Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Light is Dark,
Dark is Light,
If there is no Light, there is no Dark.
If there is no Dark, there is no Light.
They are not two, not one, not others, not different.

"beneath it is not"
Beneath is not.

You don't need a lifevest Asa the way you swim and I see your point Greg. I doubt that CGJ liked Goebbels though.
Again: He was fascinated by Nazism, which he saw as a collective psychosis, with Hitler as a head-shaman, possessed.
This fascinated him....and yes he was a Nazi, like most of his social class in Europe in the thirties, because he was scared of Soviet Russia and the Commies and a possible revolution, which he hoped the Nazis would prevent and disappear in the process. ( A very Churchillian idea )
....and yes, though he helped Jews and had Jewish friends and pupils, Erich Neumann, Jolande Jacobi and Aniela Jaffé being the most notable amongst them, he was an antisemite, again like most of his kind and social class.......and if you want to bash him some more, he had affairs with patients,the most important, a beautiful Russian Jewess, (sic) highly intelligent, whom he cured, helped her to study medicine and dropped like a hot brick, when the liaison became known and he had to fear for his professional stature. The woman, Sabina Spielrain, whom the Nazis murdered together with her children, when they invaded Kiev,
became a well known psychiatrist of her own right, with interesting publications on the question of a death-drive, which Freud later developed without reference to her groundbreaking work. She was close to Freud, the latter incidentally protecting and covering up for Jung in this affair. She cherished Jung, inspite of his callous behaviour..she knew more about loving than he ever did, but then he knew a lot about "love".
There was a "fascination with the dark" in all of his generation in Europe in those years. A terrible, destructive unrest underneath the surface,the roots of which were more than enconomic, which, as you know, errupted first in 1914 and again in 1939. If you wonder about the Europeans as they are today, it is perhaps a good point to remember, that the best of them on all sides were wiped out in those two terrible wars. Nobody thinks about that, because it is an eleticist view and politically not correct, but it seems to show. But that is another story. If you want to know, what Jung was really fascinated by, it pays to my mind to read up on a dream of his as he was three years old, which he recounts in his "Dreams, Memories and Reflections". It is a pointer towards what he had to face and contend with in his life. A later outcome and a waymark of his struggle is his "Answer to Job" . A wild and highly emotional bit of writing. His torment, which you can feel hehind his words, holds my deep respect and compassion to this very day. Yes, light and dark is as a mirror we gaze in and as we gaze we see some of our entanglement. We have to, in order to perhaps grasp - through suffering only - its illusive powers. Jung was a great man, hence his struggle was so obvious as was his failure. He failed of course, like all of us, and Maya's web is closest, when we think it is gone for ever.........
Help me understand one thing though, why couldn't he take music, why did it shake him up so ? He clumsily called it "emotion pure", but then that is not music per se, that is us, what it can do to us. Obviously his thoughts, his words, his theories must have been a barrier against what is "beyond the mirror" ,which he could see through, sometimes step through, but had to guard against, lest it would destroy him. He once proudly said, that what had destroyed Nietzsche and Hoelderlin and many others, had also engulfed him, but did not break him.......but what do I know...
This all may be off topic, but I have the feeling, when we discuss this man, we use him as a substrate (not substitute) for our own lives, which is so closely linked with music and I am wondering what the role of music is in our lives in our attempt to see through mirrors...I dimly sense here a circle closing, yet alas "everyone is clear, only my mind is not".
6chac beautiful, how much of that are you able to live? (-:

How much of who Jung was do you attribute to the prevelence of occult activity taking place around him? As you know the Nazi party was more of a religious movement than a political movement. I have come to believe that the fear of Socialism and Communism was more of a pretext than a true reason for many of the events which took place between 1919 and 1945. The real reasons were much more sinister. Did the OTO, Thelema society, and numerous other similar pagan groups influence him, or he them? Who made who???
At that point in history one did not gain acceptance and move up in the political party without involvment in religious aspect of the party. What was the basis for Jungs acceptance?
Being of German descent I have studied this abberation in history, but admittedly have not studied "the man" Jung. Any opinions or fact based evidence???

