What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: What is Catl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
If you put a human in the desert looking for salvation, he/she might walk a long way just to be back at the start point… or as Plotinus said, “the soul’s natural movement is not in a straight line” … “it circles around something interior around a centre”. The circle is the concept of enantiodromia or the union of the opposites by “emerging” or as transcendent possibilities of the circle. Transcendental idealism? I believe that Schopenhauer was familiar with psychological laws (hedgehogs’ dilemma) and his question of “why is there something instead of nothing” is being around since at least Paracelsus. By using something/nothing as enantiodromia then IMO paradox or "forever in a circle" or ..." Free Will"
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What is Catl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
As I understand it from my reading of Jung the idea of enantiodromia goes back to the idea of Heraclitus. It does suggest a interplay of qualities, merging the linear movement and extreme poles of continuum with cyclical patterns. This is the interplay of opposites, like the yin and the yang but within a larger unity.The Beast wrote: ↑March 14th, 2023, 5:57 pm Very well Jack. In approaching your post in a systematic way, I am perceiving several opposites such as inner/outer; objective/subjective; physical/metaphysical. The idea of a circle might give insight into Plotinus’ mind.
If you put a human in the desert looking for salvation, he/she might walk a long way just to be back at the start point… or as Plotinus said, “the soul’s natural movement is not in a straight line” … “it circles around something interior around a centre”. The circle is the concept of enantiodromia or the union of the opposites by “emerging” or as transcendent possibilities of the circle. Transcendental idealism? I believe that Schopenhauer was familiar with psychological laws (hedgehogs’ dilemma) and his question of “why is there something instead of nothing” is being around since at least Paracelsus. By using something/nothing as enantiodromia then IMO paradox or "forever in a circle" or ..." Free Will"
The circle is an interesting concept because even if it starts somewhere the beginning is not apparent. It is beyond the borders and spectrum of the known, as conveyed in the concepts of infinity and eternity. With transcendental idealism this may be about the unconscious as unlimited potential prior to physicality. Where Schopenhauer comes in is that he brings the transcendent, spoken of by Kant, down to human consciousness, making it as imminent, which makes inner experience the valid seat of experience of the numinous.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
The concepts of Techne and Epistemology had been explored by multiple philosophers. Aristotle is well known and better so with the advent of the transcendental phenomenology thesis and also (of your own interest), the modern discourse on the technicity of art.
To be precise, Jung hypothesized in his psychology of consciousness several divisions of the unconscious one of which is the impersonal and collective contents; that there is a collision of conscious and unconscious and that consciousness is founded on unconsciousness.
Unlike Plato’s tetralogies which IMO are based in Techne of the soul and the relation with the Forms maybe numina “the will of augury” (relation of unconscious manifestations) and the basis (starting point) for animal systematics of evolution and diversity, Jung’s tetralogy (archetypes) webs a faint rosarium of empirical evidence. However, his archetypes rose from (IMO) from his knowledge of Alchemy. He actually cites Aristotle’s “perfecto magisterio” and others in an alchemical making of the living stone (the self… life) with magnesium (magnets and alchemical magnesia). He also refers to treatises such as ‘God and the Shekhinah’ to formulate an alchemical self in relation to and with the collective contents.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
I have not read much of Aristotle's writing but I am aware that he places more emphasis on the empirical rather than Plato. It does seem that Jung's understanding draws upon alchemy and other esoteric ideas. I am inclined to think that it is the focus on the esoteric which makes him disregarded in philosophy as a whole. Of course, his use of the Gnostic interpretations of Christianity makes him able to challenge the literalism of traditional Christian thinking.The Beast wrote: ↑March 15th, 2023, 3:10 pm well said Jack. In addition:
The concepts of Techne and Epistemology had been explored by multiple philosophers. Aristotle is well known and better so with the advent of the transcendental phenomenology thesis and also (of your own interest), the modern discourse on the technicity of art.
To be precise, Jung hypothesized in his psychology of consciousness several divisions of the unconscious one of which is the impersonal and collective contents; that there is a collision of conscious and unconscious and that consciousness is founded on unconsciousness.
