Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

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?

Nate, the Thule Society, Madame Blavatsky, and the Theosophical Society, among others had great influence on Hitler in his early days. The swastika symbol was suggested by Hitler's dentist, who was a Thule Society member and was derived from a Tibetan symbol representing "order in the universe". The reversal of this symbol into the Nazi swastika symbolized "the bringing of chaos". It is interesting that on Madame Blavatsky's crest, known as the Blavatsky Brooch, there is both the Nazi swastika, and the star of David appearing on the same crest. As well as a serpent, and a kings crown. This occultic crest and its owner were present in the mid to late 1800's, and were the founders of the Theosophical Society, and other occultic offshoots, claiming to know the "hidden knowledge" that intrigued Hitler. This is even alluded to in the "Indiana Jones" movie, where they were searching for the arc of the Covenant, and other ancient power relics. The Theosophists continued with Alistair Crowley, and Rudolf Steiner, et al, who started occultic movements based on Mme. Blavatsky's work which continue to this day. The genocide and "cleansing" ideas which later marked the Nazi regime, were introduced by some of these occultists. This is why I mention the interesting point that the Nazi swastika AND the Star of David appeared together on the Blavatsky Brooch. Blavatsky died in the 1880's. But the Theosophical Society continued. All of this happening long before Hitler ever came to power. Many feel that Hitler was funded by these groups and they controlled him. He may have been a puppet for some shadowy groups which still exist, and may still be highly influential today.

Thanks Detlof, your mantra is my mantra. :-) When is it water is not waves? When is it waves is not water? Cheers!

Cheers! to you too, 6ch....:0)