Fascinating point you make Nrchy. I think the fear of the "red tide"..and the yellow one at that, was a real fear in the upper classes, in the haute bougeoisie and the nobility. Not so in the lower middleclass,the "Kleinbürger" where the "Bewegung" first fed on. I think the occult activity was more marginal in numbers,however highly influential, certainly in the upper classes, amongst certain intellectuals and with strong roots in the middleclass as well. As far as Jung was concerned I have no evidence and also do not suppose that he was DIRECTLY influenced by any of the groups you mention. You must not forget that he was Swiss and they have generally a deep mistrust as regards ideas of such ilk. But there is no doubt, that " osmotically", these ideas did influence his thinking. Some of the language and ideas he used, could be interpreted as pointing to a more direct influence, but I doubt that they took hold deeply, it somehow does not fit with the rest. He would in a bout of Freud"hate", more than direct Antisemitism speak of a Germanic spirit and a Germanic psychology, words which sound despicable to our ears, but were the normal language of his times in the German speaking world and must be understood in this context. The study of races was thought to be scientific, as you know, and he was interested in any religious or pseudoreligious phenomena. He saw clearly that the Nazimovement had strong religious traits, which however he did not share, his interests lay elsewhere. The Nazis courted him, because he was not Jewish and antifreudian and belonged to the "Germanic race". This is where he got involved on a societal level within the German group, trying to gain acceptance for his ideas and importance on the one hand, on the other trying to help his Jewish colleagues. He never was part of the party or moved up in it. On the contrary, his ambivalence was soon not well taken in Berlin and he was looked upon with mistrust. In a sense he was never a REAL Nazi, anyone who maintains that either does not know the facts or has other reasons for maintaining that. But he was not an Antifascist either. His break with Freud traumatised him in more ways than one and he fought on every level to get recognition for his way of depthpsychology. This is the point where he failed to see sufficiently clear and made a pact with the Nazi-devil, if you will. He condemmned Freud's psychology as Jewish and raised his as Germanic, and that was the language the Nazis spoke and for that they loved him and that is the point where he fell.
He did not influence the pagan groups you mention, simply because they did not read him and also I doubt very strongly that he was influenced by them directly. However it is not to be discounted, that academically, outside of his medicine, he was influenced by the same sources as they were. Interestingly enough, they had no basic influence on the main body of his psychology, but he certainly used a language, especially in his younger years, which had an unsavoury closeness to the sinister "Blut und Boden" romanticism of these groups. But basically and perhaps that saved him, he never left the deeply protestant (i.e. sceptical )Christian gound, he was raised in, not in a confessional sense, but in his sense of questioning, searching and in his way of trying to understand the importance of Christ as a religeous phenomenon per se and its importance for the "individuation of mankind".

Detlof: fascinating, beautiful. Yes, the circle is closing (you felt that coming, uh?). I take back what I said: you are a teacher AND a healer. Who do you heal next? (its a mirror...)

6ch: you are being disingenuous, as detlof intuits. Let me explain why.

When we discuss the "what is" - the ground nature of "what is" - we are always limited in grasping it because language is dualistically-based (see the dualism reference above? How can I even say "ground" because that implies something not the ground and the Ground is all, nothing outside of "it" so where is the not-ground?). That's why I used Campbell's quote about twenty posts ago, namely, that "reality" always needs quotation marks around it because even the word does not encompass what it referring to; it only points (did you see the use of that quote above and a whole post on pointing?).

You said to me (in response to my using a pointing metaphor of a "mirror" to describe the relation of dark/light within, the self's belief in it thus creating it, and the dark/light it sees outside): "It is not a mirror".

As my response makes clear, I was talking about the light/dark, not its manifestation origination. You can always say that anything in language is not "it" and that would be correct, but the point is that we are talking in language. I could have just as easily said back to you "it" is not a not-mirror either. In other words, while you are trying to teach - and, yes, that is your presumption - you yourself are using words to tell people not to use words. When I say "beneath" you know that language binds me - the "it" has no location because it is ALL location, and, hence, the word "location" evaporates without its referential ground - so preying upon that - acting like you don't know what I am pointing to so you can be the teacher in your mind again - is disingenous. I could easily say to anything you say it is not-that, couldn't I?

If you answer, I hit you with bamboo across back. Go straight, don't know. Or, if you want to open your mouth and engage in dialogue accept that limitations of that dialogue - which, as I've told you, is also part of the "it" - and say your opinion WITH REASONS. Again, stop reading so much "zen".

On Jung: why did he not listen to music, or rather, why was he afraid of listening; afraid of the "purity"? Could it be that the same thing he recoiled from is what draws us (and then, draws us to talk together like this)? Music is "beauty" to many of us. Did Jung recoil from "beauty"? Did that action of his mind have anything to do with his "fascination" with "darkness"?

Let me propose an answer. Maybe not THE answer, but it may lead us somewhere.

As some of you know, I've taliked in these posts before about levels of listening, saying that when you first sit down you listen with your thinking mind that you bring from day-to-day life. This thinking mind controls reality - or so the mind assumes - through its objectifying (the basis of comparing in Time mentioned above, ie comparative rationality, hypothetico-deductive cognition). This results in "seeing" sound as an object and trying to control that sight by making sound sources into objects. Hence the reliance on "accuracy, detail" etc to bound sound into objects more. But as the listener falls deeper into the music - its meaning of "purity" - the thinking mind fades and "lets go" over control of the experience. Hence, the word "falling into the music" to describe the loss of control. But is it a loss, because isn't "beauty" gained in ever-more deepening ways? Could it be that it is only an assumption of loss from the perspective of the thinking mind that wishes to control? If the thinking mind's need to control emanates from the need to survive (fear of not-surviving - the "darkness"), the isn't falling into the music a "letting go" of that thinking mind that merely wishes to keep thinking?

With Jung, was he afraid to fall into the music because he "thought" that his loss of control would bring on the "darkness", act as its further catalyst? And, in seeing the "purity" of music - what it might do to his idea of himself, his thinking mind - wasn't he mistaking the "beauty" of music for a presumed "darkness", while that darkness was, all along, only his fear of falling into the music itself? Was the "darkness" created by his assumption that it existed?

As I drift into the music, letting my thinking mind fade ints its need to assert, the emotions are left; released of cognition, the emotions stand in relief (hence, emotionally-based language always used to describe this state). They become diffuse, fluid in that release, and wec experience music in yet another way, from another perceptive perspective.

Did Jung mistake the "beauty" of music for "darkness" in his fear of going their? Was the "darkness" only his fear of letting go itself?