I think that for starters, we concentrate on how things change while something that has stayed the same for decades we simply take for granted. — ssu

For sure our brains are designed to run on automatic without too much thinking. But as our reality changes we need to understand that change and how to adjust to it.

I love how you all force me to think! :heart: Imagine being a primitive person whose survival depends on knowing the environment. You will not be planning a new computer program and giving any thought to technological development, but you may discover a better way to make a spear because your survival pushes you to do what you do better. I have I succeeded in conveying a totally different mode of thinking and different direction of human evolution? Modern man probably would not survive in the past and someone from the past would have a terrible time trying to survive in our time. To begin with What is blazes is economics? What is it and where does it come from?

anthropocentric — TheMadFool

Well "anthropocentric" is a very fancy word and I had to look it up. I totally like that word and would not throw stones at people because that is true of them. We might be a whole lot more rational if we favored evolution over creationism because that would give us a much more realistic understanding of our value, what can be expected of us and what our limitations are. All social animals perceive their group to be the most important.

I mention Christianity because many people understand life through this mythology rather than a study of nature. Primitive people had a closer connection with nature and understood their survival depended on knowledge of the environment rather than on a God's will. Democracy is rule by reason, and that also depends on knowledge of the environment. Hunter gathers learned where to look for food. We learned to look for finite resources and those resources are being exhausted. If we do not take a serious look at what mineral resources have to do with building and maintaining an economy, we are not going to make much progress in a discussion about economics.

In other words we don’t always know what leads people to make poor decisions or what their intentions are. — Emma

Why would the reason for the person's poor decision matter? Usually it is ignorance. Often it is good intensions. So, why does a person's reasoning matter?

On the other hand, if a female becomes pregnant, we can be sure she had intercourse with a male. If she does not have a home for a child, can not feed the child, and does not have help, she is in trouble. I can not think of a time when we can not know the cause of an effect.

I do believe that there are cases where intentions can be important in determining judgments. — Emma

I am confused. What is being judged? The cause of something?

If something cannot be impartial, then it should not judge others. — Emma

I disagree with that statement. If the actions of a person cause harm to another, we do need to judge that person. Same as we need to judge wild animals. Is the person or animal likely to cause harm?

I don't know if there is any reasoning in this post or not. :lol: I think I argued myself into a corner I can't get out of? This is totally looking like philosophy. Very nit picky. I know some people who are apt to do serious wrongs, and I see the good in them. So now we have good people do bad things? But do all of us see the good in others? Do we tend to think bad people do bad things and not good people?

Yes, the "cost" which is a monetary term to my knowledge. I feel like a nonphysicalist with an environmental agenda, equally apalled by the materialistic reductionism as I am about the, coincidentally, "green" reductionism. Isn't it odd that the greenback is at odds with the greenbelt? I guess, we're a bit confused about the whole issue - both are green after all. — TheMadFool

I think a better understanding of our economy might include a study of Christianity. Especially Protestantism, that is tied to Calvinism, a very materialistic/supernatural understanding of life justifying the exploitation of humans and earth. By materialistic I mean a total rejection of animism-

— the attribution of a soul to plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena. 2. the belief in a supernatural power that organizes and animates the material universe.

The supernatural power is the God of Abraham, His son the Holy Ghost, all completely separate from nature. The religion prevented us from understanding Gia until just recently and there is still very strong resistance to accepting the science of Gia that was known to aborigine's for centuries. Especially in the US we are in the throws of culture war, and this is a serious, social, economic and political problem that could destroy our democracy.

Well, I do live in a welfare state where there is a) free education even to the university level, b) assistance to housing, c) perpetual unemployment benefits and d) universal free health care. When you have those, you already have been taken care of what universal basic income is for, especially with the unemployment benefit. Then for those who do have income and pay taxes, it is questionable if this is basic income is necessary as it's basically a payback of the taxes. — ssu

And we all live happily ever after, NOT.

