[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 7 2008, 12:11 AM, said:

Evidence for which particular piece of discussion? I don't think I have read where anyone has defined 'emotions' as of yet ...

"[E]motions are feelings' (Richard A. Shweder 1991: 241).

Schweder is an anthroplogist and uses the term "feelings" in a different manner than Jungian theory or psychology. I am using a more precise definition that is consistent with Whitehead, and cognitive science in general. There is an important difference between emotions and feelings of emotions. Feeling theories are about human valuing systems, and Jung's Feeling Function is based on value theory. Roughly, emotions are innate and feelings of emotions are largely learned, although based, in part, on emotional experiences. It would be too laborious to include the whole body of feeling theory into this thread, so I have to make certain assumptions.

From the perspective of cognitive neuroscience, you might want to read Antonio Damasio's "Descartes Error" (1994).

Again, I want to remain within the bounds of the two main theories that are the basis of this thread.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 07 April 2008 - 11:10 AM

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 6 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

David,

Before I could proceed, I needed to get some idea where Tillich was coming from. I just briefed myself and feel confident I can continue.

Minsocal,

I do not think I can do more here, at this time, than explain how Jung moves me towards Tillich.

Jung states: “It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious. We can not tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities. Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents. But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this centre”(Answer to Job).

The major problem for the psyche is to come to grips with the collective unconscious by making it conscious. Tillich would agree with Jung that “the psychotherapist has more to say on these matters than the theologian, who has remained caught in his archaic figures of speech”. Tillich, as an existentialist, would agree that “It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us”. Tillich would however attempt to do what Jung does not do and attempt to tell the difference between God and the unconscious.

I do not think that Jung’s question is properly framed (We can not tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities). This implies that God is an entity and I think that Tillich would deny that. Fundamentally the collective unconscious seems to be contained within history whereas Tillich’s Being would be “in” history, but not “contained”. Jung may be open to what sounds a lot like Tillich when he concludes in the “Answer to Job”: “the enlightened person remains what he is, and is never more than his own limited ego before the One who dwells within him, whose form has no knowable boundaries, who encompasses him on all sides, fathomless as the abysms of the earth and vast as the sky”.

I think that Tillich recognized the “border-line concepts for transcendental contents”. It was because theology was stuck with “archaic figures of speech” that Tillich created a new language, a language that has inspired Spong among others.

That’s about as far as I can and want to go with Tillich at this time. Maybe another time.
Thanks for the invitation anyway and again thanks for this discussion.

David

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 7 2008, 09:21 AM, said:

Minsocal,

I do not think I can do more here, at this time, than explain how Jung moves me towards Tillich.

Jung states: “It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious. We can not tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities. Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents. But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this centre”(Answer to Job).

The major problem for the psyche is to come to grips with the collective unconscious by making it conscious. Tillich would agree with Jung that “the psychotherapist has more to say on these matters than the theologian, who has remained caught in his archaic figures of speech”. Tillich, as an existentialist, would agree that “It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us”. Tillich would however attempt to do what Jung does not do and attempt to tell the difference between God and the unconscious.

I do not think that Jung’s question is properly framed (We can not tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities). This implies that God is an entity and I think that Tillich would deny that. Fundamentally the collective unconscious seems to be contained within history whereas Tillich’s Being would be “in” history, but not “contained”. Jung may be open to what sounds a lot like Tillich when he concludes in the “Answer to Job”: “the enlightened person remains what he is, and is never more than his own limited ego before the One who dwells within him, whose form has no knowable boundaries, who encompasses him on all sides, fathomless as the abysms of the earth and vast as the sky”.

I think that Tillich recognized the “border-line concepts for transcendental contents”. It was because theology was stuck with “archaic figures of speech” that Tillich created a new language, a language that has inspired Spong among others.

That’s about as far as I can and want to go with Tillich at this time. Maybe another time.
Thanks for the invitation anyway and again thanks for this discussion.

David

David,

I briefed myself on Tillich to make sure I was not misunderstanding your perspective. What Jung states elswhere is that the contents of the collective unconscious are "images" of "processes" inherent in nature. This would launch a whole new discussion on naturalism and again the subject of emergentism. Jung framed his discussions to meet the requirements of different audiences, leading to considerable confusion.

