|
 blinkybill
outsider
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 246
Loc: Albania 
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
 Ziggy & Gus 
#12849724 - 07/04/10 09:36 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Observing the same phenomena, and beginning with the same postulate, Freud and Jung (fine minds both  ) arrived at quite different conclusions. Jung saw evidence for the restoration of a diffuse, spiritualised religiosity, whereas, Freud found confirmation of his rigorous atheism. How is this possible?
What does it tell us?
Who's right?
Can they both be right?
--------------------
" ... and then there are the unknown unknowns. Those things that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know."
|
 Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,583
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Neither were correct. No one is ever correct except in part.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
blinkybill
outsider
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 246
Loc: Albania
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Neither were correct. No one is ever correct except in part.
--------------------
" ... and then there are the unknown unknowns. Those things that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know."
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 67,583
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Seems like the best you can get so far.
--------------------
“What is the ideal for mental health, then? A lived, compelling illusion that does not lie about life, death, and reality; one honest enough to follow its own commandments: I mean, not to kill, not to take the lives of others to justify itself.”
― Ernest Becker
"Beneath the civilized veneer, man remains the supreme predator. Cursed with what he believes is understanding, his true soul blossoms godlike in the heart of the nuclear inferno."
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
|
Quote:
blinkybill said:
Observing the same phenomena, and beginning with the same postulate, Freud and Jung (fine minds both ) arrived at quite different conclusions. Jung saw evidence for the restoration of a diffuse, spiritualised religiosity, whereas, Freud found confirmation of his rigorous atheism. How is this possible?
What does it tell us?
Who's right?
Can they both be right?
they are both taking a strong stance and therefor they must be slightly biased. they can be both right if you allow opposing views to be both right. You just have to remember that in the end neither of them are actually right... nothing is trully absolutely right.... is it? I don't think the human mind can even expand large enough to comprehend the idea of something that was universally right, but not due to arbitrary definition.
They both saw different things in the data because data is just information... you can see different patterns in the same information. They can both be correct if you imagine them to be different patterns in the one image. They just start to have an opposing stance when they attach these patterns to their own theories.
Just focus on the patterns they report and the way that these patterns can be seen in your own studies. Use their theory more as a guide to understand where they are going with it all and why it is important. Their theory is like food for your imagination, but if you want to remain scientific you must consider only their observations of human behaviors in different environments. eg the sorts of things patients say and the sorts of treatments that work best.
--------------------
 
|
Sir Francis Bacon
?
Registered: 06/30/10
Posts: 281
|
|
Atheism 
Spiritualism 
|
Qballs
Vibes Connoisseur
Registered: 05/30/10
Posts: 391
Loc: Dick Lentils
|
|
I think spirituality was right for Jung and atheism was right for Freud. The mistake is assuming what works for you works for everybody else.
--------------------
More than treasures found, its just been knowing you.
|
jivJaN
yes
Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 4,054
Last seen: 1 day, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
They both saw different things in the data because data is just information... you can see different patterns in the same information.
The funny thing is.. both of these patterns work within their own little set of rules.
One cannot be supported by the other , nor can they disprove each other without yet again , using their own set of rules.
Quote:
Who's right?
Depends on who is inspecting it.
Quote:
What does it tell us?
That we are Bi-Polar as a species.
--------------------
---------------------
All my posts in this forum are strictly fictional.
They are derived from an acute mental illness , from which i am forced to lie compulsively.
I have never induced any kind of mind altering substance in my life and i have no intentions whatsoever of doing anything illegal.
If I have ever suggested such a thing it would have most likely been , due to my personality disorder and i probably do not remember it at all..
|
blinkybill
outsider
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 246
Loc: Albania
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
blinkybill said:
Observing the same phenomena, and beginning with the same postulate, Freud and Jung (fine minds both ) arrived at quite different conclusions. Jung saw evidence for the restoration of a diffuse, spiritualised religiosity, whereas, Freud found confirmation of his rigorous atheism. How is this possible?
