Law School Discussion

Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation

Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #190 on: April 23, 2009, 08:29:12 AM »

Great post, tantrum! It has to be pointed out, though, that just like Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understand Buddhism and have taken one thing for another, you, too, may be giving a not-quite-right interpretation of what Nietzscheanism is about.. 

I don't think Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understood Buddhism, kamma!

loany, just because they were smart it does not necessarily mean they had the right attitude to fully grasp in its entirety Buddhism!

Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #191 on: June 03, 2009, 06:55:42 AM »

I don't think Schoppenhauer/Nietzsche may have not really understood Buddhism, kamma!

loany, just because they were smart it does not necessarily mean they had the right attitude to fully grasp in its entirety Buddhism!

Could you offer your perspective on the issue, part?

Re: The Sexual Commune
« Reply #192 on: June 19, 2009, 06:37:00 AM »

So basically the nuclear family, as the base unit of consensus society, with its attendant "oedipal miseries," a response to the "agricultural revolution" with its imposed scarcity and its imposed hierarchy has to be abolished? I've read some authors advocate the more primal and more radical model -- the band.

The typical hunter/gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic band consists of about 50 people. Within larger tribal societies the band-structure is fulfilled by clans within the tribe, or by sodalities such as initiatic or secret societies, hunt or war societies, gender societies, "children's republics," and so on. If the nuclear family is produced by scarcity (and results in miserliness), the band is produced by abundance -- and results in prodigality. The family is closed, by genetics, by the male's possession of women and children, by the hierarchic totality of agricultural/industrial society. The band is open -- not to everyone, of course, but to the affinity group, the initiates sworn to a bond of love. The band is not part of a larger hierarchy, but rather part of a horizontal pattern of custom, extended kinship, contract and alliance, spiritual affinities, etc.

In fact in our society many forces are working -- largely invisibly -- to phase out the nuclear family and bring back the band. Breakdowns in the structure of Work resonate in the shattered "stability" of the unit-home and unit-family. One's "band" nowadays includes friends, ex-spouses and lovers, people met at different jobs and pow-wows, affinity groups, special interest networks, mail networks, etc. The nuclear family becomes more and more obviously a trap, a cultural sinkhole, a neurotic secret implosion of split atoms -- and the obvious counter-strategy emerges spontaneously in the almost unconscious rediscovery of the more archaic and yet more post-industrial possibility of the band.

According to Dallas Kenmare's strong words in "The Philosophy of Love," "It would be safe to say that all our troubles originate in a misunderstanding of sex and it is not an exaggeration to assert that, traced to its source, almost every human tragedy is a tragedy of love." Simply stated, the evils of ancient and modern civilization have been caused by our frustration about and failure to understand the meaning of sex. In "The Art of Loving," Erich Fromm proposes that "love" in the modern world is a highly individualist, marginal phenomenon, and not the social force it is meant to be, since love is the only power which can solve the global problems.

The Metaphysics of Sex

A global vision of the reproduction of the planet is called for. Such reproduction requires us to engage in philosophical eros. In planetary reproduction, biology and morality, sex and love, nature and idealization, must unite since there can be no creation without union. Through sexual union we understand the great mysteries of life, the renewal and fertility of the animal and plant kingdoms.

Lynn White, in his famous essay "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis," firmly teaches us that traditional Christian dogma and its transcendental God, who has the power of virgin human conception, is responsible for the ecological breakdown our technology and science has caused. He writes, "More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one." Creating a new religious myth of creation requires the utter destruction of the existing structures of thought which means, first of all, destroying the concept of the sexless virgin birth. Joseph Campbell thought that the scientific cosmology in the Bible was scientifically outdated even before the text was put together in the last centuries B.C. and first A.D. He writes, "To be effective, a mythology must be up to date scientifically, based on a concept of the universe that is current, accepted, and convincing. In this sense, the myth of the Virgin Birth is the most dangerous scientific lie!