We no longer live in labor intense economy. Factories that once employed 300 people are run by a handful of people with high tech skills. Not only is does this mean not enough factory work, but everyone who got only a C average in school, has very little of chance of getting a job that pays a decent wage because the supply of these people is far greater than the demand for them. AND, who is paying taxes? Not the unemployed people, and not those working for low wages.

Since early times governments have been supported by the source of income. At first the source of income was the land. Then as economies developed the source of income was the human time and energy invested in the production of products. Increasingly the source of income is the technology that has replaced the need for human labor and I think we need to rethink our tax system.

At the very least, we need to respect how much time and energy a person gives to earn the wage. Someone working more than 40 hours a week should not be taxed at the same scale of someone who can earn that much money in a fraction of that time. To make our tax system just, it should compensate people for their time and energy. Working 60 hours to week consumes a lot from a human being, and this people should not be taxed the same as someone doesn't work for a living but lives well off of investments. We have a long ways to go before we express human value.

Unfortunately, the way economies are run, perhaps its something inherent in its very nature, has, :smile: "costs" that can't be translated by economists or anyone else apparently into money. Stuff like pollution, environmental degradation, deforestation, global warming, etc. haven't been transliterated into dollars and dollars seem to be the only language people, especially the ones who call the shots, understand. It's as if mother earth, Gaia, hasn't been able to keep up with the way human language has evolved from Hindi, Chinese, English, German, Japanese, etc. into the now global language that's money. In the past, Gaia, could speak to us in moving verse and thought-provoking prose, of course at the cost of losing precious trees to make the paper on which they're written. Now, this simply fails as the language has changed into what to Gaia is unspeakable nevertheless "understandable" — TheMadFool

That is not exactly true. We can talk about the cost of pollution, environmental degradation, deforestation, global warming. Here is a google page that does that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=economic+cost+of+global+warming&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=economic+cost+of+glob&aqs=chrome.0.0i457j69i57j0j0i22i30l5.11171j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It is up to us to change the conversation and Biden's administration is more likely to make new conversation possible then the Trump administration dependent on denial of the cost.

We the people have a lot of work to do in the US because it is evident the population is very ignorant of things we need to know, to have good moral judgment. We need to become aware of the most important pieces of information and then be sure the media is addressing them and our schools are preparing the young for a different reality than the one we have lived up to now.

It's not just risky, it's counter intuitive. Increased efficiency and specialisation in production should lead to lower prices. Rising prices are purely a result in increases in the money supply or debt leveraging. If those funds are directed at the "wrong" sector or causes a general glut it's going to collapse. — Benkei

What happens when a vital resource for a product becomes hard to get and the demand is greater than the supply?

I am not sure how your idea of an economy works. Think of this as a computer game. describe your area, does it have a sea port? Is it inland? What are the natural resources. You know, what can be use to start your economy? What is your water supply? Can you feed your community? How? Do you have a source of energy? After telling me how these people meet their immediate needs and develop a product they can sell, what is the transportation system and who is the buyer of the product?

I please there seems to be more agreement here than I expected. Okay, what can we do to get the whole world operating on a better understanding of reality? We desperately need a better grasp of reality. Third world countries are not going have our standard of living, making shoes and clothing for wages that keep these jobs in third world countries. That is not good for them nor all the people in the developed countries needing jobs.

Even if somehow the economy of every country could afford a high standard of living, our planet is finite and the faster we consume its resources the closer we come to economic collapse.

What is a realistic plan that is sustainable? I want to give the world birth control because war is a product of over population and I hate war.

A person who does something useful or worthwhile or creates something of the like should be rewarded.
— Outlander

Why?I just created that worthwhile post; reward me.

Nothing is given for free.
— Outlander

Everything is given for free. We come into this world with nothing and helpless to even feed ourselves. — unenlightened

For thousands of years the woman's and the poet's reward was intrinsic . During the great Depression the arts were funded but we seem very reluctant to do that today. Mothers dependent on welfare are surely not rewarded for being mothers.

