 7 in summer, but many nights both my wife and i are up reading until 2 or 3 o clock.

We can choose our own time to get up.

Very approximately an average days  time would be spent like this 

6 hours sleeping   4 hours on household chores including taking the dog for a run /shopping  collecting/ chopping wood, setting the fire cooking and cleaning up  etc. 3 hours  playing games. A couple of hours watching movies.  a couple of hours reading, an hour on UM  and maybe another hour on a couple of you  tube channels    an hour having a coffee, reading the paper, and socialising  an hour travelling (averaged out over a week)  

In good weather more time would be spent on gardening  etc. in winter more on indoor activities  I also have things like gym and book club, among other social activities . I spend some time in the library and browsing second hand shops  

All in all, every day is packed, and there is never enough time. I am busier now than when i worked but i have more time to choose my activities 

 

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

I think and type quickly, if not always totally accurately 

therefore you shouldn't think & type so quick then

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

why not try simple? see how it goes

I can write simply with a lot of effort.

I have to consciously translate complex thoughts into simpler words 

  However, again, simple words cant communicate complex ideas, and abstract thoughts. 

Ps i do write poetry, and that is a form where  fewer words and less punctuation can be used  BUT, to be effective, the brain reading any writing needs to be "as good" or knowledgeable  as the brain which wrote it 

it is a simple truth that some people cannot, or choose not to,  think deeply and in complicated logical ways.  Many always respond with either  emotional responses or rigid internal views 

It is not so much intelligence, as education and training in cognition and language  

There remain some writing  in English which i have to work hard to comprehend, and ive spent a lifetime learning and teaching the English language

Today you can google the meaning of a word.

For most of my life you had to learn it and memorise it, and how to use it contextually.  

[Dejarma]

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

However, again, simple words cant communicate complex ideas, and abstract thoughts

well you're right there= you can't do it 

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

therefore you shouldn't think & type so quick then

not really, we know that humans can read a sentence without any vowels in it.  True it's a bit selfish  not to produce perfect prose, but  some typos shouldn't affect comprehension  

I type as fast as I can which is quickly but not as fast as i am thinking It is hard to get all my thoughts down 

generally  i type an initial draft as fast as I can then go back and check it  The first draft might have an error in most words or punctuation places 

I am not fastidious with this checking, and my spell checker  doesn't work half the time (ie it wont correct an error but mainly i "resent " the time i have to spend correcting when i could be writing something new 

Finally, of course,  human writing needs to be " fit for purpose"   (No more and no less) My writing her is more careful than my shopping list or notes to myself but not as careful as a piece for  commercial publication/posterity or work.

eg i take more care with posts on facebook than the ones here      

I wrote thousands of reports to parents  without  more than a very occasional error. 

[Mr Walker]

4 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

well you're right there= you can't do it 

no one can.

If an idea itself consists of complex, abstract,  discrete elements, then it cannot be effectively broken down into simple, concrete,  discrete elements, without losing  understanding/meaning.

   eg there are some here who try to define love as a simple chemical reaction That is not just false, it simplifies a complex human cognitive process down to the point where the nature of love cannot be conveyed.

  To truly understand love you need an understanding of human cognition, psychology, sociology,  and biology You need to know the nature and power of symbolic and abstract thinking.   You need some understanding of evolutionary theory. 

Of course we can EXPERIENCE love in a variety of forms, but try explaining it in words 

It is hard (which i suspect is why some people default to the claim that it is NOT complex, but a simple chemical response.) 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Dejarma]

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

not really, we know that humans can read a sentence without any vowels in it.  True it's a bit selfish  not to produce perfect prose, but  some typos shouldn't affect comprehension  

I type as fast as I can which is quickly but not as fast as i am thinking It is hard to get all my thoughts down 

generally  i type an initial draft as fast as I can then go back and check it  The first draft might have an error in most words or punctuation places 

I am not fastidious with this checking, and my spell checker  doesn't work half the time (ie it wont correct an error but mainly i "resent " the time i have to spend correcting when i could be writing something new 

Finally, of course,  human writing needs to be " fit for purpose"   (No more and no less) My writing her is more careful than my shopping list or notes to myself but not as careful as a piece for  commercial publication/posterity or work.

eg i take more care with posts on facebook than the ones here      

I wrote thousands of reports to parents  without  more than a very occasional error. 