Unlike Plato’s tetralogies which IMO are based in Techne of the soul and the relation with the Forms maybe numina “the will of augury” (relation of unconscious manifestations) and the basis (starting point) for animal systematics of evolution and diversity, Jung’s tetralogy (archetypes) webs a faint rosarium of empirical evidence. However, his archetypes rose from (IMO) from his knowledge of Alchemy. He actually cites Aristotle’s “perfecto magisterio” and others in an alchemical making of the living stone (the self… life) with magnesium (magnets and alchemical magnesia). He also refers to treatises such as ‘God and the Shekhinah’ to formulate an alchemical self in relation to and with the collective contents.
Nevertheless, his whole emphasis on the reality of the nature of inner experience and symbolic makes him a challenge to the concrete thinking of materialism, especially Dennett's idea of 'consciousness as an illusion'. For Jung, consciousness and the unconscious as a source is central to understanding of reality.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
It's fun to think that, somewhere amongst the billions, there are people who share many attributes to us and tend to occupy similar social niches. Further, in the future others will be born. In that sense, archetypes are essentially immortal. In any given population, sentient or otherwise, there will be a smaller number of dominant entities and their satellites, a larger population of smaller victims of the dominants, either via absorption, destruction or exile, catalysts, destroyers, the "in-crowd" and fringe dwellers, the complex and the simple, the more typical and less typical, the harder and softer, and so forth.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
The issue of types and archetypes relates to the way in which people have universal and unique features. It brings in the mythical and story aspects of life, as spoken about in more detail by Joseph Campbell than by Jung. People have varying attributes and quests in life. Some may relate to ones like father or mother, although there are so many like the more obscure. The ones with which I feel most resonance with are shaman or the wounded healer, or even the fool. The archetypal figure of the wounded healer was the archetype which I felt to be of most importance when I was training in psychiatric nursing.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 18th, 2023, 5:53 pm A thought out of left field regarding archetypes. While the actual designations are debatable, there are many ways in which people can be divided into types. There is always an uncanny sense when one meets a person whose appearance and demeanour is highly reminiscent of someone you know. They are of a similar "type", although Jung's and others' attempts to classify them - from astrology to modern personality inventories - show how elusive solid definitions of those types are. To some extent, it's a matter of "you know it when you see it".
It's fun to think that, somewhere amongst the billions, there are people who share many attributes to us and tend to occupy similar social niches. Further, in the future others will be born. In that sense, archetypes are essentially immortal. In any given population, sentient or otherwise, there will be a smaller number of dominant entities and their satellites, a larger population of smaller victims of the dominants, either via absorption, destruction or exile, catalysts, destroyers, the "in-crowd" and fringe dwellers, the complex and the simple, the more typical and less typical, the harder and softer, and so forth.
As for how we make connections with others in the mythical drama is variable because it involves making the important connections and what is projected. The outer and the inner may be at odds. For example, I may see someone who looks similar to someone I know but if I get to know them it is unlikely that they will be similar in a deeper way. Sometimes, it can be a problem if people project specific characteristics or attributes onto certain others. This may lead to a lot of difficulties in personal relationships and friendships.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
Superficial similarities are not relevant. Fact is that there will be some people (aside from family) who are more like you in disposition and characteristics than any others. A thought experiment, imagine that everyone completed a personality inventory of ten thousand questions (a thought experiment because it could never be done). There would be various people around the globe who would have answered almost every question the same as yours. From memory, mystics who believe in reincarnation refer to "soul families".JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 6:42 amThe issue of types and archetypes relates to the way in which people have universal and unique features. It brings in the mythical and story aspects of life, as spoken about in more detail by Joseph Campbell than by Jung. People have varying attributes and quests in life. Some may relate to ones like father or mother, although there are so many like the more obscure. The ones with which I feel most resonance with are shaman or the wounded healer, or even the fool. The archetypal figure of the wounded healer was the archetype which I felt to be of most importance when I was training in psychiatric nursing.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 18th, 2023, 5:53 pm A thought out of left field regarding archetypes. While the actual designations are debatable, there are many ways in which people can be divided into types. There is always an uncanny sense when one meets a person whose appearance and demeanour is highly reminiscent of someone you know. They are of a similar "type", although Jung's and others' attempts to classify them - from astrology to modern personality inventories - show how elusive solid definitions of those types are. To some extent, it's a matter of "you know it when you see it".