In the Judeo-Christian story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Eve disobeys God's command not to pick the fruit off the Tree of Life, which curses the first woman and man on Earth with the knowledge of good and evil. The Serpent Goddess is seen as Satan, who is responsible for their demise. Whitmont writes, "Good becomes what is practical and collectively approved. Bad is what brings about visible harm or damage and is not in keeping with custom." Consequently, sex-knowledge is associated with evil. Blaming woman for the fall of man from paradise made Eve, Adam's spiritual twin, his first enemy. Since sex-knowledge was considered evil, the possibility of mutual ecstasy of erotic union is no longer permissible. Their love for each other became a crime of disobedience, and their children were later believed to be afflicted with their "original sin." Their paradisiacal bliss and supernatural powers were taken from them as they became ashamed of their own bodies. Work then dominated over pleasure. "Her desire became his dominion" as she became his submissive, unhappy wife. Lost was the inner, spiritual, and poetic connection they once had. She was now his external possession. In God's kingdom, "eros was superseded by agape ["brotherly" love]." Spontaneous attraction was replaced by orthodox laws. Human and animal sacrifices were performed to vent man's violent, destructive, and sadomasochistic urges, and to "renew" his hatred of the sin and his guilt for taking part in "evil" acts. Those who found themselves outside the dominant group became scapegoats: animals, slaves, non-conformists, dissenters, prisoners of war, lawbreakers, and anyone outside the group or offenders against the group. In a word, outsiders were considered enemies.

Yahweh was a jealous God who demanded Eve to love Him with all her heart, mind, and soul; before the Fall, Eros was inclusive, but after the Fall Eros was repressed. "The love between the two welcomes the love and companionship of many." Consequently, after the Fall, love became a sterile commandment enforced by His will. Ever since, Eve has tried to convince Him that using physical force, electric shock treatments, or psychological drugs on her was not going to stop her from longing for the time when her Word was sacred. While the Greeks believed the ideal of the beautiful defined the highest communal good, the Hebrew God commanded one to love Him above all else. Following His commandments was the way to the good world. But it was impossible for Eve to love a world where men ruled over her. God had prevented sexuality and destroyed equality between the sexes. Consequently, the war between the sexes began.

To return to the childlike, beautiful state of the Garden is possible only with proper understanding of love and of the sacramental sex act. The new Eve, if we but chose to embrace her, dares Adam to become "consciously aware of one's depth and of life as an undivided whole." She uses the serpent power of the Word to convince him that the survival of the planet depends on the construction of her Neutopian vision and that the greatest social need of the epoch is for him to sow the seed. In order to work her miracle, she uses dialectical progression rather than dualism. She points out to man that the apostles of true love had neither wealth, military armies, communication networks, nor any other means of worldly influence, but still their creative love made the world more conscious of its human potential. Their power came not from appealing to envy, greed, selfishness, or lust, but by becoming examples of living spirits in the flesh. She asks him to recall the fact that the greatest conquerors and revolutionary leaders do not compare with these apostles of love in the magnitude and durability of the change brought about by their activities. Through their love, they could redirect destructive energies into a creative direction of building the ecocities of eroticism. As Phyllis Trible asserts in "God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality," all nature extols the love of female and male. All animals serve love. And the way to achieve this remarkable harmony is for his desire to become her delight. As spiritual equals no one tries to dominate the other or treat the other as a possession. She is no longer called his wife and the bearer of his offspring, but their "sexual play intertwines with work."


Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #193 on: July 01, 2009, 11:43:18 AM »

Doing nothing would just make things better. You know, leaving the system to proceed in the way it is going, so that its rotten character becomes fully manifest. Capitalism is smart enough to actually make small concessions in order to save its whole "configuration" ... is not, then, that the more ruthless and corrupt the capitalist system becomes, the more likely it'll be that largely impoverished working masses will revolt? It may just be that the more curruption and distrust results from the system, the more the indignation on part of the masses will grow -- an indignation and resentment towards the ruling class that will help spark the revolution, a violent act that will change for good the order of things of an incorrigible system like capitalism.

This sounds very much like Baudrillard's strategy of ironic hyperconformity.

Pregnant with Future
« Reply #194 on: August 14, 2010, 11:57:10 AM »

Dionysus had the power to inspire and to create ecstasy

Compare it with Nietzsche's Dionysus: chaos, intoxication, celebration of nature, instinctual, intuitive, pertaining to the sensation of pleasure or pain, individuality dissolved and hence destroyed, wholeness of existence, orgiastic passion, dissolution of all boundaries, excess, human being(s) as the work and glorification of art, destruction.