 

21 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

think and type quickly, if not always totally accurately 

you've admitted to this forum that at times you're not always accurate- what does that mean?

Give us all an example where you feel you haven't been accurate with your words in this place?

To me= (being a very very very clever person, prove otherwise) what you've typed in this place up to now should be highly questionable- is this not rational thinking in your opinion?

[Mr Walker]

36 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

 

you've admitted to this forum that at times you're not always accurate- what does that mean?

Give us all an example where you feel you haven't been accurate with your words in this place?

To me= (being a very very very clever person, prove otherwise) what you've typed in this place up to now should be highly questionable- is this not rational thinking in your opinion?

well for exanple this is my first drt of a post it contians inacuracies. probaly nothing whicuprevents undertsnding but still iths mistakes Thats the sort of mistake iam talkng about typographical not factual. 

 t took me 20 seconds to type that. ie about 100-110 wpm. it would take me a bit under another minute to correct it until there were only very minor errors, if any.  (I just experimented, and corrected it completely in 45 seconds.)  Thus such corrections deprive me of time to write  twice as much again.  

THOSE are the mistakes I am speaking of.( or pedantically, of which I am speaking)  Typing errors, not errors of fact or opinion. 

Some people prefer a post to be perfect, in spelling and punctuation. To me it only needs to be fit for purpose 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

well for exanple this is my first drt of a post it contians inacuracies. probaly nothing whicuprevents undertsnding but still iths mistakes Thats the sort of mistake iam talkng about typographical not factual. 

well in that case you're not as good as you think at communicating, are ya!! Myself being highly intelligent & good (I feel) at communication I would have pointed out I meant the: 'spelling & grammar' element of my posts...

Having thought about it:

how could someone like your good self who proclaims the ultimate interest & authority over the written word allow themselves to make so many 'self-confessed' mistakes in public? You fascinate me

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Dejarma said:

well in that case you're not as good as you think at communicating, are ya!! Myself being highly intelligent & good (I feel) at communication I would have pointed out I meant the: 'spelling & grammar' element of my posts...

Having thought about it:

how could someone like your good self who proclaims the ultimate interest & authority over the written word allow themselves to make so many 'self-confessed' mistakes in public? You fascinate me

I think and type quickly, if not always totally accurately 

This was the sentence i used.  Looking at it again,i cant see how you could interpret it as anything else than what i wrote. Explanation should have been/would have been redundant The sentence structure gives definition to what i meant.    

The subject was my typing skills, and the clause/phrase about  accuracy was connected to the subject,  nothing else.

The one thing i will give you is my inclusion of thinking.  I can see how you might have thought i also meant that i thought inaccurately (but that is not really what you were questioning was it ? )

I don't proclaim any such thing 

I love words, and using them.

. I am good a t it. 

That's all. 

On a site like this I balance the time needed for perfection, with the time required to write a post and express an opinion etc.

  I balance the two in the way I think most effective.

I could write perfectly, and some wouldnt understand what i wrote.On the other hand some imperfections usually don't cause a problem.

(of course some ( possibly anal retentives)  even get upset because my lines are not perfectly aligned/indented    )

I have my spell checker set on Australian English, which is different to American English, but half the time it doesn't work, anyway 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

44 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

his was the sentence i used.  Looking at it again,i cant see how you could interpret it as anything else than what i wrote. Explanation should have been/would have been redundant The sentence structure gives definition to what i meant. 

Hi Walker 

The y would be a problem with that Because the y would be incorrect in telling me that the y would be no errors

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

4 hours ago, Dejarma said:

well in that case you're not as good as you think at communicating, are ya!! Myself being highly intelligent & good (I feel) at communication I would have pointed out I meant the: 'spelling & grammar' element of my posts...