It's fun to think that, somewhere amongst the billions, there are people who share many attributes to us and tend to occupy similar social niches. Further, in the future others will be born. In that sense, archetypes are essentially immortal. In any given population, sentient or otherwise, there will be a smaller number of dominant entities and their satellites, a larger population of smaller victims of the dominants, either via absorption, destruction or exile, catalysts, destroyers, the "in-crowd" and fringe dwellers, the complex and the simple, the more typical and less typical, the harder and softer, and so forth.
As for how we make connections with others in the mythical drama is variable because it involves making the important connections and what is projected. The outer and the inner may be at odds. For example, I may see someone who looks similar to someone I know but if I get to know them it is unlikely that they will be similar in a deeper way. Sometimes, it can be a problem if people project specific characteristics or attributes onto certain others. This may lead to a lot of difficulties in personal relationships and friendships.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 3:44 pmSuperficial similarities are not relevant. Fact is that there will be some people (aside from family) who are more like you in disposition and characteristics than any others. A thought experiment, imagine that everyone completed a personality inventory of ten thousand questions (a thought experiment because it could never be done). There would be various people around the globe who would have answered almost every question the same as yours. From memory, mystics who believe in reincarnation refer to "soul families".JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 6:42 amThe issue of types and archetypes relates to the way in which people have universal and unique features. It brings in the mythical and story aspects of life, as spoken about in more detail by Joseph Campbell than by Jung. People have varying attributes and quests in life. Some may relate to ones like father or mother, although there are so many like the more obscure. The ones with which I feel most resonance with are shaman or the wounded healer, or even the fool. The archetypal figure of the wounded healer was the archetype which I felt to be of most importance when I was training in psychiatric nursing.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 18th, 2023, 5:53 pm A thought out of left field regarding archetypes. While the actual designations are debatable, there are many ways in which people can be divided into types. There is always an uncanny sense when one meets a person whose appearance and demeanour is highly reminiscent of someone you know. They are of a similar "type", although Jung's and others' attempts to classify them - from astrology to modern personality inventories - show how elusive solid definitions of those types are. To some extent, it's a matter of "you know it when you see it".
It's fun to think that, somewhere amongst the billions, there are people who share many attributes to us and tend to occupy similar social niches. Further, in the future others will be born. In that sense, archetypes are essentially immortal. In any given population, sentient or otherwise, there will be a smaller number of dominant entities and their satellites, a larger population of smaller victims of the dominants, either via absorption, destruction or exile, catalysts, destroyers, the "in-crowd" and fringe dwellers, the complex and the simple, the more typical and less typical, the harder and softer, and so forth.
As for how we make connections with others in the mythical drama is variable because it involves making the important connections and what is projected. The outer and the inner may be at odds. For example, I may see someone who looks similar to someone I know but if I get to know them it is unlikely that they will be similar in a deeper way. Sometimes, it can be a problem if people project specific characteristics or attributes onto certain others. This may lead to a lot of difficulties in personal relationships and friendships.
Generally, I would go more by how people relate to one another with connections more than by answers to questions. That is based on experience of relating to people and what is sometimes considered to be 'soul groups or families'. There seem to be definite connections between people which can last throughout life, although these may alter. On a personal level, I often feel that some people I come across are ones who I am 'meant to meet' whereas others are far more superficial acquaintances. For example, since moving to North London about 6 weeks ago I have tried to get to know some people locally and, so far, I have not met anyone with whom I have meaningful connections. Of course, sometimes the ideas can become romanticized in the idea of 'soul mates' and relationships which go beyond a lifetime.
