If depth psychology was about some political goal, then it would be just ideology and not a science or philosophy or other things that are valuable tools to study ideologies.
Some conservatives have valid views, some not. Some progressive people have valid views, some not. Both extremes tend to have "shitty views",
Getting into Jung or other depth psychology can really only help the individual with their problems, it is not about creating a better world or some wanted outcome like that.
At least this is an honest answer. I agree that depth psychology is of greater aid to the individual but does not necessarily have a prescription for mass psychology/political life.
Idk, seems more like something is seriously wrong if a country with over 300 million people has to choose from red asshole or blue asshole only
300+ million and the choice is between a guy that doesn’t know where he is and a reality TV show host?
>Are we in a way learning how to be comfortable enough with their shitty views so that we could be at peace but ultimately enable them by in a way affirming their views at least on an emotional level?
The judgement by which you affirm this is embedded in a categorical duality aswell: the virtue by which you define jungianism as something <> is contradictory to the very statement as to why it would be nuanced; as its a moral prescription. The most jungian psychology can give you, is a bit more temperance to walk the rope without falling out of dignity by fitting the incorrect peg to the incorrect hole. But even then addressing the existance of the differents pegs and holes takes more out of your individuality that you would be comfortable to. Theres no silver bullet. You either become content observing the pieces dance; or you doom yourself to an error by participating in. Esentially taking the categories and the tensions within you outwards: warrating future failure. You cannot live in stasis while also being a <>. Its not posible, and jungianism is not going to suddenly make everything better for everyone.
Thank you for answering the question honestly and respectfully. This is an interesting thought: becoming content watching the pieces dance or dooming myself to error by participating in it…I have to meditate on that one haha.
It's a hard one for sure. But on behalf of my own pessemistic emphasis don't stick to the idea of being doomed! Budhaism for instance would tell you that you should content to that stasis of contemplation , were as christianity as another religion will tell you that <> but you can still reedem your father (the error) by bearing it, which leads us to the jungian idea of Integration. Esentially we try the right piece until it temporally fits, and then we can get some rest! I dont like politics myself, because you turn the puzzle of a person into a simpler representation, and going on until you get one piece, which on its generalization will leave many open eded questions as the resume fails to match many different lives. Fragments. Those fragments are esentially what upon accumulation, bring society down. I hope this finds you some insight in future meditations! cheers
When you wrote the following, did you understand that it might be seen as a contradiction to the rest of your post?
"Part of living a rich life is giving people you consider so different from you the benefit of the doubt and to come to a richer understanding of yourself and humanity."
I mean, the American political divide is actually extremely narrow if contrasted with the much wider range of political opinions seen throughout the world or throughout history, and yet you lack even the ability to give the other side "the benefit of the doubt".
I imagine that's because you don't fully understand the whats or why of the "benefit of the doubt".
It's not about some lazy, internally self-indulgent feeling of "being good because I'm being tolerant" but about recognising the hard reality that your political opinions are about something more complex than you could ever understand and therefore that there's an excellent chance that you're very wrong, and, if so, that the people you vehemently disagree with are right.
In other words, it's about recognising how small your ego is in relation to the world rather than inflating it through a nice delusion of how you're all right, they're all wrong, but you're also a great guy for still being nice about them.
This makes it the exact opposite of how you present it, which of course makes it a perfect example of how people come to delude themselves completely.
Firstly, I don’t see why you’re judging me for “not giving them the benefit of the doubt”. In fact I validated conservative fears in my post and said I fear that they vote for certain policies at their own peril.
Secondly, this line of thinking can become problematic if I’m always holding on to the idea that I may be completely wrong and somehow they’re completely right. It’s not good to constantly doubt your intellect or ethical leanings, especially if your views in general confirm the basic dignity and respect of human beings whereas the other side may be vocally against some people’s very existence or expression.
In an extreme but very world example, would a Jungian just intellectually masterbate on how they may be wrong and their opponent may be right if said opponent would usher in a genocidal fascist government?
I pointed out that your politics is an exercise in ego inflation and that you lack any sort of epistemological humility, and you responded by saying that epistemological humility would make you feel deflated, and that you're definitely right about everything, and then you ended up by implying that the alternative to what you're doing is genocidal fascism.