And then you have the Apollo: the dream state or the wish to create order, principium individuationis (principle of individuation), plastic (visual) arts, beauty, clarity, stint to formed boundaries, individuality, celebration of appearance/illusion, human beings as artists (or media of art's manifestation), self-control, perfection, exhaustion of possibilities, creation.

In the doctrine of will to power, Nietzsche's philosophy matures fully and the earlier dichotomy of Dionysian and Apollonian which had a Hegelian dialectical flavor to it, becomes absorbed into the Will to power and thus becomes one, just as all other drives do. The Will to power becomes a vehicle for the revaluation of decadent values, which for him were the result of two thousand years of slave morality. The Dionysian energy becomes merely a material for will to power which is the most important drive in nature. Thus Nietzsche says:

This world is the will to power — and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power — and nothing besides!

Nietzsche's will to power, unlike Schopenhauer's Will, cannot be fully defined, since it cannot be known directly but rather through its manifestations. This Will to power is what rules the world and its historical behavior; it is the will to power which governs an individual's actions in this world. So fundamental is this Will to power that life could not be even possible without it. Both life and Will to power presuppose each other. Nietzsche has, as appears clearly, inherited the concept of becoming from Heraclitus for whom the concept of being smells of stagnation. Everything is a becoming. Everything is in flux. Will to power in itself is for Nietzsche nothing but becoming. This nature of becoming implies that all values too needs new valuations. Thus the revaluation of values too is a function and manifestation of this will to power. Everything that lives is an expression of will to power. The living beings must discharge their energy and even if it remains suppressed it will seek an outlet, and this energy is released in the form of power, whether in the form of art and music or architecture, or even war. Thus life is nothing but will to power for Nietzsche:

A living thing seeks above all to vent its strength — life itself is will to power.

This will to power of life is not the Darwinian self preservation of species since, 'self preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent consequences of it.

I argue that in spite of the fact that Nietzsche's will to power has some destructive aspect to it, it is moving towards creativity. Similar to Freud's concepts of Eros and Thanatos, will to power too must destroy to create, for in the process of becoming everything is constantly being destroyed and created anew. What it will destroy is decadent and degenerated values with the 'Revaluation of values' and will replace them with more noble and healthy values. The example of a carpenter cutting down a tree to shape it into a chair should serve a good illustration of how will to power has to be both destructive and constructive to create what is grand and noble and the apparent destruction and construction is only manifestations of this will to power eternally becoming. The most accurate portrayal of will to power is the drive to create. The desire to be at our best creativity is an important component of this will to power.

For Nietzsche humans are always trying to impose their superiority and will upon each other in one way or the other. Whether the person is physically harming another person, or giving him presents, or praising him or claiming to be in love with someone, the psychological and underlying desire remains the same; to inflict one's will on them. This implies that human beings are basically egoistic by nature and not altruistic as Christianity takes them to be. In fact, Nietzsche accuses Christian concept of bringing inferior ranks of people on equal footing with the superior ranks of people as a hidden Will to power, as he says that the will to equality is the will to power.

Nietzsche's will to power is a life affirming attitude. In this, the creatures affirm their instincts to acquire power and dominance. On pains and sufferings one's back is not shown but rather these are embraced as a necessary part of life. For Nietzsche, lasting pleasure and satisfaction come about as a result of being able to live according to one's instincts or authenticity and to exert will to power and not by running away from one's own nature. Nietzsche in his new valuation has defined Christian 'good' and 'evil' in the light of the will to power. Nietzsche's Will is in a perpetual becoming, a monster of energies gushing constantly. And it is his idea of eternal recurrence, already discussed, which gives this constant becoming of will to power a stability.