What does it tell us?
Who's right?
Can they both be right?
they are both taking a strong stance and therefor they must be slightly biased. they can be both right if you allow opposing views to be both right. You just have to remember that in the end neither of them are actually right... nothing is trully absolutely right.... is it? I don't think the human mind can even expand large enough to comprehend the idea of something that was universally right, but not due to arbitrary definition.
They both saw different things in the data because data is just information... you can see different patterns in the same information. They can both be correct if you imagine them to be different patterns in the one image. They just start to have an opposing stance when they attach these patterns to their own theories.
Just focus on the patterns they report and the way that these patterns can be seen in your own studies. Use their theory more as a guide to understand where they are going with it all and why it is important. Their theory is like food for your imagination, but if you want to remain scientific you must consider only their observations of human behaviors in different environments. eg the sorts of things patients say and the sorts of treatments that work best.
In other words, you don't know either but you couldn't resist an opportunity to make authoritative marks on a screen could you?
--------------------
" ... and then there are the unknown unknowns. Those things that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know."
|
blinkybill
outsider
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 246
Loc: Albania
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Sir Francis Bacon said:
Atheism
Spiritualism
You do know that spiritualism is the practice of contacting the spirits of the dead don't you?
--------------------
" ... and then there are the unknown unknowns. Those things that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know."
|
blinkybill
outsider
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 246
Loc: Albania
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Ziggy & Gus [Re: Qballs]
#12854779 - 07/06/10 12:19 AM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Qballs said:
I think spirituality was right for Jung and atheism was right for Freud. The mistake is assuming what works for you works for everybody else.
Either there's a god or there isn't. I don't care what's right for Freud or right for Jung. To say everyone has their own reality or their own truth is evasiveness. It would be foolish to apply this kind of reasoning to aerodynamics or neuro-surgery.
Freud's atheism was rigorous, and while he saw godlessness in human suffering, his theory held tight with or without God. Jung's mysticism was diffuse and was created in opposition to Freud: ie his thinking was reactionary. If there is no spiritual realm Jung's theory is a nonsense but Freuds holds true either way. If your whole theory is founded upon the existence of the highly contentious then i would say the whole theory is unsound, and this is the case with Jungian theory.
People had been blaming spirits for their troubles since the beginning of time, and where did it get them? Freud was radically new in seeing the changing body and the family (undisputed realities) as the factory of psychic disturbance. Very persuasive, to the point that many of Freud's radical insights have now joined the realms of common sense. Jung is still largely for kooks.
--------------------
" ... and then there are the unknown unknowns. Those things that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know."
|
Mufungo
Coming at ya
Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 2,557
Loc: Knowhere
|
|
Quote:
blinkybill said:
many of Freud's radical insights have now joined the realms of common sense.
Many hey?
List 4 of them for us..
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
|
Quote:
blinkybill said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
blinkybill said:
Observing the same phenomena, and beginning with the same postulate, Freud and Jung (fine minds both ) arrived at quite different conclusions. Jung saw evidence for the restoration of a diffuse, spiritualised religiosity, whereas, Freud found confirmation of his rigorous atheism. How is this possible?
What does it tell us?
Who's right?
Can they both be right?
they are both taking a strong stance and therefor they must be slightly biased. they can be both right if you allow opposing views to be both right. You just have to remember that in the end neither of them are actually right... nothing is trully absolutely right.... is it? I don't think the human mind can even expand large enough to comprehend the idea of something that was universally right, but not due to arbitrary definition.
They both saw different things in the data because data is just information... you can see different patterns in the same information. They can both be correct if you imagine them to be different patterns in the one image. They just start to have an opposing stance when they attach these patterns to their own theories.