However, such relationships and soul families may be one of the most significant arguments for reincarnation. In addition, the developments of types, qualities and characteristics is connected. In particular, thinking of some of the most creative people in history, such as famous artists, writers and scientists it does seem questionable whether such developments could have been developed in one lifetime alone. It is hard to know how far it goes, especially in terms of the collective unconscious but it there definitely seems to be a drama of archetypal characteristics inherent in individual and social aspects of human life.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
Of course, but how would you then propose to measure and quantify it? Besides, I don't think you have considered the level of detail of a 10,000 question survey. You could tease out the vast majority of major features in a person's connections and social dynamics. The Big Five test has sixty questions, and it is regarded as the most reliable personality inventory, considered efficacious in many industries.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 amSy Borg wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 3:44 pmSuperficial similarities are not relevant. Fact is that there will be some people (aside from family) who are more like you in disposition and characteristics than any others. A thought experiment, imagine that everyone completed a personality inventory of ten thousand questions (a thought experiment because it could never be done). There would be various people around the globe who would have answered almost every question the same as yours. From memory, mystics who believe in reincarnation refer to "soul families".JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 6:42 amThe issue of types and archetypes relates to the way in which people have universal and unique features. It brings in the mythical and story aspects of life, as spoken about in more detail by Joseph Campbell than by Jung. People have varying attributes and quests in life. Some may relate to ones like father or mother, although there are so many like the more obscure. The ones with which I feel most resonance with are shaman or the wounded healer, or even the fool. The archetypal figure of the wounded healer was the archetype which I felt to be of most importance when I was training in psychiatric nursing.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 18th, 2023, 5:53 pm A thought out of left field regarding archetypes. While the actual designations are debatable, there are many ways in which people can be divided into types. There is always an uncanny sense when one meets a person whose appearance and demeanour is highly reminiscent of someone you know. They are of a similar "type", although Jung's and others' attempts to classify them - from astrology to modern personality inventories - show how elusive solid definitions of those types are. To some extent, it's a matter of "you know it when you see it".
It's fun to think that, somewhere amongst the billions, there are people who share many attributes to us and tend to occupy similar social niches. Further, in the future others will be born. In that sense, archetypes are essentially immortal. In any given population, sentient or otherwise, there will be a smaller number of dominant entities and their satellites, a larger population of smaller victims of the dominants, either via absorption, destruction or exile, catalysts, destroyers, the "in-crowd" and fringe dwellers, the complex and the simple, the more typical and less typical, the harder and softer, and so forth.
As for how we make connections with others in the mythical drama is variable because it involves making the important connections and what is projected. The outer and the inner may be at odds. For example, I may see someone who looks similar to someone I know but if I get to know them it is unlikely that they will be similar in a deeper way. Sometimes, it can be a problem if people project specific characteristics or attributes onto certain others. This may lead to a lot of difficulties in personal relationships and friendships.
Generally, I would go more by how people relate to one another with connections more than by answers to questions.
That's more compatibility than similarity. Perhaps an example would help.I've avoided examples because they will always be much oversimplified, and I felt that this oversimplification would become the subject of discussion, rather than the broader dynamic I want to illustrate.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 amThat is based on experience of relating to people and what is sometimes considered to be 'soul groups or families'. There seem to be definite connections between people which can last throughout life, although these may alter. On a personal level, I often feel that some people I come across are ones who I am 'meant to meet' whereas others are far more superficial acquaintances. For example, since moving to North London about 6 weeks ago I have tried to get to know some people locally and, so far, I have not met anyone with whom I have meaningful connections. Of course, sometimes the ideas can become romanticized in the idea of 'soul mates' and relationships which go beyond a lifetime.
So, please remember that this is VERY oversimplified. In reality, there would be dozens of other attributes. Throughout the ages, there will always be couples where the man is like a heavyweight champ and the woman is the size of a young schoolgirl. In each generation, there will be always be some huge males who prefer dainty females and vice versa. In every population there are dominants and their satellites, catalysts and destroyers, in-group members and fringe dwellers. Each living member simply fills those roles for a while before being replaced.