The terms 'Uberman' and 'Dionysian Man' are used almost interchangeably by Nietzsche, and they are exemplified in his character Zarathustra. In his later work Nietzsche develops the concept of Dionysian pathos until it becomes almost a synonym for his ideal of the Uberman ('overman'.) This overman is a person who is self-overcoming, who constantly overcomes himself so that he can become 'better'. He is Dionysian, and accepts all aspects of life. Nietzsche saw Dionysian pathos as the highest state of affirmation of existence, since the Dionysian man does not cower from the negative aspects of existence, and instead accepts that both the terrifying and the beautiful exist. In this sense, he sees the Dionysian attitude as belonging to one who is stronger and 'healthier' than normal men: the Dionysian man "meets with courage and good humour that which makes the weakling shudder."

Nietzsche also sees it as being irrevocably linked to his concept of the will to power, in that the Dionysian is governed by the Greek God Dionysus, who every year is said to be cut into pieces so that he can be reborn again - better, like the overman overcoming himself. This is linked to the will to power because a necessary pre-requisite for this will is to self-overcome, thus becoming stronger and better. Nietzsche saw this Dionysian overcoming as a vital change undergone by the strong, in whom "...the desire for destruction, change, becoming can be the expression of an overfull power pregnant with the future."

The Dionysian pathos is a justification of life even at its most terrible, ambiguous, and mendacious, and is in direct opposition to the pessimism that Nietzsche rebelled against:

"At the same time I grasped that my instinct went into the opposite direction from Schopenhauer's: toward a justification of life, even at its most terrible, ambiguous, and mendacious; for this I had the formula 'Dionysian'"

In this way, the Dionysian or tragic pathos became a superior counterforce to the denial of life that pessimism and pessimistic nihilism advocated, and offered in their stead an acceptance of life, no matter how terrible. It is important to understand however, what Nietzsche thought of pessimism, since this will tell us precisely what the Dionysian pathos is not, and it is in such a way that Nietzsche most often explains it. Usually we see optimism as the opposite of pessimism, but for Nietzsche this was not the case at all. He despised optimism as much as he did pessimism, and saw both as diseases to which the Dionysian pathos was the tonic. He maintained that both optimism and pessimism are over generalized judgements based on isolated personal experiences, and since we cannot extend our personal afflictions into the form of universal judgements, both optimism and pessimism make a fatal mistake. The pessimist judges the value of existence based on the appearance of pleasure and displeasure and because he sees the existence of displeasure he concludes that it is better not to exist at all. But he is weak, because the 'healthier man' (and by this one assumes Nietzsche means 'overman' or the Dionysian man,) realizes that the "value of life is certainly not measured by the standard of these 'trifles.' Nietzsche also says that suffering might predominate, but in spite of that a "powerful will might exist, a Yes to life." So, the Dionysian man does not judge the value of existence based on either his isolated, personal experiences, nor on the appearance of pleasure and displeasure. He does not judge at all, but instead simply accepts (says Yes to) all aspects of life, both the pleasure and displeasure - no aspect of life is subtracted or expendable. This is further expanded by Nietzsche's concept of Amor Fati - love of fate. This love of fate is quite simply the love of the overman for all of life, including the terrible: instead of hating 'fate' for sometimes being cruel, the overman accepts it and learns to love it.

"The god on the cross is a curse on life, a signpost to seek redemption from life; Dionysus cut to pieces is a promise of life: eternally reborn and returning again from destruction"

Re: Everything is in Flux!
« Reply #195 on: September 25, 2010, 12:39:02 PM »

[...] Nietzsche in his new valuation has defined Christian 'good' and 'evil' in the light of the will to power. [...]

Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell.

Satan is the adversary of God. Thus, Satan is evil personified. Many followers of the Bible consider Satan to be a real being, a spirit created by God. Satan and the other spirits who followed him rebelled against God. They were allegedly cast out from Heaven by their Creator. Satan, being a spirit, is neither male nor female. However, like his Creator, Satan is usually referred to as a masculine being. Many believe that Satan, or the Devil as he is often called, can "possess" human beings. Possession is bodily invasion by the devil. The Catholic Church still performs exorcisms on those considered to be possessed. Satan is believed to have many powers, among them the power to manifest himself in human or animal form. The consorting has been recorded as often being purely physical and mostly sexual. For most of the history of Christianity there are reports of Satan having sex with humans, either as an incubus (male devil) or succubus (female devil). Witches and sorcerers were thought by many to be the offspring of such unions. They are considered especially pernicious because they inherit some of the devil's powers.