Personally, I am somewhat uncomfortable with "Answer to Job"

minsocal

[David]

minsocal, on Apr 7 2008, 09:48 AM, said:

David,

I briefed myself on Tillich to make sure I was not misunderstanding your perspective. What Jung states elswhere is that the contents of the collective unconscious are "images" of "processes" inherent in nature. This would launch a whole new discussion on naturalism and again the subject of emergentism. Jung framed his discussions to meet the requirements of different audiences, leading to considerable confusion.

Personally, I am somewhat uncomfortable with "Answer to Job"

minsocal

OK,
Back to Liberals and Conservatives? (I certainly did not do justice to the topic).

[minsocal]

And back to moral intuitions ... the background:

I left off with the theory of introversion and extraversion. This part of Jung's theory is well supported by empirical research, which is what I mean when I say "evidence based".

Several years ago, I discovered the theoretical work of David Schnarch. What attracted my attention was the final chapter which deals with spirituality. Here, Schnarch cites research into what is called "Type A" and "Types B" religious sects. (At the time, I was doing basic research for my PsyD.)

The characteristics of Type A religious sects are "conservative" and Type B "liberal". What interested me was the correlation between the types and the theory of introversion and extraversion, so I wrote a research paper on the subject for one of my classes. Later, I discovered Haidt's theory of moral intuitions, which again correlates with the theory of introversion and extraversion. This is the connection between the theories I am using in this thread.

When Jung developed his theory (see "Psychological Types", CW 6), he drew from a wide variety of sources, including theology. When fully developed, the theory is in fact a bio-psycho-social theory. In other words the theory attempts to merge biology, psychology and social theory into one complex model. The theories I use generally fit within the requirements laid out in CW 6.

Perhaps more this evening.

minsocal

This post has been edited by minsocal: 07 April 2008 - 12:39 PM

[minsocal]

Drawing from research into Type A-B religious sects, the interesting conclusion is that the types span Roman Catholic, Protestant Nominalism, Humanism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddism (Francoeur, 19991, in Schnarch, 1991). The type antithesis extends to Type A-B theologies.

Here is a sample of the correlations between the moral intuitions listed in my original post and Type A-B theologies:

Under the category of Authority Systems, liberals are egalitarian (Fairness - Reciprocity). Conservatives prefer an "autocratic hierarchy" (see Authority - Respect).

Under the category of Self-Image, liberals again are egalitarian (Fairness - Reciprocity). Conservatives are "carefully limited, isolationist, exclusive ..." (Ingroup - Loyalty).

In general:

The overall moral perspective for conservatives places an "emphasis on laws and conformity of actions to these laws" while liberals place an "emphasis on persons and their interrelationships. We create the human of the future and future of humanity."

I have given these examples because I hope to generate discussion.

Another interesting tidbit:

Under the category of "Goal", the more conservative view places an emphasis on "the supernatural transcendence of nature" and the liberal view is "unveiling ... [the] revelation of divine in all."

And so ... I end this post and duck.

minsocal

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 7 2008, 12:11 AM, said:

Buddhism teaches that -

1 all life is suffering

2 suffering is caused by attachment to feelings (good and bad)

3 if there is a cause there is a antidote

4 that antidote is the tenfold noble path

... basic Buddhism.

The point I was making that there is nothing 'rational' about emotions. We construct them as rational - a very cultural exercise.

Sorry - did not wish to stop a good debate.

Did not Buddha also teach that we should treat others with compassion?

In Haidt's theory of moral emotions, compassion is a positive moral emotion. Positive moral intuitiions are accompanied by (positive) affect laden responses. I hope it is not suggested that we abandon all positive moral intuitions. If we choose to follow our positive moral intuitions, this not a denial of free will.

[davidk]

Expressing the inexpressible existential experience in religious rich connotation words only gives an illusion of communication. One difficulty of the experiencial is that no one has found a way to communicate this experience, even to himself.

In this regard, Jung speaks of the 'collective unconscious' which comes from mankind as a whole. But he is mistaken in his thinking. There is a certain memory in a culture that is carried on in its language. I suggest this is a 'language-related memory' and perhaps a better explanation than a 'collective unconscious'.

