Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

True Asa, the karmic energy is still here. Jung was one of us and he saw more than the most of us and he failed like all of us, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty he stood his ground like only few of us.
True Clueless, I find little fault with your synopsis. You are knowlegeable and place your accents well. Two points only: It is, thanks to Jung, that much which was called occult, nowadays has become common knowlege about the psyche-mind. Occult is a silly term to my mind and just as sterile as the mainstream of knowlege, which by naming it thus, ostracises it and by doing this, hides its inability to understand and deal with it. I don't like the term, because it places barriers within the mind. I find my own stupidity barrier enough and I don't need more, thankyou.
Alchemy is only occult to the beholder who does not see beyond the veil. Case in point, perhaps. Jung was fascinated by the Alchemists, because he saw parallels between their imagery and symbolism and that of his patients. The Alchemists, not knowing in terms of modern science what was going on within their bulbs and ovens, saw that their prime matter, they were working on, was transforming in appearance and substance and described this in a symbolism which can find its exact counterpart in dreams, visions, phanstasies of modern man, when he is undergoing change, is growing, transforming. Why thus: The anwser is very simple. To the Alchemists, the matter in their retorts was like a Rorschach test and they "projected". What they projected were transformative symbols, which to Jung lie dormant in our psyche and which come to life during our spiritual, intellectual and biological growing pains,when we should develop but yet do not quite know how. Jung went on to show, that quite a number of alchemists started to realise, that they projected. That it was they who underwent change and the symbolism, which popped up in their minds, concerned them just as much as the matter, they were observing. Sort of a Heisenbergian forerunner no?! Well there are a few Alchemists like Maier, or Lampspring, who in their language and symbolism in the 17th century described exact stages of the individuation process with a detailed knowlege about its steps and implications, which yet have to be reached by the mainstream of modern psychology.It was they, who realised, that the transformation, which took place, was in them as well as in the matter , they were observing. Fascinating,no?! It was Jung who gave us a key to its understanding and if you are, like me, familiar with the dreams and phantasies of modern man, you'd be amazed how to the point and knowledgeable those "occultists" were. To cut a long story short: What we call irrational probably only shows the boundaries of our rationality and unveils us as shortsighted and stupid.
I feel, since Jung and his occupation with the "occult", we have the chance to be a little less stupid about our ture reality. The East has been always and since centuries far more knowledgeabe about this. As far as the knowlege of ourselves is concerend, here, we in the West are underdeveloped country and in need of aid. Our pszchology basically is ridiculous in its blindness for our transcendent needs and in its obsession with measurements. What we manage to measure and statistically prove generally boils down to what every child knows anyway. Jung has closed the gap for us quite considerably by using the modalities of western thought. He is one of us, not an imported Guru. Quite an achievement, in the light of which his failings don't really interest me much. rather, like Clueless, I like him more for it.

Clueless, please stay, ASA is not hostile, he's probing you. He needs partners, strong partners to talk to, he's lonely and those he chides, he respects and loves. Don't take it personally. He wants to draw you out, because he needs more of you. So do I by the way. Please stay with us.

Asa, as to Jung and music. I don't know. He probably needed words and concepts, structures to battle with the other side. Words to him were perhaps like the stones and earth and rubble, they use in Holland to capture back land from the ocean. He tried to put in the language of Western science of his time, what the East had known for centuries. He was not afraid to step into the realm of the "mothers" to paraphrase Goethe's Faust, he could let go completely, but that what he brought from beyond he hammered and forged into words and concepts. He was a Westerner and he refused to be anything else, although he was wide open for, an highly knowlegeable about the East.
At the same time, he was not an intellectual. You cannot say that he did not practice what he preached. What he drew as knowlege came from his very life, it was not bland thought..Foucoult comes to mind here, brilliant as it may be.... Music silences words, especially if it strikes deep. He was wide open, so he needed his mind, not to predate, but in this case to protect and hold safe. Perhaps it was a simple as that. Food for thought, not more.

Clueless!! I'm sorry, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.

Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.

On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say.

Clueless!! I'm sorry, really, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.

Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.

On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say.