C.G. Jung's Answer to Evil

One of Jung's most compelling ideas is the shadow. Jung describes the shadow as those aspects of ourselves that we're not too proud of. The shadow might be a desire frowned on by our peers. It could be an unusual or unhealthy inclination which the powers of civilization have apparently quelled. Because the shadow involves known and unknown aspects of the self, it relates to the ego, the unconscious and the external environment. In essence, the shadow reminds us that the mind is a like multistoried building. Our conscious mind, the ego, may or may not confront the mostly unconscious shadow. Once confronted by the ego the shadow may be integrated into consciousness. But for the most part, the shadow lies beyond the threshold of everyday awareness. Jung explains the shadow with his notion of the archetypes:

When it [shadow] appears as an is quite within the possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.

John Sanford rightly has said that our shadow personality is often obvious to others, but unknown to us. Jung maintained that everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.

If only it were all so simple? If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Re: Everything is in Flux!
« Reply #196 on: September 29, 2010, 10:40:47 AM »

John Sanford rightly has said that our shadow personality is often obvious to others, but unknown to us. Jung maintained that everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions.

If only it were all so simple? If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

Jung saw the shadow as an archetype of the repressed, hidden side of the personality: the parts of experience that have not been integrated into the conscious ego structure. As the ego develops, it cannot integrate all of its experiences because they are too terrifying, too bizarre, too ugly, etc., to be tolerated. They are then banished to the unconscious, i.e., repressed, out of sight, out of mind. If the repressed material is not faced or confronted and in some way integrated into the conscious self later in life as normal steps in maturity, the danger exists of the self being controlled by the shadow.

Shadow as Evil

Yet, there is a tendency to regard shadow as evil, particularly from Western religious perspectives. Steven Diamond, whose 1991 article, "Redeeming our Devils and Demons" (found in Zweig and Abrams' Meeting the Shadow), deals with psychology's struggle with the concept of evil. Following psychologist, Rollo May, Diamond resurrects the word "daimonic" to represent a more balanced idea of the "demonic." Diamond quotes Rollo May: "The daimonic is any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person. Sex and eros, anger and rage, and the craving for power are examples. The daimonic can be either creative or destructive and is normally both... Our age is one of transition, in which the normal channels for utilizing the daimonic are denied; and such ages tend to be times when the daimonic is expressed in its most destructive form." Commenting now himself, Diamond goes on, "These turbulent times force us to come face-to-face with the ugly reality of evil. For lack of a more psychologically accurate, integrating, and meaningful myth some people seize upon the timeworn symbol of the devil [demonic] to express their disturbing encounter with the destructive side of the daimonic [i.e., the shadow]...... The problem appears to lie in the split between good and evil promulgated by Western religious tradition, a rigid dualism that condemns the daimonic as being evil, and evil only."

Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #197 on: September 29, 2010, 12:03:00 PM »
Here it is an interesting depiction of the archetypes

The Unconscious

There are two types of unconscious, the personal unconscious and the collective. The personal unconscious is pretty much self defining and doesn't need to be perceived as mysterious or supernatural (though it is occult in the truest sense of the word - 'hidden'). The personal unconscious contains all the stuff that simply isn't conscious. It contains stuff that can be made conscious by simple act of will, stuff that requires some digging, as well as stuff that may never be recalled to consciousness ever again. It is made up of the things you've experienced every day of your life. I'm not sure if it is strictly true that nothing is ever really and truly lost, totally forgotten, but it seems that the psyche is very reluctant to let much go in the event that it might come in handy someday. The psyche is a pack rat, the unconscious full of its stuff.

The Big Five

The Big Five are the Persona, the Ego, the Shadow, the Anima/Animus, and the Self. Each has a specific role or quality which is why I prefer to think of them as functions.

The Persona

The Persona is that which we present to the outside world. It isn't really our selves, though there is a danger we can identify too much with it and believe it to be so. It is a mask. It's not a bad thing to have, in fact it's necessary for getting along with others. Jung seems to talk about it in the singular, but I suspect that a well adjusted person has several masks and is adept at juggling them and knowing which one is appropriate when and just how opaque it needs to be. In any event, singular or plural, it's a fact of life. Ask a doctor what he does and he won't say, "I do medicine", he's unlikely even to say, "I practice medicine". What you'll likely hear is "I'm a doctor". Occupation isn't the only shelf where masks are pulled from. Religion, sexual orientation, politics, the social sciences....