The only usefulness of religious symbols to liberal theology is in direct proportion to its obscurity. There is a connotation of personality and an illusion of meaning. So, consequently, it gives the appearance of being more optimistic than the 'secular' existentialism, as in the word 'god', but there is no meaning. No clearer an example than Tillich's phrase 'God behind God'.

These concepts just gives an appearance of spirituality. Just as rightly, man has become dissatisfied with the pounding old cliches. But the new 'undefined religious terms' theology fails to know and function on the level of the whole man.

Now, don't go back to a poor status quo! Go to the living orthodoxy that's concerned for the whole man, the rational and the intellectual, in his relationship to God; true Christianity. It is true because it is concerned with the God who is there and who has spoken to us about Himself, not just with the symbols 'god' and 'christ' that sound spiritual, but aren't. 'Symbol' believers should be pessimistic because the word 'god' is not sufficient for optimism. So this optimistic 'leap' is based on religious and personal terms that give connotation of personality, meaning, and communication, but it's no more than a leap into some undefinable, irrational, and semantic mysticism. There is connotation, but no definition.

With the loss of a rational meaning and purpose, the use of a strategem of connotation words in Liberal Theology only leaves us in despair.

[minsocal]

davidk, on Apr 8 2008, 01:21 PM, said:

Expressing the inexpressible existential experience in religious rich connotation words only gives an illusion of communication. One difficulty of the experiencial is that no one has found a way to communicate this experience, even to himself.

In this regard, Jung speaks of the 'collective unconscious' which comes from mankind as a whole. But he is mistaken in his thinking. There is a certain memory in a culture that is carried on in its language. I suggest this is a 'language-related memory' and perhaps a better explanation than a 'collective unconscious'.

The only usefulness of religious symbols to liberal theology is in direct proportion to its obscurity. There is a connotation of personality and an illusion of meaning. So, consequently, it gives the appearance of being more optimistic than the 'secular' existentialism, as in the word 'god', but there is no meaning. No clearer an example than Tillich's phrase 'God behind God'.

These concepts just gives an appearance of spirituality. Just as rightly, man has become dissatisfied with the pounding old cliches. But the new 'undefined religious terms' theology fails to know and function on the level of the whole man.

Now, don't go back to a poor status quo! Go to the living orthodoxy that's concerned for the whole man, the rational and the intellectual, in his relationship to God; true Christianity. It is true because it is concerned with the God who is there and who has spoken to us about Himself, not just with the symbols 'god' and 'christ' that sound spiritual, but aren't. 'Symbol' believers should be pessimistic because the word 'god' is not sufficient for optimism. So this optimistic 'leap' is based on religious and personal terms that give connotation of personality, meaning, and communication, but it's no more than a leap into some undefinable, irrational, and semantic mysticism. There is connotation, but no definition.

With the loss of a rational meaning and purpose, the use of a strategem of connotation words in Liberal Theology only leaves us in despair.

Then you misunderstand Jung. In fact, you sound like Jung. In a previous post I said that Jung's theory is a bio-psycho-social theory. On the social end he included "language related memory" in his theory. I think I can find the exact quote if you need it.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 08 April 2008 - 03:47 PM

[minsocal]

minsocal, on Apr 8 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Then you misunderstand Jung. In fact, you sound like Jung. In a previous post I said that Jung's theory is a bio-psycho-social theory. On the social end he included "language related memory" in his theory. I think I can find the exact quote if you need it.

I wish I were better at organizing my thoughts. A large part of Jung's research depended upon "language related memory".

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 8 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

Did not Buddha also teach that we should treat others with compassion?

In Haidt's theory of moral emotions, compassion is a positive moral emotion. Positive moral intuitiions are accompanied by (positive) affect laden responses. I hope it is not suggested that we abandon all positive moral intuitions. If we choose to follow our positive moral intuitions, this not a denial of free will.

It seems that you have some issue with me - I don't what that is. That's Ok - I'm not a theologian but I have practiced Tibetan Buddhism for a number of years. The Buddha taught many things- he certainly did not teach 'compassion' as 'blind emotion' as you seem to suggest. Compassion, for the Buddha, is a rational respose - not some subterraniean process.

