"At the heart of Jungian psychology is the idea that beneath our conscious intelligence a deeper intelligence is at work – the evolved intelligence of humankind. By personifying this phylogenetic component of the psyche as an archaic being, or ‘the two million-year-old man that is in us all’, Jung lay himself at the mercy of any beady logician wishing to accuse him of falling into a homuncular fallacy – namely, that he believed he had a little old man in there sitting at the controls."
Did Jung really think that the deeper intelligence was evolved from within the human?
If people would read Jung's work instead of wiki clips of his work and spend time contemplating what he was talking about then "yes."
Perhaps we should get a woman to clear this up for us. I am unable to make it clear so I can't understand it either.
Thank you for finding the book. It is on my shelf and at one time I did go along with the book while reading the pertinent texts from Jung.
Jung did obviously believe that if you scratch a man you would find the blood of a "caveman." Find a woman, who are all superior and highly evolved by the presence of their particular genitals, I am sure that that she could make the entire thing clear without ever having to break spine on any of the texts.
I am just tired and I can't deal with the peanut gallery anymore. I submit.
Did Jung really think that the deeper intelligence was evolved from within the human?
If the human soul is anything, it must be of unimaginable complexity and diversity…I can only gaze with wonder and awe at the depths and heights of our psychic nature. Its non-spatial universe conceals an untold abundance of images which have accumulated over millions of years of living development and become fixed in the organism www.annebaring.com/anbar20_bk_dreamwater_10.htm
"unimaginable complexity and diversity ... over millions of years.." does not sound exactly the same as "evolved within the human".
If people would read Jung's work instead of wiki clips of his work and spend time contemplating what he was talking about then "yes."
Perhaps we should get a woman to clear this up for us. I am unable to make it clear so I can't understand it either.
Thank you for finding the book. It is on my shelf and at one time I did go along with the book while reading the pertinent texts from Jung.
Jung did obviously believe that if you scratch a man you would find the blood of a "caveman." Find a woman, who are all superior and highly evolved by the presence of their particular genitals, I am sure that that she could make the entire thing clear without ever having to break spine on any of the texts. I am just tired and I can't deal with the peanut gallery anymore. I submit.
Kind of an odd reaction from someone of the gender who for centuries has proclaimed that its possession of external genitalia deemed them "superior" to the other gender, even to the extent of forming actual esoteric societies based on the deification of that selfsame genital, and that the possession of the other kind of genitals meant that the possessor was not even "human, or worthy of treatment as "human"!
Considering that I did not participate in the cultural subjugation of women in the past I don't find it odd at all. You seem to be unable to understand the equivalence between that bigotry against women and your own statements that women are superior because of their genitals.
But-but-but, I thought "there was no proof of reincarnation", so how can you be SO SURE that you "did not participate"? Where's the proof, huh?
And it was not I that proclaimed women 'superior"; it is a magickal maxim that "Isis is all women and all women are Isis". It is my opinion that this is a sort of 'compensation" for the biological subjugation that reproduction imposes upon women. However, in my opinion, the intense maya of this biological subjugation prevents most women from ever pursuing the greater possibilities of "Goddesshood", for the most part.
The other thing preventing it is the inability of most women to "break away from society" and follow their own Path; the yearning for the participation in "group mind" and the approval and validation of the masculine also conspires against any sort of individual manifestation of "spiritual independence" in women. Thus, women may be "spiritually superior' to men, but if they choose to derive no advantage from that position, then ultimately that "superiority" means less than nothing at all...
I know several women who carry cosmic seeds or anchor cosmic flows. This seems much more common amongst women. It is valuable therefore for those entities who oppose the cosmic unfoldment to oppress women specifically - using those humans who can be bent to their purpose.
The karma of this remains in the race and requires careful outworking.
Any woman that yearns for for the validation of the masculine is her own problem. The process of change takes time and energy. Spending what energy one has complaining about historic injustices that she herself has not experienced wastes the energy that could be better spent in self-actualization. I find it interesting that a spiritually superior sex can be so heavily subjugated by an inferior type. At some point personal responsibility has to enter the equation.
Regarding reincarnation. I am more than willing to accept that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, it only changes form. I have yet to see anything that could convince me totally that the peculiar pattern interference that makes up the individual endures. The Buddha seems to believe that there is no enduring self.
In your immature "but-but-but" tirade you are asking me to prove a negative. I am sure that you are aware that is not possible and are using that tactic as another smear attempt. It would be more appropriate for you to provide proof for your assertion. In any case, if reincarnation was true would I not have lived as a man and as a woman in different lives. What would make you so remarkable now?
You are not a stupid person, I realize that. I ask for the same respect. Can you keep the discussion above board without resorting to personal attacks or backhanded comments? I am sure that your intellect is more than capable of doing so, I ask if you possess the desire to do so?