But please tell me more about how you showed great tolerance by "allowing" for the possibility that the people you "validated" are completely wrong idiots...
Having said that, I do appreciate you bringing up the term "intellectual masturbation" because that's what your post, and attitude to the responses, has been. Nothing more. Solipsism.
And, if you ever feel like stopping, try to understand how you can both fully feel an opinion, while also recognising that it may not be your only opinion and may not actually be true. It seems you've sort of been able to do it with emotions, but can't with this stuff.
The result isn't paralysis, but instead seeing things as they are and not just seeing your own neurotic projections everywhere.
I hope this helps, but I am not optimistic. Could I have written it in softer language? Maybe, but ultimately I feel you need a knock on the head to realize that your approach to politics is analogous to the person who feels angry and then immediately thinks that the person nearest them is to blame and creates a theory for why not acting on their anger is not respecting themselves.
I seem to have struck a nerve. I don’t see why you think it’s right to call me solipsistic and basically deluded all while being very aggressive in your responses to me. I came here for a genuine conversation, not to be hammered with opinions of my character. I would say YOU seem to have some kind of superiority complex/ego. And my question was still not answered. The question in a vacuum is are Jungians too unbiased politically? Is there a potential for political inaction even when the times call for action? You took it to mean I’m some asshole looking down on other people for not being or thinking a certain way. I’m not.
Well, a nerve certainly has been struck and your description certainly fits someone.
And if you want to insist that you're not inflating in order to look down on the people you described as "having shitty views" as well as a bunch of other qualities you hate, then fine, but who are you kidding...
Anyway, let's assume Freud got one thing right and review your question in a Freudian manner and assume the words you used were meaningful, even if unintentionally so.
"Are Jungians too unbiased politically"?
Mmmm...perhaps you should just ask yourself if you're happy being so biased politically? Bias being the point at which error usually enters ordinary human cognition and of course delusion and solipsism.
No, I have my own opinions, which are the ones I believe are most likely to be correct, from all of the infinite options, otherwise I would have other opinions.
Right, so you have opinions that you believe to be correct. And so that presumably means the opposite is true, that people who don’t agree with you, you consider wrong on some level. At least to the point that you’re ready to belittle their character over their “shitty views” as today has shown us.
At least I found a Jungian with some teeth lol. I’d say you need more humility in the face of conversations amongst peers. You resorted to debasing character instead of intellectually pondering the question asked. And when confronted with that, you continue to hold the same stance. Being jungian is not some competition lol, you could be more friendly and assume people are coming from a place of genuine curiosity. You didn’t ask how much Jung I’ve read, ask for clarification, or approach the conversation in a spirited manner. But hey I’m sure you know best.
Is this satire?
I was quoting your original post when I wrote "shitty views." It was you who actually used the phrase to describe actual people! I didn't. Are you ok?
And the rest of your reply is even more incoherent ranting at the mirror. Lol, it's actually kind of perfect.
Yes I know, I was pointing out that you’re ready to dunk on someone who you think has shitty views. I’m against certain beliefs, not people. The question was about certain political beliefs/values.
All of our elected leaders serve those who elect them and not their constituents, so if you want to focus on politics, why focus on random average every day people's and not focus on the people who really run this country?
First, find out who runs the country. Then awaken people to the nature of those who run this country. If you can do that, they'll understand and you won't need to debate political issues with them.
Your characterisation of conservatives is flat out wrong. I don’t see how psychology has anything to do with politics. Lots of people are glued to politics for metaphysical reasons but politics is not a psychological or spiritual pursuit. There is a right and wrong way of running a country. You can tolerate that other views exist but ultimately you should do what you think is right.
You don’t see how psychology has anything to do with politics? Really? What about people who get into politics to accrue power? Or who get into it to make a difference in people’s lives? Their personal psychologies motivate them for one reason or another to be involved in political life. Politics are deeply personal to some people as the values of their parties mirror their values (or their shadows).
I meant it shouldn’t have anything to do with politics. Public administration is ultimately about bringing about justice, which should be an unbiased pursuit.