The Ego

The ego is the centre of consciousness. It is identity. It is 'I'. But it is not the totality of the psyche. Being the king of consciousness amounts to dominion over a small but important land surrounded by a wide world of terra incognita. The more aware the King is of lands beyond his domain the more secure he will be on his throne, but he must not be tempted to open the borders to it all. In Jungian theory the unconscious is far too vast to ever be made fully conscious, poking about in it is not without danger, yet ignoring it is also a mistake since it leads to a brittle fixedness which at best impedes growth, at worst can break when under the pressure of the 'threat' of change.

The Shadow

I was a couple of sentences in on Anima/Animus, before I noticed that I had forgotten the Shadow. That is the nature of this archetype, it is the receptacle for all of that which we have for one reason or another disowned. There seems to be a movement on to 'redeem' the Shadow, as evidenced by such books as Your Golden Shadow, but in truth there's a great deal that's very, very unpleasant here, since we have good reason for wanting to disown our darker natures. The avenue for an attempted redemption of the Shadow lies in the belief that everything disowned winds up here. A person who grew up in a family where level headedness prevailed and such things as art making were not given much value may discover some artistic aptitude hiding out in their shadow. There are treasures here, but they are buried in stinking muck.

The Anima/Animus

The Anima is the female soul image of a man, the Animus the male soul image of a woman. That is the most simple definition, and one which many struggle with, since Jung seems quite absolute in defining a person's soul image as gender opposite. "Soul image" sounds very pretty, but the Anima/Animus is not without a negative pole as well. Jung's anima whispered to him that what he was doing was "art". He rejected this and pushed ahead as a 'scientist' which was much better in a society which regards science as 'serious' and art as less so. If one is on good terms with one's Anima/Animus he/she can prove a valuable messenger between the unconscious and the conscious, a connecting link - a veritable Hermes.

The Self

The Self is simply the centre and the totality of the entire psyche. It is the archetype which contains all the other archetypes and around which they orbit. It's something of a paradox, and extremely difficult for the conscious ego to accept.

Archetypes and the Individuation Process

According to Jung, one must get in touch with the Shadow and Anima/Animus before one can truly get in touch with the Self. The order is sequential, and as tempting as it may be to try and skip the Shadow or deal only superficially with it, it is here that we begin. Jung referred to this initial step as "the First Act of Courage". And the first thing that is necessary in coming to terms with one's own shadow is simply to acknowledge that it exists. It sounds obvious, but there are those for whom the thought of actually having a darker side to their nature is extremely uncomfortable. Yet this is one of the primary reasons for undertaking the 'Shadow work' in the first place, since that which we have yet disavow in ourselves will be projected outwards.

One of the clues to projection of shadow content is the degree of negative emotion aroused in us by something in the outside world - often other people. It can be something they do, or even just the way they look. Projection is accompanied by emotion. Jung distinguished between 'feeling' (a function which evaluates) and 'emotion' (a physiological affect). If there is no projection of something which is at the root personal, it is possible to evaluate something (or someone) external as being 'bad', without being greatly upset, experiencing, at most, a sense of regret or pity. If the emotion is stronger than that, then we may want to ask ourselves what of ourselves we see in what is making us feel that way. That said, it is important to note that not all projection is negative, that at some level it may all be projection given our subjective perspectives, and that there is a place in the world for righteous anger which motivates social action for change.

One of the advantages of withdrawing one's shadow projections and owning our own 'stuff' is that the external world may brighten up a little for ourselves and those around us, since we won't be projecting so much of a negative nature outwards and saying, 'That's just how the world is, life's a b i t c h and then you die.' There is also truth in the 'Golden Shadow' observation that there are things of value which we have disowned, both aptitudes and qualities, in the Shadow. The person who blushes, and qualifies, and resists, and is generally tremendously uncomfortable when asked to sing may have a part of them which wants nothing more than to belt out a round or two of something raucous, commanding the admiration of those around. Thus the popularity of having a few in a Karoke bar. Also, without going into great detail, life energy (libido) is locked up in the Shadow, energy we could all probably use more of.