Just focus on the patterns they report and the way that these patterns can be seen in your own studies. Use their theory more as a guide to understand where they are going with it all and why it is important. Their theory is like food for your imagination, but if you want to remain scientific you must consider only their observations of human behaviors in different environments. eg the sorts of things patients say and the sorts of treatments that work best.
In other words, you don't know either but you couldn't resist an opportunity to make authoritative marks on a screen could you?
actually im pretty sure I answered your questions. The answer is that it is vague. Why do you want a clear cut answer?
--------------------
|
Sir Francis Bacon
?
Registered: 06/30/10
Posts: 281
|
|
Quote:
blinkybill said:
Quote:
Sir Francis Bacon said:
Atheism
Spiritualism
You do know that spiritualism is the practice of contacting the spirits of the dead don't you?
Yes, I do.
|
 fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,672
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 6 minutes, 7 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Sir Francis Bacon said:
Yes, I do.
--------------------
  
 
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
  
 
|
Sir Francis Bacon
?
Registered: 06/30/10
Posts: 281
|
|
Why do you find knowledge funny? It can cure your ignorance.
|
fireworks_god
SexyButt McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 23,672
Loc: Red Panda Village
Last seen: 6 minutes, 7 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Sir Francis Bacon said:
Why do you find knowledge funny?
What are you talking about? 
--------------------
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
|
boredcertified
Say Fuck You! and Smile :)
Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 2,103
Loc: midcoast 
Last seen: 4 days, 19 hours
|
|
I believe the question was, in so many words "with the same data came different conclusions"???
Ok.
My opinion is that great minds do NOT think alike. Good thing too. I will in no way compare myself to either, other than the fact we are all three thinkers, possibly above average intelligence, and enjoy the observation of "the masses".
I will say that my good friend, call him Ted, and I would most likely come to similar, yet slightly varried conclusions on most data. We are what we are, observation is something that is totally subjective.
--------------------
I KNOW THE PIECES FIT....
Ajaxx said:
anyone else ever go to jail for growin weed? thats some ridiculous ass shit right there. ive never been more angry in my life than when i got locked up for growing plants.
|
Freedom
Will swim for food
Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 4,476
Last seen: 7 hours, 54 minutes
|
|
Quote:
blinkybill said:
Quote:
Qballs said:
I think spirituality was right for Jung and atheism was right for Freud. The mistake is assuming what works for you works for everybody else.
Either there's a god or there isn't. I don't care what's right for Freud or right for Jung. To say everyone has their own reality or their own truth is evasiveness. It would be foolish to apply this kind of reasoning to aerodynamics or neuro-surgery.
Freud's atheism was rigorous, and while he saw godlessness in human suffering, his theory held tight with or without God. Jung's mysticism was diffuse and was created in opposition to Freud: ie his thinking was reactionary. If there is no spiritual realm Jung's theory is a nonsense but Freuds holds true either way. If your whole theory is founded upon the existence of the highly contentious then i would say the whole theory is unsound, and this is the case with Jungian theory.
People had been blaming spirits for their troubles since the beginning of time, and where did it get them? Freud was radically new in seeing the changing body and the family (undisputed realities) as the factory of psychic disturbance. Very persuasive, to the point that many of Freud's radical insights have now joined the realms of common sense. Jung is still largely for kooks.
It seems you are quite focused on Jung's spiritual side.
His ideas about the collective unconscious, the shadow and the psychology of symbols and mythology do not depend on a god.
--------------------
|
blinkybill
outsider
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 246
Loc: Albania
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Ziggy & Gus [Re: Freedom]
#12860064 - 07/06/10 11:48 PM (1 year, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think you can understand any Jungian concept in isolation from the Jungian totality. This is the problem with meta-narratives, you can't remove bits from their place in their grand scheme without them continuing to signify the overarching concepts of that scheme. Nevertheless, the collective unconscious is hardly a scientific theory, its a monolithic abstraction that is essentially theistic.
--------------------
" ... and then there are the unknown unknowns. Those things that we don't know that we don't know that we don't know."
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