Having thought about it:

how could someone like your good self who proclaims the ultimate interest & authority over the written word allow themselves to make so many 'self-confessed' mistakes in public? You fascinate me

Hi Dejarma

 Walker's god is different and will die while one day Walker will be greater than his god(how his god dies is still a mystery but I think the butler did it with the candle stick) gods don't make mistakes followers ask to be enlightened duh

jmccr8

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

In this respect, i believe the y are similar to Jung's Philemon

Well, there's a provcative thought.

In what way? Philemon wasn't "based upon" anybody from Jung's real life or family. "Physically," he was a mash-up of Christian symbols, mostly an anthropomorphic angel with a few personal flourishes (e.g. his wings were those of a kingfisher) who self-identified with human Biblical figures. Nobody besides Jung ever saw Philemon, so far as I can recall, even when Jung met with him outdoors. A person might see Jung walking in the garden while seeming to talk "with somebody else," but not see or hear the somebody else.

Although whether Jung was mentally ill at the time he interacted with Philemon is historically controversial, he feared that he was. At a minimum his ego (In the Jungian sense, the conscious faculty that deals with reality) was repeatedly overwhelmed by unconscious contents. This is usually thought to be undesirable.

In short, not the sort of thing I'd have thought somebody like you would want to get involved with. Jung didn't have any panel of psychiatrists certifying his sanity, and the one psychiatrist on-site, himself, expressed doubts on the subject.

 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Well, there's a provcative thought.

In what way? Philemon wasn't "based upon" anybody from Jung's real life or family. "Physically," he was a mash-up of Christian symbols, mostly an anthropomorphic angel with a few personal flourishes (e.g. his wings were those of a kingfisher) who self-identified with human Biblical figures. Nobody besides Jung ever saw Philemon, so far as I can recall, even when Jung met with him outdoors. A person might see Jung walking in the garden while seeming to talk "with somebody else," but not see or hear the somebody else.

Although whether Jung was mentally ill at the time he interacted with Philemon is historically controversial, he feared that he was. At a minimum his ego (In the Jungian sense, the conscious faculty that deals with reality) was repeatedly overwhelmed by unconscious contents. This is usually thought to be undesirable.

In short, not the sort of thing I'd have thought somebody like you would want to get involved with. Jung didn't have any panel of psychiatrists certifying his sanity, and the one psychiatrist on-site, himself, expressed doubts on the subject.

 

In the way my cognitive constructs resemble what ive read of Philemon. Not in their physical form but in its cognitive structure, and Jungs own perceived relationship with/connection to, it. 

 Interestingly, over time, Jung's description of  Philemon changes/varies.

He also seems understandably but  (IMO) unjustifiably concerned about other people's judgements on this abilty  That concern grows over time and alters his descriptions of Philemon Later he almost seem to deny it as a separate "entity' to himself  ie to  his conscious mind. 

At  other times he almost describes it as a real independent archetype  which does not come from his own mind,  or is independent of it.

Other times he describes it as a mix of ancient  archetypes.   He  seems to be unsure exactly what form/  shape of  cognitive structure Philomen has.

  He later  saw it as faustian

This quote might provide clarity as to what i was getting at with my constructs of my parents and how they resemble Philemon

quote

“Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself. In my fantasies I held conversations with him, and he said things which I had not consciously thought. For I observed clearly that it was he who spoke, not I.

 It was he who taught me psychic objectivity, the reality of the psyche. Through him the distinction was clarified between myself and the object of my thought. He confronted me in an objective manner, and I understood that there is something in me which can say things that I do not know and do not intend, things which may even be directed against me.”

end quote 

Note the bolded bits.  That is exactly the nature,  form, and relationship, of my parental constructs 

and yes, in a big difference from  "god', these are cognitive structures or archetypes, which exist entirely in my mind.