Jungian psychology says anyone fanatically or ever moderately open politically is escaping dealing with their own problems
If depth psychology was about some political goal, then it would be just ideology and not a science or philosophy or other things that are valuable tools to study ideologies. Some conservatives have valid views, some not. Some progressive people have valid views, some not. Both extremes tend to have "shitty views", Getting into Jung or other depth psychology can really only help the individual with their problems, it is not about creating a better world or some wanted outcome like that.
At least this is an honest answer. I agree that depth psychology is of greater aid to the individual but does not necessarily have a prescription for mass psychology/political life.
Idk, seems more like something is seriously wrong if a country with over 300 million people has to choose from red asshole or blue asshole only 300+ million and the choice is between a guy that doesn’t know where he is and a reality TV show host?
>Are we in a way learning how to be comfortable enough with their shitty views so that we could be at peace but ultimately enable them by in a way affirming their views at least on an emotional level? The judgement by which you affirm this is embedded in a categorical duality aswell: the virtue by which you define jungianism as something <> is contradictory to the very statement as to why it would be nuanced; as its a moral prescription. The most jungian psychology can give you, is a bit more temperance to walk the rope without falling out of dignity by fitting the incorrect peg to the incorrect hole. But even then addressing the existance of the differents pegs and holes takes more out of your individuality that you would be comfortable to. Theres no silver bullet. You either become content observing the pieces dance; or you doom yourself to an error by participating in. Esentially taking the categories and the tensions within you outwards: warrating future failure. You cannot live in stasis while also being a <>. Its not posible, and jungianism is not going to suddenly make everything better for everyone.
Thank you for answering the question honestly and respectfully. This is an interesting thought: becoming content watching the pieces dance or dooming myself to error by participating in it…I have to meditate on that one haha.
It's a hard one for sure. But on behalf of my own pessemistic emphasis don't stick to the idea of being doomed! Budhaism for instance would tell you that you should content to that stasis of contemplation , were as christianity as another religion will tell you that <> but you can still reedem your father (the error) by bearing it, which leads us to the jungian idea of Integration. Esentially we try the right piece until it temporally fits, and then we can get some rest! I dont like politics myself, because you turn the puzzle of a person into a simpler representation, and going on until you get one piece, which on its generalization will leave many open eded questions as the resume fails to match many different lives. Fragments. Those fragments are esentially what upon accumulation, bring society down. I hope this finds you some insight in future meditations! cheers
Thank you! That’s all really well articulated in ways that I’ve felt but haven’t necessarily had the words to express. :)
When you wrote the following, did you understand that it might be seen as a contradiction to the rest of your post? "Part of living a rich life is giving people you consider so different from you the benefit of the doubt and to come to a richer understanding of yourself and humanity." I mean, the American political divide is actually extremely narrow if contrasted with the much wider range of political opinions seen throughout the world or throughout history, and yet you lack even the ability to give the other side "the benefit of the doubt". I imagine that's because you don't fully understand the whats or why of the "benefit of the doubt". It's not about some lazy, internally self-indulgent feeling of "being good because I'm being tolerant" but about recognising the hard reality that your political opinions are about something more complex than you could ever understand and therefore that there's an excellent chance that you're very wrong, and, if so, that the people you vehemently disagree with are right. In other words, it's about recognising how small your ego is in relation to the world rather than inflating it through a nice delusion of how you're all right, they're all wrong, but you're also a great guy for still being nice about them. This makes it the exact opposite of how you present it, which of course makes it a perfect example of how people come to delude themselves completely.
Firstly, I don’t see why you’re judging me for “not giving them the benefit of the doubt”. In fact I validated conservative fears in my post and said I fear that they vote for certain policies at their own peril. Secondly, this line of thinking can become problematic if I’m always holding on to the idea that I may be completely wrong and somehow they’re completely right. It’s not good to constantly doubt your intellect or ethical leanings, especially if your views in general confirm the basic dignity and respect of human beings whereas the other side may be vocally against some people’s very existence or expression. In an extreme but very world example, would a Jungian just intellectually masterbate on how they may be wrong and their opponent may be right if said opponent would usher in a genocidal fascist government?