Especially in our materialistic capitalism, we do not have a system for rewarding everyone who makes a contribution. Many of our essential workers are living below the poverty level without the protections of wealth. Just how well should they be rewarded?

We might want to provide well for everyone, but being dependent on public assistance is not equal to having dignity and liberty and where is the money to provide for everyone going to come from?

For starters, not everything important has to do with the economy. The economy is first and foremost a tool, if it works well, then the prosperity should be used to preserve nature and make the environment a better place to live for every living creature.

The simple fact is that economy is important just up to a point, it isn't itself a reason. — ssu

What you have said is kind of like figuring the value of a homemaker. Traditionally a man supports the woman, and we know his value by what he earns. The wife does not earn money, so her value is zero, right?

The earth is our mother. We have exploited her and diminished what she has to give. The value of what we take from her is what the men earn. She can be ignored as the homemaker is ignored. :wink:

:lol: I can imagine some men totally regretting the forum is open to women who do not know what they are talking about. While they take their fantasies of economics very seriously. I come to the discussion with point of view of a woman who came of age before women were liberated, and also from a geological perspective. I lost any trust in economist when I realized they are not grounding their thoughts on economics with geological reality.

Then you are one of the people that understand reality and don't go with the hype as the majority will do. — ssu

Heavens no. I don't go along with the hype because I am too skeptical. But I only know enough to know how much I do not know.

This may have nothing to do with what you all are talking about, but there was a time when the there was a formula for determining the prices of things. One third the price of something was the cost of making it. One third of the price was invested in the company. The last third was profit. I was absolutely horrified when large manufactures of cars went bankrupt!

Something has gone very wrong with our capitalism. Successful business should not need to depend on banks for loans, because they should have their own reserve for growth, and bad times.

Far too many industries/businesses are dependent on government contracts! How many bombs does the world need and should we be arming the world because that is good for our economy?

Should we count the whole world as our supply of resources, or should we be aware of our own resources and the nations we depend on for mineral resources? When it comes to mineral resources and the cost of defending our economic interest, I think we are way out of touch with reality.

Can we ignore global warming or should we figure the cost of ignoring it as part of our reality?

The field of post traumatic stress disorder is interesting. I have come across a few people and it is sometimes gets mistaken for borderline personality disorder. In fact, one of the tutors on my art therapy course thought that complex post traumatic stress disorder would be better for what is regarded as borderline personality disorder. To some extent I agree but I am not sure that there is not a subtle difference. Whatever the labels, severe stress does terrible things to us.

Really, even though I am writing about Freud and arguing against Darkneos's dismissal of Freud I think that various schools of thought can contribute to the understanding of various conditions. I am sure that Freud would not be opposed to neuroscience and in his time hypnotherapy was fashionable so he went down that route.

Understanding is an open quest and can learn from the various competing disciplines and fields of thought. I think philosophy needs to engage in this way rather than thinkers becoming too rigid, fixed and attached to any one way of thinking. The philosopher needs to be able to do mental gymnastics to stay adrift in the rocky slopes of our times. — Jack Cummins

I hate labels! The only thing we should label is a behavior, not the person, with a few exceptions that have biological causes that can be validated. I think, when we get to personality disorders, we are getting into skittishy territory. We all know what a unicorn is and there is no such thing as a unicorn. If we can think it, we can create it in our own minds, but that doesn't make it so. That is kind of like becoming aware of a concept and naming a god to represent that concept. Civilizations with multiple gods eventually had to give them up because there was no end to the number of new gods.

