well, Jung is one of those people that writers enjoy putting their own words on

well, Jung is one of those people that writers enjoy putting their own words on, like with Tesla and Einstein, so I get all research-y. Sometimes when countered, the authors will talk about mysterious unpublished works (sometimes with a backstory) and of course it’s possible but more often it’s marketing fluff. But sometimes I can be too skeptical as well.

Here’s the current state of the art best electronic collection of his works at present: 16,000 pages. I’m converting it from a weird amazon format into plain text and then I’ll do some quote hunting.

====

Oh it’s fine :) It’s for my own edification mostly – an excuse for me to get all of his writings in one place. [I have no ethics/morals about grabbing my own copy of digital materials]. If I don’t find it in the complete-complete works (this thing I’m converting seems more complete as it’s not in 19 volumes of which I *think* I only searched one of them), – I might do a search to see if I can find who first said the phrase you put up top. I saw a few references: one in a “How To Be An Alpha Male” book, another in a “How to be a Christian Male” book, another in a “Dangers of Pride for Men” book… lots of “Be a Real Man” type stuff.

====

There’s an Indian Guru in the 90s who was really great at that. Don’t know his name but I remember when I was going through an Einstein and Telsa quote hunting phase last year, and damn, quote after quote after quote ended up stopping at this one swami dude’s book from 1995. He singlehandedly made up a shitload of fake quotes.

Mind you, they were good stuff and I’m sure he had (has?) a big following from it.

I read a little of his philosophy and he doesn’t hold any important to things like names and who said what because we’re all [something or other] which is at least internally logically consistent, so I give him that.

====

Oh it’s totally a Jung-type thing to say. He probably *did* say it. I was into the “Hero with 1000 faces” – can’t think of his name at the moment, and he drew an awful lot out of Jungian archetypes and stuff.

I never really read much of Jung myself. Tried a few times but I usually use secondary sources.

====

Campbell – that’s the guy. Yeah, loved his stuff. Hell, anything with archetypes I like. I can get lost on TV Tropes for hours.

====

That’s a grea graphic -downloaded and I’ll be looking through it. Yeah, Jung started something amazing with the archetype stuff. I don’t think there’s necessarily anything magical about the particular archetypes he came up with, except that he was the first and did a damn good job of it, but what has progressed since Jung is a “way of thinking” about people that takes what would otherwise just be “stereotypes” and turned it into something much richer and deeper that can weave threads together through human history and different cultures.

===

stupid me realized i was converting a 16,000 page book for nothing. I should just read it and search it. Discovered I have ancient version of Calibre, upgrading now.Hoping to find context of quote. fingers crossed!

====

I know that yoga prides itself on being able to control even the unconscious processes, so that nothing can happen in the psyche as a whole that is not ruled by a supreme consciousness. I have not the slightest doubt that such a condition is more or less possible. But it is possible only at the price of becoming identical with the unconscious. Such an identity is the Eastern equivalent of our Western fetish of “complete objectivity,” the machine-like subservience to one goal, to one idea or cause, at the cost of losing every trace of inner life. From the Eastern point of view this complete objectivity is appalling, for it amounts to complete identity with the samsāra; to the West, on the other hand, samādhi is nothing but a meaningless dream-state. In the East, the inner man has always had such a firm hold on the outer man that the world had no chance of tearing him away from his inner roots; in the West, the outer man gained the ascendancy to such an extent that he was alienated from his innermost being. The One Mind, Oneness, indefiniteness, and eternity remained the prerogative of the One God. Man became small, futile, and essentially in the wrong.

====

Making the western fetish with complete objectivity EQUIVALENT TO the eastern fetish with loss-of-self-ness just blew my mind. He’s right but wow, I never noticed that.

====

He’s dead so not at all. But when he was alive, it was a seriously important aspect of his study.

===

He’s speaking of extremes of course. All Western philosophy *isn’t* about “complete objectivity” nor is all Eastern philosophy about complete oneness with entire loss of self.

===

It’s huge in PDF but the Amazon format is smaller. I’m downloaded the latest version of Calibre and it works perfectly for reading and searching.

Oh they have a place for sure. I don’t hate them either. It’s just a connection between the two extremes that I never noticed before.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 7 = twenty one

Leave a Reply