The qualities passed down to geniuses don't need to be passed on by a previously deceased incarnation. Rather, qualities are passed down at a societal scale, and individuals variably express those qualities. For instance, if you were lost in the jungle and raised by chimps, how many of the qualities that you currently consider to be essential aspects of what makes you you would be present? Weren't these attributes already present in your society and you adopted the most resonant and available potential characteristics in those around you, and who preceded you? Monkey see, monkey do still applies.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 am However, such relationships and soul families may be one of the most significant arguments for reincarnation. In addition, the developments of types, qualities and characteristics is connected. In particular, thinking of some of the most creative people in history, such as famous artists, writers and scientists it does seem questionable whether such developments could have been developed in one lifetime alone. It is hard to know how far it goes, especially in terms of the collective unconscious but it there definitely seems to be a drama of archetypal characteristics inherent in individual and social aspects of human life.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
I don't rule out the reliability of a 10, 000 question survey but it might be rather daunting unless it replaced others, such as the process of end of school exams. Of course, it would rely upon the accuracy of answers and might need a lot of preparation of thought to enable honest awareness of oneself. It might be more valuable for the enabling of direction in life rather than judging ability on the measure of exams.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 4:35 pmOf course, but how would you then propose to measure and quantify it? Besides, I don't think you have considered the level of detail of a 10,000 question survey. You could tease out the vast majority of major features in a person's connections and social dynamics. The Big Five test has sixty questions, and it is regarded as the most reliable personality inventory, considered efficacious in many industries.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 amSy Borg wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 3:44 pmSuperficial similarities are not relevant. Fact is that there will be some people (aside from family) who are more like you in disposition and characteristics than any others. A thought experiment, imagine that everyone completed a personality inventory of ten thousand questions (a thought experiment because it could never be done). There would be various people around the globe who would have answered almost every question the same as yours. From memory, mystics who believe in reincarnation refer to "soul families".JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 6:42 am
The issue of types and archetypes relates to the way in which people have universal and unique features. It brings in the mythical and story aspects of life, as spoken about in more detail by Joseph Campbell than by Jung. People have varying attributes and quests in life. Some may relate to ones like father or mother, although there are so many like the more obscure. The ones with which I feel most resonance with are shaman or the wounded healer, or even the fool. The archetypal figure of the wounded healer was the archetype which I felt to be of most importance when I was training in psychiatric nursing.
As for how we make connections with others in the mythical drama is variable because it involves making the important connections and what is projected. The outer and the inner may be at odds. For example, I may see someone who looks similar to someone I know but if I get to know them it is unlikely that they will be similar in a deeper way. Sometimes, it can be a problem if people project specific characteristics or attributes onto certain others. This may lead to a lot of difficulties in personal relationships and friendships.
Generally, I would go more by how people relate to one another with connections more than by answers to questions.
That's more compatibility than similarity. Perhaps an example would help.I've avoided examples because they will always be much oversimplified, and I felt that this oversimplification would become the subject of discussion, rather than the broader dynamic I want to illustrate.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 amThat is based on experience of relating to people and what is sometimes considered to be 'soul groups or families'. There seem to be definite connections between people which can last throughout life, although these may alter. On a personal level, I often feel that some people I come across are ones who I am 'meant to meet' whereas others are far more superficial acquaintances. For example, since moving to North London about 6 weeks ago I have tried to get to know some people locally and, so far, I have not met anyone with whom I have meaningful connections. Of course, sometimes the ideas can become romanticized in the idea of 'soul mates' and relationships which go beyond a lifetime.
So, please remember that this is VERY oversimplified. In reality, there would be dozens of other attributes. Throughout the ages, there will always be couples where the man is like a heavyweight champ and the woman is the size of a young schoolgirl. In each generation, there will be always be some huge males who prefer dainty females and vice versa. In every population there are dominants and their satellites, catalysts and destroyers, in-group members and fringe dwellers. Each living member simply fills those roles for a while before being replaced.
The qualities passed down to geniuses don't need to be passed on by a previously deceased incarnation. Rather, qualities are passed down at a societal scale, and individuals variably express those qualities. For instance, if you were lost in the jungle and raised by chimps, how many of the qualities that you currently consider to be essential aspects of what makes you you would be present? Weren't these attributes already present in your society and you adopted the most resonant and available potential characteristics in those around you, and who preceded you? Monkey see, monkey do still applies.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 am However, such relationships and soul families may be one of the most significant arguments for reincarnation. In addition, the developments of types, qualities and characteristics is connected. In particular, thinking of some of the most creative people in history, such as famous artists, writers and scientists it does seem questionable whether such developments could have been developed in one lifetime alone. It is hard to know how far it goes, especially in terms of the collective unconscious but it there definitely seems to be a drama of archetypal characteristics inherent in individual and social aspects of human life.
It is true that the characteristics of genius don't simply emerge from the collective unconscious but are passed on through social means. It may be about no one existing in a socially isolated bubble and individuals acquiring qualities through training and perceived social roles. An interesting example of projected roles and expectations was Krishnamurti. That is because he was perceived as a future spiritual world leader, rejected this, but went on to develop his own philosophy.
It is questionable to what extent any of those who were declared as genius, such as Van Gogh and William Blake would have been seen as such, it they had not been given a niche for expression of their creativity. In the twentieth first century they may have simply been seen as 'mentally ill' and been forced to take medication to normalise them. Personal narratives of identity and expression are derived partly from projected expectations and many may be held back in potential by the negative projections within the social contexts in which they exist.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: What is Carl Jung's Significance for Philosophy?