  I am aware of their nature, their structure, and the psychological /cognitive  purposes the y serve.   eg providing other pov which don't originate from  my mind but from  the cognitive structures of my parents Of course Jung was not mentally ill when he had these experiences The y are available to anyone with the knowldge and skill to construct and use them.

  jungs problem was that, despite his intellect and skills he lived in a time when the nature of mind and psychology was in its infancy  He didnt understand what was happening to him and possibly did see it as a form of mental illness.

it is not.

It is a skill of the human mind which can be learned, trained and used. 

Modern experts now know this and would not classify Jung as mentally unwell but rather,  possessing an abilty he didn't really understand or know how to use. i think hyper sane is a term used to describe this level of consciousness 

quote

in The Politics of Experience and the Bird of Paradise (1967) by R.D. Laing. In this book, the Scottish psychiatrist presented "madness" as a voyage of discovery that could open out onto a free state of higher consciousness, or hypersanity. For Laing, the descent into madness could lead to a reckoning, to an awakening, to "breakthrough" rather than "breakdown."

A few months later, I read C.G. Jung’s autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (1962), which provided a vivid case in point. 

end quote

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/hide-and-seek/201908/hypersanity

 

quote

Many ‘normal’ people suffer from not being hypersane: they have a restricted worldview, confused priorities, and are wracked by stress, anxiety and self-deception. As a result, they sometimes do dangerous things, and become fanatics or fascists or otherwise destructive (or not constructive) people. In contrast, hypersane people are calm, contained and constructive. It is not just that the ‘sane’ are irrational but that they lack scope and range, as though they’ve grown into the prisoners of their arbitrary lives, locked up in their own dark and narrow subjectivity. Unable to take leave of their selves, they hardly look around them, barely see beauty and possibility, rarely contemplate the bigger picture – and all, ultimately, for fear of losing their selves, of breaking down, of going mad, using one form of extreme subjectivity to defend against another, as life – mysterious, magical life – slips through their fingers.

https://ahmetasabanci.com/the-hypersane-are-among-us/

 

https://www.amazon.com/Hypersanity-Thinking-Beyond-Neel-Burton-ebook/dp/B07T3WCYQC

I suspect that, like my own ability, it came from  his years of studying and strengthening  his own mind  until he began to construct and access this archetype 

It requires training, discipline, and time; first to identify the subconscious and be able to read it.

It then requires more discipline, in particular, to learn how to control it and integrate it in your conscious mind, rather than allowing it to overwhelm your conscious mind or threaten your ego

. it is a PART of your ego and cognitive  identity,  not a threat to it .

I went through this from  about the age of 3 or so, ( withe help of my mother and fathers explanations as to the nature of mind, both conscious and subconscious, ego, identity and stream of consciousness and other forms of inner conversations )  until well into my teens , and so it was not scary, but empowering.

 I didnt know it was unusual, or supposed to be scary.  I used it to eliminate fears, and to control dreams and emotions.To come to  be able to communicate with my subconscious and to integrate it safely as a  part  of the conscious mind.  Ps while jung first encountered Philemon in a dream in the form you describe and which he painted the archetype later appeared in many forms including an old human male 

  if jung was alive today, his fears would be put to rest, and he would be able to, more fully and effectively, use this significant cognitive skill (you will note that despite   his fears, he saw it as a wise mentor with knowledge and understanding beyond his own) 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dejarma

 Walker's god is different and will die while one day Walker will be greater than his god(how his god dies is still a mystery but I think the butler did it with the candle stick) gods don't make mistakes followers ask to be enlightened duh

jmccr8

lol No, i cant be greater than, "my god"  We are symbiotic parts, but its part is much older, wiser, and more powerful, than i am  

My point was that humans will  one day be perceived as gods by emerging self  aware intelligences .

And, no, while a god is born as a member of an evolved species it will not necessarily die. Immortality will soon be obtainable by humans, using human science, so a being  much advanced from   us will find technologies which allow it  very very long lives  

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

He also seems understandably but  (IMO) unjustifiably concerned about other people's judgements on this abilty  That concern grows over time and alters his descriptions of Philemon Later he almost seem to deny it as a separate "entity' to himself  ie to  his conscious mind. 