The downside to the shadow work is that it involves confronting parts of ourselves which are located in the Shadow precisely because they are frightening or shameful. Jungian analysts advise that this work be done only under the supervision of a Jungian analyst, ignoring the fact that this eliminates a large class of people who cannot afford the services of such a professional. Another book (ref?) suggests that at very least one should do the work with the help of a very close friend whom one trusts in order to have a reference in the external world, an anchor and safe haven and source of reinforcement when dark realizations seem to be all out global truths of complete personal unworthiness. It isn't a journey to be undertaken lightly. At some vaguely defined point evolving naturally out of the process (?!) it becomes possible to begin the work of getting in touch with the Anima/Animus. There is less written on this stage than that of the Shadow, which is as one would expect, given that fewer have made it this far.

Re: Everything is in Flux!
« Reply #198 on: September 30, 2010, 11:20:21 AM »

[...] The daimonic is any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person. Sex and eros, anger and rage, and the craving for power are examples. The daimonic can be either creative or destructive and is normally both...[...]

These would be Freud's unconscious instinctual drives in other words...

Re: Asylum For Blood-Feuds-Affected Person -- Lawyer Recommandation
« Reply #199 on: October 03, 2010, 11:17:58 AM »

Honor killings like the ones you're describing are also reported in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A 16-year-old girl was killed by her own family, for instance, when some years later the girl walked out on her bogus husband that she had been pre-arranged to marry in order to split with a boy she wanted to marry originally. She was stuffed down a well, with her neck been broken. Her parents walked the streets with their heads held high cuz the family honor has been preserved.

Another young woman was lured to her home having been told she was forgiven. Her brother pulled out a knife and killed her. A crowd of some 100 people danced in the street, cheering him as a hero and a real man. Her brother had thought over his decision, but eventually he did it because the community pushed him to. Otherwise he'd be regarded as a small person.

The typical killer is usually the father, husband, or brother of the victim (teenage brothers are chosen as they'll go to jail for a short time). While the victims mostly women, the males involved in the "crimes" should die as well. In general, the accused females are killed first, giving men the opportunity to go away. At the same time, the "marked" men can escape death by paying monies to the family of the female victim -- this evolves to an "honor killing business" between tribes, police and negotiators. There are also some rumors about males having killed other men in murders unrelated to honor issues who then will kill a female of their own family to cover up the initial killing.

One clarification here - Islam has nothing to do with honor killings. This is tribal, medieval mentality that is also seen in tribes in Pakistan and India, and often even in communities that are not Islamic. It is basically part of the ignorance of a tribal community.

Peter's Father-in-Law, what you're saying is true. Another poster, however, had posted the same thing before you did.

qiverori, a very good idea on your part to clarify that - there's a tendency on this board to ascribe this type of mentality to Islamic countries and cultures only. While it is a fact that treating women this bad is characteristic of every society that governs itself not "bureaucratically" but polices "itself." So basically, women property of men, with the latter that can do whatever they want with them (their women). 

Muslim families treat women bad. Muslim men treat women with no respect, beat them, oppress them and sometimes kill them. The typical case of an oppressed Muslim woman is that of one given into marriage when she is but a child. Men are promiscuous and their wives usually know that they have affairs with other women. Children are also beaten by their fathers - they are beaten, their theory being that unless children are beaten they will become spoiled.

Caregiving and raising children is done exclusively by the women and men who share even just a bit on the above are not considered 'real' men. Children in Muslim countries are seen as property of their parents. They are called "amana," they are viewed as "on loan" from God, and parents are entrusted to care for them. Children are expected to be obedient and parents discourage premarital intimacy and unsupervised dating and parties. Children are expected to take care of their elderly parents and those who do not are seen as 'bad' children.

Muslims value highly relationships with extended family and friends, so families try to live close to one another. The elderly and disabled are viewed as blessings and are cared for within the family or close-knit community.

So  what is the point of your post? Somehow suggesting that the Western way of life is superior to these countries' and that the U.S. intervention in their interior affairs is justified in the name of "democratizing" them?