Of course people wouldn't do the survey. However, if they did, there would logically be a small number of people with strikingly similar answers to yours. They would be your type.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 11:01 pmI don't rule out the reliability of a 10, 000 question survey but it might be rather daunting unless it replaced others, such as the process of end of school exams. Of course, it would rely upon the accuracy of answers and might need a lot of preparation of thought to enable honest awareness of oneself. It might be more valuable for the enabling of direction in life rather than judging ability on the measure of exams.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 4:35 pmOf course, but how would you then propose to measure and quantify it? Besides, I don't think you have considered the level of detail of a 10,000 question survey. You could tease out the vast majority of major features in a person's connections and social dynamics. The Big Five test has sixty questions, and it is regarded as the most reliable personality inventory, considered efficacious in many industries.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 amSy Borg wrote: ↑March 19th, 2023, 3:44 pm
Superficial similarities are not relevant. Fact is that there will be some people (aside from family) who are more like you in disposition and characteristics than any others. A thought experiment, imagine that everyone completed a personality inventory of ten thousand questions (a thought experiment because it could never be done). There would be various people around the globe who would have answered almost every question the same as yours. From memory, mystics who believe in reincarnation refer to "soul families".
Generally, I would go more by how people relate to one another with connections more than by answers to questions.
That's more compatibility than similarity. Perhaps an example would help.I've avoided examples because they will always be much oversimplified, and I felt that this oversimplification would become the subject of discussion, rather than the broader dynamic I want to illustrate.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 amThat is based on experience of relating to people and what is sometimes considered to be 'soul groups or families'. There seem to be definite connections between people which can last throughout life, although these may alter. On a personal level, I often feel that some people I come across are ones who I am 'meant to meet' whereas others are far more superficial acquaintances. For example, since moving to North London about 6 weeks ago I have tried to get to know some people locally and, so far, I have not met anyone with whom I have meaningful connections. Of course, sometimes the ideas can become romanticized in the idea of 'soul mates' and relationships which go beyond a lifetime.
So, please remember that this is VERY oversimplified. In reality, there would be dozens of other attributes. Throughout the ages, there will always be couples where the man is like a heavyweight champ and the woman is the size of a young schoolgirl. In each generation, there will be always be some huge males who prefer dainty females and vice versa. In every population there are dominants and their satellites, catalysts and destroyers, in-group members and fringe dwellers. Each living member simply fills those roles for a while before being replaced.
The qualities passed down to geniuses don't need to be passed on by a previously deceased incarnation. Rather, qualities are passed down at a societal scale, and individuals variably express those qualities. For instance, if you were lost in the jungle and raised by chimps, how many of the qualities that you currently consider to be essential aspects of what makes you you would be present? Weren't these attributes already present in your society and you adopted the most resonant and available potential characteristics in those around you, and who preceded you? Monkey see, monkey do still applies.JackDaydream wrote: ↑March 20th, 2023, 6:04 am However, such relationships and soul families may be one of the most significant arguments for reincarnation. In addition, the developments of types, qualities and characteristics is connected. In particular, thinking of some of the most creative people in history, such as famous artists, writers and scientists it does seem questionable whether such developments could have been developed in one lifetime alone. It is hard to know how far it goes, especially in terms of the collective unconscious but it there definitely seems to be a drama of archetypal characteristics inherent in individual and social aspects of human life.
It is true that the characteristics of genius don't simply emerge from the collective unconscious but are passed on through social means. It may be about no one existing in a socially isolated bubble and individuals acquiring qualities through training and perceived social roles. An interesting example of projected roles and expectations was Krishnamurti. That is because he was perceived as a future spiritual world leader, rejected this, but went on to develop his own philosophy.
It is questionable to what extent any of those who were declared as genius, such as Van Gogh and William Blake would have been seen as such, it they had not been given a niche for expression of their creativity. In the twentieth first century they may have simply been seen as 'mentally ill' and been forced to take medication to normalise them. Personal narratives of identity and expression are derived partly from projected expectations and many may be held back in potential by the negative projections within the social contexts in which they exist.
I have no doubt that some geniuses slipped through the cracks, being disregarded and tormented.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023