fostok

f ostok. At 70 years old I try to accomplish a few things each day. I wake up and get up each morning between 4 and 4:30. Have a cup of coffee and a small breakfast. View the obituaries in the town I grew up in, next check my e-mails, the weather for the day, read the WSJ online, and by then our oldest dog (Scout) is ready to go for a morning walk. Then I read the Cape Cod Times. Doesn't take long. Then it is time to bring the new puppy down for his walk; around 7:00. His walk usually doesn't take long. Feed the two dogs and maybe watch a Dr. Phil. This gets me to about 8:00. Denise gets up between 8-9:00. Now it's time for myself and Scout to go on a long walk ( 5-7 miles through the woods.) That gets us to about 10-11 AM. TBC.
 
Ah Maria Sharapova.:up:
We used to often run into Maria and Enrique Iglesias at the AMC during Christmas and New Year 2006ish plus. True, actually, but I had to do it. The ever so humble Humblebrag lives. I'm still working on Izzy's message. Interesting and I'm trying to understand the Jung.
 
We used to often run into Maria and Enrique Iglesias at the AMC during Christmas and New Year 2006ish plus. True, actually, but I had to do it. The ever so humble Humblebrag lives. I'm still working on Izzy's message. Interesting and I'm trying to understand the Jung.
Unless you’re complaining that’s not a humblebrag
 
No complaints, Andy. They were adorable and very friendly. Maybe I never understood the concept. Like Izzy's Jung. At least not yet.
 
can anyone tell me the difference in what I posted which was : Thinking is difficult, that's why most people judge.


to what Izzy posted: Thinking is difficult, therefore let the herd pronounce judgment.



Looks like it is saying the same thing to me, I guess it really is difficult for some to actually think.

Ok, I'll play...
To me, the first one can be restated as "Thinking is difficult, that's why most people just cast stones at the ideas of others." Or most people just armchair quarterback. It gives the sense of not being on the playing field, but wanting to participate by cheering or booing the thoughts that others have put forth.

The second quote can be restated as "Thinking is difficult, therefore most just rely on the final answer that others have come to." It gives the sense of not even wanting to judge the thought themselves, but to be given the final judgement that the crowd has made and to just agree with that. It would be like not even watching the ballgame but cheering and booing along with the crowd. Most voters (on both sides of any issue--settle down everyone) seem to be in this category.

As an aside, the second one is also how a herd of antelope operates. If one antelope starts to run, they all run. They don't stand around each tryng to think for themselves or stand around trying to judge for themselves.

In the end I agree that both quotes convey a similar sense and from a meme point of view are close enough to not matter. Pithy get points. But the second does suggest a greater degree of detachment from the actual information, a lack of an innate curiosity to understand and a desire to just get back eating and watching TV.

As a final note, the whole point of quotes is to attach a name to a thought to reduce the amount of effort we have to put in. A science quote from Einstein and we think, 'hmm, must be right' without having to really think about it or pass judgement on it ourselves. That same quote or thought if unattributed or attributed to a known fool would make us much more likely to be dismissive or disinterested in the idea at all. So ironically the very human characteristic that Jung seems to be calling a weakness is the very characteristic that is causing his quote to be repeated a hundred years later both in a meme and on a random St Barth forum.

Well professor, aside from spelling, how did I do?
 
Ok, I'll play... aside from spelling, how did I do?

I am no Jungian scholar, never won a spelling bee, and to grade would be to judge... one consideration that I would raise, however, is what personal meaning might each statement carry for a user if they agree with the sentiment being expressed?

In any event, because context of the origin is important to consider in determining intended meaning, here is a little.

Jung wrote “Flying Saucers” in 1957. His interests included history and astrology. He was addressing the question of why it is more desirable for saucers to exist than not at a time that he considered the end of one “Platonic month (a term that I believe he coined) and the beginning of another”, a change from one age to another. He may have been on to something there... and for some reason, I found myself recently revisiting this work that I had approached a few lifetimes back...

Jung was examining the UFO siting spike of the '50s in the context of changes that he believed occur in “the constellation of psychic dominants, of the archetypes, or 'gods' as they used to be called, which bring about, or accompany, long-lasting transformations of the collective psyche” at times of change. "Flying Saucers" looks at what can be learned from the perspective of psychology about cultural conflicts, anxieties, etc. from examining UFO sittings as a modern myth.

The short preface that Jung wrote for the first English edition (both provided in prior link) may be of interest to those who don't choose to read the entire work so here it is:

"The worldwide rumour about Flying Saucers presents a problem that challenges the psychologist for a number of reasons. The primary question—and apparently this is the most important point—is this: are they real or are they mere fantasy products? This question is by no means settled yet. If they are real, exactly what are they? If they are fantasy, why should such a rumour exist?

In this latter respect I have made an interesting and quite unexpected discovery. In 1954 I wrote an article in the Swiss weekly, Die Weltwoche, in which I expressed myself in a sceptical way, though I spoke with due respect of the serious opinion of a relatively large number of air specialists who believe in the reality of Ufos (unidentified flying objects). In 1958 this interview was suddenly discovered by the world press and the "news" spread like wildfire from the far West round the earth to the far East, but—alas—in distorted form. I was quoted as a saucer-believer. I issued a statement to the United Press and gave a true version of my opinion, but this time the wire went dead: nobody, so far as I know, took any notice of it, except one German newspaper.

The moral of this story is rather interesting. As the behavior of the press is a sort of Gallup test with reference to world opinion, one must draw the conclusion that news affirming the existence of Ufos is welcome, but that scepticism seems to be undesirable. To believe that Ufos are real suits the general opinion, whereas disbelief is to be discouraged. This creates the impression that there is a tendency all over the world to believe in saucers and to want them to be real, unconsciously helped along by a press that otherwise has no sympathy with the phenomenon.

This remarkable fact in itself surely merits the psychologist's interest. Why should it be more desirable for saucers to exist than not? The following pages are an attempt to answer this question.

C.G.Jung
September, 1958"


Even if one Platonic month turns to another, perhaps plus ça change...
 
We used to often run into Maria and Enrique Iglesias at the AMC during Christmas and New Year 2006ish plus. True, actually, but I had to do it. The ever so humble Humblebrag lives. I'm still working on Izzy's message. Interesting and I'm trying to understand the Jung.

That was probably Anna Kournikova - another tall, blonde, ex-tennis player, but his partner for many years.
 
No complaints, Andy. They were adorable and very friendly. Maybe I never understood the concept. Like Izzy's Jung. At least not yet.
See Rosemary, a real humblebrag emerged: "Silly me for years I thought I was chatting up Maria Sharapova, while all the time it was Anna Kournikova"
 
Even if one Platonic month turns to another, perhaps plus ça change...

Thank you Izzy for the excellent deep water Jungian diversion. We'll see if Covid serves as a Platonic new moon, dividing what was from what will be or if it becomes a blip that is soon forgotten. I suspect it will ring loud and long in the minds of the high school and college kids and will show up in ways surprising and unexpected whereas its impact via us older generations can't help but fade from the world as we fade out ourselves.
 
Top