That's the $64 question behind the historical "controversy" about his mental illness-or-health. IF he was metally ill (as I personally think he plainly was ... and what'd be so terrible about Jung being a "wounded healer" anyway?), then the disease was something like acute schizophrenia - there came a point after which he was mentally healthy again.

So of course he then recognized Philemon as having been something originating within himself, rather than anything truly separate, despite Philemon having seemed to be separate at the time. Those are the objective facts of the matter - there never was a Philemon except as a transient part of Jung.

ETA: Of course, that's different from your parents. Being real people, you could make a mental model of them from lived experience. I don't know how those models might have developed, especially once the orignal people no longer constrained the models' development. Plus, I don't know how accurate or realistic the models ever were - just that the models had a concrete, real-life foundation which Philemon did not.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

He later  saw it as faustian

Probably from the beginning. Philemon is the name of a character in Goethe's Faust (and as an additional complication, Jung believed that he was a "wrong side of the bed" descendant of Goethe).

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

quote

Yes, Philemon was Jung's imaginary friend. Alas, Jung wasn't 5 years old at the time.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

breakthrough

Laing's position is subtler than the blogger's summary. The key thing for Laing, IMO, was that by the time the acute schizophrenic patient showed dramatic symptoms (and so came to the psychiatrist's attention), the actual illness had come and gone (in Laing's view). The "symptoms" were in some sense the aches and pains of repairing the damage of having had a damaging illness. The goal of therapy, then, would be to help the repair-rebuilding enterprise along, which might include "mining" the hallucinations and delusions for hints about how the rebuild was getting on.

While Jung knew none of this when he was channeling Philemon, he was nevertheless a seasoned psychiatrist with lots of both clinical and "theoretical" background. Although doctors are notorious for being bad patients, still, there are times when being a physician contributes to a good outcome. Jung may be an example.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

an old human male 

Philemon had a back story, in which he'd been a biblical prophet. The LDS' Moroni would be a comparable being: an angel now, but a human in the past, and both "the same being" despite the different forms at different times.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

  if jung was alive today, his fears would be put to rest, and he would be able to, more fully and effectively, use this significant cognitive skill (you will note that despite   his fears, he saw it as a wise mentor with knowledge and understanding beyond his own) 

Well, for one thing, he wouldn't have needed to be his own physician. But another thing about acute schizophrenia is that once recovered, the survivor may look back on the episode of illness as a net positive thing. As it may have been, however harrowing it was to get through it.

Edited June 20, 2020 by eight bits

[XenoFish]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Well, there's a provcative thought.

In what way? Philemon wasn't "based upon" anybody from Jung's real life or family. "Physically," he was a mash-up of Christian symbols, mostly an anthropomorphic angel with a few personal flourishes (e.g. his wings were those of a kingfisher) who self-identified with human Biblical figures. Nobody besides Jung ever saw Philemon, so far as I can recall, even when Jung met with him outdoors. A person might see Jung walking in the garden while seeming to talk "with somebody else," but not see or hear the somebody else.

Although whether Jung was mentally ill at the time he interacted with Philemon is historically controversial, he feared that he was. At a minimum his ego (In the Jungian sense, the conscious faculty that deals with reality) was repeatedly overwhelmed by unconscious contents. This is usually thought to be undesirable.

In short, not the sort of thing I'd have thought somebody like you would want to get involved with. Jung didn't have any panel of psychiatrists certifying his sanity, and the one psychiatrist on-site, himself, expressed doubts on the subject.

 

Philemon might have been his way to organize his inner world. Just a thought.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Philemon might have been his way to organize his inner world. Just a thought.

More than the inner world, I think. Jung had recently had the crap kicked out of him by the break-up with Freud. He wasn't going to miss any meals (Mrs. Jung was loaded), but he had no career prospects, either. It was the outer world-facing aspects of Jung's self, ego and persona, that needed rebuilding from ruins.