The Buddha did not suggest we abandon viture which is what you are suggesting. He did suggest that following feelings leads to suffereing whether those 'feelings' are good or bad. Practictioning Buddhist realise that 'feeling's are triggered by our own perception of things - which is seldom accurate.

This post has been edited by Wayseer: 08 April 2008 - 06:34 PM

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 8 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

It seems that you have some issue with me - I don't what that is. That's Ok - I'm not a theologian but I have practiced Tibetan Buddhism for a number of years. The Buddha taught many things. But the Buddha certainly did not teach 'compassion' as 'blind emotion' as you seem to suggest. But then I'm not sure I understand your use of 'emotion'. Compassion, for the Buddha, is a rational respose - not some subterraniean process.

I have no issue with you at all. You simply ignore what you do not want to hear. I did not say compassion is "blind emotion". If you cannot accept the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, thats fine. If you disagree with Whitehead and process theology, say so before you impose your beliefs on a body of theory.

[Wayseer]

minsocal, on Apr 9 2008, 09:36 AM, said:

If you cannot accept the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, thats fine.

Now where did that come from?

I think it's time to leave....

[minsocal]

Wayseer, on Apr 8 2008, 04:41 PM, said:

Now where did that come from?

I think it's time to leave....

Where did that come from ... A book that chronicles the lectures of the Dalia Lama on Christianity to a Christian audience.

[minsocal]

minsocal, on Apr 8 2008, 04:58 PM, said:

Where did that come from ... A book that chronicles the lectures of the Dalia Lama on Christianity to a Christian audience.

P.S. I have shared the last 15 years of my life with a Tibetan Buddhist.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 08 April 2008 - 07:07 PM

[David]

So what is happening with my two internet friends?

Let me see if I understand.

Buddhism is based upon seeing suffering as, at least in part, attachment to feelings (emotions). The antidote to that is to bring those feelings/emotions into consciousness so they can be recognized for what they are. With "the Path" they loose their power. The associated experience is an overwhelming sense of release.

Jung suggested that emotions also are related to the unconscious. The antidote to being controlled by the shadow was for the ego to attempt to make the unconscious conscious. This process actually occurs when one feels “an extraordinary sense of release, as though transported, or caught up by an overwhelming power”.

What is the difference? It seems to me that the ego is much more important to Jung than it is to the Buddhist. For Jung the ego is an important solution to the problem. For the Buddhist the ego is the problem. For Jung the ego is in a complex relationship with the collective unconscious. Since the Buddhist does not recognize the positive importance of the ego it certainly would not recognize the importance of the collective unconscious.

What is the same? Neither Jung nor the Buddhist recognize the power of what we can only call God because we have no other name for it. How does Jung turn towards God? How does the Buddhist turn towards God?

Minsoscal, I understand that the “Answer to Job” was not important to you. What other Jungian writing takes Jung towards God? How do you take Jung towards God? Is it possible that “Jung gone bad” actually creates categories out of people? Is it possible that the Buddhist does have something to say about the lack of the ego’s importance? Does the symbol of the cross have to do with the sacrifice of the ego and the destruction of catagories?

Wayseer, I understand that you see God in the process. But the goal of the process for the Christian is different than the goal of the process for the Buddhist. You can not be a Buddhist and worship God. What is it about worship that is so powerful for you? Is it possible that when you sing with that fundamentalist choir that some archetype is at work within you? Is it possible that suffering actually is more than our “attachment” to feelings—is it not possible that suffering can be understood with a “bio-psycho-social theory”? Would this not suggest that a proper response to suffering is more than losing our attachment? The "doing" is going to involve a lot of work with egos both individual and collective. I don't know anyone who understands egos more than Jung.

I think that Christianity is able to relate to Jung and the Buddhist but Christianity to me suggests something more than either one. For me the Christian answer has to do with being grasped by Grace--Grace not controlled by the archetype nor contained in the process. I would suggest Tillich but I don’t want to interrupt a good fight.

This post has been edited by David: 08 April 2008 - 08:40 PM

[October's Autumn]

minsocal, on Apr 8 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

I wish I were better at organizing my thoughts.