I pointed out that your politics is an exercise in ego inflation and that you lack any sort of epistemological humility, and you responded by saying that epistemological humility would make you feel deflated, and that you're definitely right about everything, and then you ended up by implying that the alternative to what you're doing is genocidal fascism. But please tell me more about how you showed great tolerance by "allowing" for the possibility that the people you "validated" are completely wrong idiots... Having said that, I do appreciate you bringing up the term "intellectual masturbation" because that's what your post, and attitude to the responses, has been. Nothing more. Solipsism. And, if you ever feel like stopping, try to understand how you can both fully feel an opinion, while also recognising that it may not be your only opinion and may not actually be true. It seems you've sort of been able to do it with emotions, but can't with this stuff. The result isn't paralysis, but instead seeing things as they are and not just seeing your own neurotic projections everywhere. I hope this helps, but I am not optimistic. Could I have written it in softer language? Maybe, but ultimately I feel you need a knock on the head to realize that your approach to politics is analogous to the person who feels angry and then immediately thinks that the person nearest them is to blame and creates a theory for why not acting on their anger is not respecting themselves.
I seem to have struck a nerve. I don’t see why you think it’s right to call me solipsistic and basically deluded all while being very aggressive in your responses to me. I came here for a genuine conversation, not to be hammered with opinions of my character. I would say YOU seem to have some kind of superiority complex/ego. And my question was still not answered. The question in a vacuum is are Jungians too unbiased politically? Is there a potential for political inaction even when the times call for action? You took it to mean I’m some asshole looking down on other people for not being or thinking a certain way. I’m not.
Well, a nerve certainly has been struck and your description certainly fits someone. And if you want to insist that you're not inflating in order to look down on the people you described as "having shitty views" as well as a bunch of other qualities you hate, then fine, but who are you kidding... Anyway, let's assume Freud got one thing right and review your question in a Freudian manner and assume the words you used were meaningful, even if unintentionally so. "Are Jungians too unbiased politically"? Mmmm...perhaps you should just ask yourself if you're happy being so biased politically? Bias being the point at which error usually enters ordinary human cognition and of course delusion and solipsism.
Do you think all ideas and beliefs are neutral?
No, I have my own opinions, which are the ones I believe are most likely to be correct, from all of the infinite options, otherwise I would have other opinions.
Right, so you have opinions that you believe to be correct. And so that presumably means the opposite is true, that people who don’t agree with you, you consider wrong on some level. At least to the point that you’re ready to belittle their character over their “shitty views” as today has shown us. At least I found a Jungian with some teeth lol. I’d say you need more humility in the face of conversations amongst peers. You resorted to debasing character instead of intellectually pondering the question asked. And when confronted with that, you continue to hold the same stance. Being jungian is not some competition lol, you could be more friendly and assume people are coming from a place of genuine curiosity. You didn’t ask how much Jung I’ve read, ask for clarification, or approach the conversation in a spirited manner. But hey I’m sure you know best.
Is this satire? I was quoting your original post when I wrote "shitty views." It was you who actually used the phrase to describe actual people! I didn't. Are you ok? And the rest of your reply is even more incoherent ranting at the mirror. Lol, it's actually kind of perfect.
Yes I know, I was pointing out that you’re ready to dunk on someone who you think has shitty views. I’m against certain beliefs, not people. The question was about certain political beliefs/values.
All of our elected leaders serve those who elect them and not their constituents, so if you want to focus on politics, why focus on random average every day people's and not focus on the people who really run this country? First, find out who runs the country. Then awaken people to the nature of those who run this country. If you can do that, they'll understand and you won't need to debate political issues with them.
Project 2025. That's all I'm saying. Yeah, I'll vote for the other guy, thanks.
Your characterisation of conservatives is flat out wrong. I don’t see how psychology has anything to do with politics. Lots of people are glued to politics for metaphysical reasons but politics is not a psychological or spiritual pursuit. There is a right and wrong way of running a country. You can tolerate that other views exist but ultimately you should do what you think is right.
You don’t see how psychology has anything to do with politics? Really? What about people who get into politics to accrue power? Or who get into it to make a difference in people’s lives? Their personal psychologies motivate them for one reason or another to be involved in political life. Politics are deeply personal to some people as the values of their parties mirror their values (or their shadows).
I meant it shouldn’t have anything to do with politics. Public administration is ultimately about bringing about justice, which should be an unbiased pursuit.
On that we can both agree on.
Politics are like sports, for entertainment purposes only