I think Philemon, then, was comparable with that phenomenon we discuss here sometimes where somebody who gets lost in the hostile wilderness suddenly finds themselves face-to-face with a friendly helpful guide. It's an expression of the lost person's inner world, but that inner world is already more organized, somehow knowing what to do, than the outer person, who's lost and in big trouble.

I hope I don't come across dismissive of Philemon, just because he had no existence apart from Jung (and except as that part of Jung, in turn, is "collective" rather than "personal" unconscious content). He's a hell of a thought-form. I'd be honored to walk with him in the woods anytime.

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

More than the inner world, I think. Jung had recently had the crap kicked out of him by the break-up with Freud. He wasn't going to miss any meals (Mrs. Jung was loaded), but he had no career prospects, either. It was the outer world-facing aspects of Jung's self, ego and persona, that needed rebuilding from ruins.

As above, so below. As within, so without. Our inner world often reflects our outward experience. Right?

I don't think it's too different from someone asking god for help/talking to god. God is just a way to express thoughts, feelings, and emotions. To organize them and unconsciously sort them out. That's just my opinion though.

[eight bits]

15 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I don't think it's too different from someone asking god for help/talking to god. God is just a way to express thoughts, feelings, and emotions. To organize them and unconsciously sort them out. That's just my opinion though.

Ah, but then what about when God talks back? (Thank you, Tanya Luhrmann, for the use of one of your book titles.)

Philemon, BTW, was good with language. He's the author of Seven Sermons to the Dead. Not to everybody's taste, but influential on a Nobel laureate for literature, Hermann Hesse (specifically, the basis for the "Pistorius" section of the Hesse novel Demian).

http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

ETA: Ok, I can't resist. That link gives more evidence for the existence of Philemon than all the evidence there is anywhere for the existence of Jesus. Recall that the topic is why did you become so skeptical to religion?.

Edited June 20, 2020 by eight bits

[XenoFish]

Just now, eight bits said:

Ah, but then what about when God talks back? (Thank you, Tanya Luhrmann, for the use of one of your book titles.)

Philemon, BTW, was good with language. He's the author of Seven Sermons to the Dead. Not to everybody's taste, but influential on a Nobel laureate for literature, Hermann Hesse (specifically, the basis for the "Pistorius" section of the Hesse novel Demian).

http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm

 

Who says it's God? I think we all have a little inner voice that pops up from time to time, as well as getting "light bulb" moments of inspiration, correct? I'll have to check the link when my cognitive functions are 100%. Working outside has drained me.

[+Sherapy]

16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

not really, we know that humans can read a sentence without any vowels in it.  True it's a bit selfish  not to produce perfect prose, but  some typos shouldn't affect comprehension  

I type as fast as I can which is quickly but not as fast as i am thinking It is hard to get all my thoughts down 

generally  i type an initial draft as fast as I can then go back and check it  The first draft might have an error in most words or punctuation places 

I am not fastidious with this checking, and my spell checker  doesn't work half the time (ie it wont correct an error but mainly i "resent " the time i have to spend correcting when i could be writing something new 

Finally, of course,  human writing needs to be " fit for purpose"   (No more and no less) My writing her is more careful than my shopping list or notes to myself but not as careful as a piece for  commercial publication/posterity or work.

eg i take more care with posts on facebook than the ones here      

I wrote thousands of reports to parents  without  more than a very occasional error. 

I can’t help but wonder why you didn’t t just repeat that you have only an hour on UM most days and editing your posts eats into that time?

We get that you are human and can allow you the space to not be perfect. 
 

I have no issue understanding you (even with errors), because I understand your time is limited. 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Edited June 20, 2020 by Sherapy
Double post

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

That's the $64 question behind the historical "controversy" about his mental illness-or-health. IF he was metally ill (as I personally think he plainly was ... and what'd be so terrible about Jung being a "wounded healer" anyway?), then the disease was something like acute schizophrenia - there came a point after which he was mentally healthy again.

So of course he then recognized Philemon as having been something originating within himself, rather than anything truly separate, despite Philemon having seemed to be separate at the time. Those are the objective facts of the matter - there never was a Philemon except as a transient part of Jung.