I wish I were better at understanding what the heck this thread is about... I've been trying to read but I got lost with Jung.

[David]

I am sure that DavidK does not realize why he can not be included in this conversation. But I'm not concerned with what DavidK thinks. I am concerned with what Progressives think. So I do think it is important for us to see what the disagreement is about and if the disagreement is important for Progressive Christianity.

This post has been edited by David: 08 April 2008 - 09:45 PM

[October's Autumn]

David, on Apr 8 2008, 09:42 PM, said:

Does anyone disagree (besides DavidK)?

ROFLMAO! Nothing against davidk it is just the way David worded it made me laugh... I needed a good laugh...

[minsocal]

David, on Apr 8 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

So what is happening with my two internet friends?

Let me see if I understand.

Buddhism is based upon seeing suffering as, at least in part, attachment to feelings (emotions). The antidote to that is to bring those feelings/emotions into consciousness so they can be recognized for what they are. With "the Path" they loose their power. The associated experience is an overwhelming sense of release.

Jung suggested that emotions also are related to the unconscious. The antidote to being controlled by the shadow was for the ego to attempt to make the unconscious conscious. This process actually occurs when one feels “an extraordinary sense of release, as though transported, or caught up by an overwhelming power”.

What is the difference? It seems to me that the ego is much more important to Jung than it is to the Buddhist. For Jung the ego is an important solution to the problem. For the Buddhist the ego is the problem. For Jung the ego is in a complex relationship with the collective unconscious. Since the Buddhist does not recognize the positive importance of the ego it certainly would not recognize the importance of the collective unconscious.

What is the same? Neither Jung nor the Buddhist recognize the power of what we can only call God because we have no other name for it. How does Jung turn towards God? How does the Buddhist turn towards God?

Minsoscal, I understand that the “Answer to Job” was not important to you. What other Jungian writing takes Jung towards God? How do you take Jung towards God? Is it possible that “Jung gone bad” actually creates categories out of people? Is it possible that the Buddhist does have something to say about the lack of the ego’s importance? Does the symbol of the cross have to do with the sacrifice of the ego and the destruction of catagories?

Wayseer, I understand that you see God in the process. But the goal of the process for the Christian is different than the goal of the process for the Buddhist. You can not be a Buddhist and worship God. What is it about worship that is so powerful for you? Is it possible that when you sing with that fundamentalist choir that some archetype is at work within you? Is it possible that suffering actually is more than our “attachment” to feelings—is it not possible that suffering can be understood with a “bio-psycho-social theory”? Would this not suggest that a proper response to suffering is more than losing our attachment? The "doing" is going to involve a lot of work with egos both individual and collective. I don't know anyone who understands egos more than Jung.

I think that Christianity is able to relate to Jung and the Buddhist but Christianity to me suggests something more than either one. For me the Christian answer has to do with being grasped by Grace--Grace not controlled by the archetype nor contained in the process. I would suggest Tillich but I don’t want to interrupt a good fight.

Well ... the "Answer to Job" makes me uncomfortable but not certain, I have not concluded yet. Important, maybe.

Jung said that be did not believe in God. He said that "I know God exists." This was based on his intuitive awareness of God. Intuition is a valid way of knowing, and the word "know" is a success verb (Searle, 1998). Buddhism emphasizes ... attachments to negative emotions. The argument in this thread is simple, what about attachments to positive emotions? Care? Not doing harm? Reciprocity? Attachment can be towards negative emotions or toward positive emotions. You choose. Attachment is not a unipolar negative phenomenon.

For Jung, the split between the ego and the unconscious IS the problem, and the ego is (sometimes) less important than the unconscious, other times not. And, Jung said that reality cannot render itself to "either East or West ... Life refuses to be enbalmed alive."

Buddha did not reject the notion of God, but simply said that such metaphysical speculation was unwarrented. But, Buddha accepted the notion of reincarnation. Now how do you have reincarnation without an immaterial soul?

I understand your reference to grace only because I briefed myself on Tillich.

More to follow ... after I get my perspective on grace recalled.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 08 April 2008 - 09:49 PM