ETA: Of course, that's different from your parents. Being real people, you could make a mental model of them from lived experience. I don't know how those models might have developed, especially once the orignal people no longer constrained the models' development. Plus, I don't know how accurate or realistic the models ever were - just that the models had a concrete, real-life foundation which Philemon did not.

Probably from the beginning. Philemon is the name of a character in Goethe's Faust (and as an additional complication, Jung believed that he was a "wrong side of the bed" descendant of Goethe).

Yes, Philemon was Jung's imaginary friend. Alas, Jung wasn't 5 years old at the time.

Laing's position is subtler than the blogger's summary. The key thing for Laing, IMO, was that by the time the acute schizophrenic patient showed dramatic symptoms (and so came to the psychiatrist's attention), the actual illness had come and gone (in Laing's view). The "symptoms" were in some sense the aches and pains of repairing the damage of having had a damaging illness. The goal of therapy, then, would be to help the repair-rebuilding enterprise along, which might include "mining" the hallucinations and delusions for hints about how the rebuild was getting on.

While Jung knew none of this when he was channeling Philemon, he was nevertheless a seasoned psychiatrist with lots of both clinical and "theoretical" background. Although doctors are notorious for being bad patients, still, there are times when being a physician contributes to a good outcome. Jung may be an example.

Philemon had a back story, in which he'd been a biblical prophet. The LDS' Moroni would be a comparable being: an angel now, but a human in the past, and both "the same being" despite the different forms at different times.

Well, for one thing, he wouldn't have needed to be his own physician. But another thing about acute schizophrenia is that once recovered, the survivor may look back on the episode of illness as a net positive thing. As it may have been, however harrowing it was to get through it.

My mother was diagnosed with Psychosis, she was committed twice. She hallucinated that god talked to her and couldn’t distinguish the difference between her inner and outer reality. “The 3 Christ’s of Ypsilanti” is a good movie showcasing what a spit form reality looks like. For my Mom, where it got to be a problem was when “god” started telling her to kill my younger sister. 
 

She was medicated, was in a mental hospital for a year, got out relapsed ( due to not taking her meds. Insisting she wasn’t nuts) was recommitted a second time, this time she took her therapy serious she took her meds and got better. Eventually, she was able to go off meds entirely.

The reason for the above is to affirm that you hit on a good point, my mom saw her journey as a healing and positive journey post recovery and for the last 4 years of her life she worked hard at repairing her relationship with me, for which I hearted her effort and was so proud of her. She also shared with me that she lost touch with actuality and couldn’t find her way back.

My ex mother in law was diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia, she was put on 3 day holds all the time, she could not be off her medication at all, ever, but if she took her meds she was functional. 
 

 

I oversaw care associates and their basic needs for a board and care (when I was a Personal Assistant) that only had mentally ill patients with varying issues, who were there due to conservatorships, only one had schizophrenia, a few had neurological  issues due to alcohol and drug abuse and a few were combative, all were heavily medicated and monitored. A huge part of the job for the care team was navigating them back to reality. Hallucinating and believing the hallucinations is a huge red flag. 
 

The Neurologist I work for guide and helped me get my sister help she stressed that we do not help by humoring or ignore one who clearly struggles with telling the difference between what is real and what isn’t. Few people initially are on board to get help when they are mentally ill, hence why most states have programs that specialize in helping families get them the help they need. 
 

In Jung’s case, I think it is feasible (due to his background) that he pulled himself through his mental illness and hands down he sounded mentally ill, one cannot overlook ( not at you) that even a mentally ill person has periods of lucidity and some can mask quite well. And, there are also mentally ill folks who self medicate or ignore their illness for fear of facing it or lack of medical.. My younger sister was one such person, these days she is medicated and consistent in taking her meds and going to therapy. 

I am thinking Jung didn’t have the option of medication and the mental facilities in his day were not what they are now. Kudos to him for not only sharing his journey but getting better. I have to read his books soon. 
 

Interesting posts Paul, thanks for the depth and insights.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Sherapy