Oh but when it comes to specialist and rigid thinking that is a dead end road! I love the gods because they were essential to the development of our consciousness. This is not possible when there is only one God. When there are many gods(concepts) we can realize new ones (concepts) and when they interact, our consciousness is expanded. That just does not happen when there is only one God. Your awareness is limited to what that one God said. Today different fields of study have replaced the gods and too much specialization lead to realizing these specialist must interact to increase understanding. Each god and each field of study is a different point of view. The more points of view we have the more will see up to a point. Too many gods can be overwhelming. Expanding consciousness is kind of like breathing. There is a rhythm to it. Expand awareness, assimilate it. Expand awareness, assimilate it.

You think that speculative bubbles happen in times when interest rates are high and banks don't lend or what? Tell me an example of a speculative bubble happening in that kind of environment. — ssu

That is an interesting thought. I absolutely love it. I tried to warn people of the housing bubble several years ago and no one would listen. Somehow the whole nation has lost its judgment. No one seems grounded in reality.

Your essential argument seems to be most in line with the material reductionist. It is compatible with the behaviorist approach of B F Skinner. You do appear to believe that the neuroscientists have the final word. When you say that the 'mind' does not exist you are making an assertion about the mind and body problem of philosophy, a huge a whole branch of philosophy in itself and yet you write as if you can sum the whole field up in a couple of sentences. — Jack Cummins

Oh, oh, oh I think it should be obvious to everyone that our body and brain are not separate. I believing our bodies hold information and memories our brains may have forgotten.

Also, in your approach to post traumatic syndrome and its healing you say that the experiences come down to a rewiring of the brain. — Jack Cummins

I have no problem with the notion of an experience wiring our body/brain. This is especially true of our sex drive. While hormones play a role in our sexual impulses and may determine our sexual preference, so does experience wire our sexuality. Molesting a child can result in the child becoming a pedophile, or a person can be fixated on feet or rubber. I knew a man who was so cursed, and he lit up like a Christmas tree when children were in the swimming pool. He had lied to me about having this problem and I ended that relationship. The point is obviously he had this reaction without mental control. He had no more control over his physical reaction than I can avoid thinking I am hungry when I see food.

As you are so opposed to Freud's ideas what do you believe the answer is for working with life experiences of the past ? — Jack Cummins

From experience I would say this is where linguistics comes in, self-talk, how we tell ourselves the story. My original trauma happened when I was preverbal so I had a lot of work to do to figure out why I was have a problem. When I pin pointed the experience that caused the trauma and told a counselor what happened, he was able to change the self talk, and I went from experiencing myself as different personalities back to one person having different experiences. What a relief that was.

A key for me was reading a book about traumatized children and realizing I was preverbal when the event happened. I would have had no words for explaining what happened if my mother had not told me what happened. But it was recorded emotionally. First fear and than absolute chaotic terror that could get tripped, if something in the present, tripped the emotional memory. At least for me, understanding all these explanations and getting the right help made a big difference in my life. That counselor introduced me to linguistics and I think of what he did to help me as mind magic because it seemed to rewired my brain.

In my adult life the problem presented as panic attacks and that was fascinating. I got so tired of doctors dismissing what was happening to me as nothing but panic attacks, that I refused to give in to the panic attack the last time I went to the emergency room, many years ago. I calmly told the doctor I was in a state of panic. He didn't believe me but checked my body for signs of panic and sure enough, my body thought I was in a terrifying situation. That is when I began my effort to understand how our brains work and I have preferred the mechanics of how our brains work to Freudian analysis. I think Freud would prefer that too, he just didn't have the tools researchers have today.

↪Athena Trauma is actually rather complex but it has nothing to do with a subconscious. It's literally wiring in the brain. Recent developments in neuroscience show that much of what was "the mind" is just the brain. The tricky part is that it's a little more than just going in there and nip and tuck. — Darkneos

I guess that depends on how we define the subconscious. We surely can not be aware of all the information stored in our brains. Would not the information we are not aware of be a subconscious? I watched a show last night about how we are preprogrammed for prejudice, selecting for our own kind. It is something we do automatically without being aware of doing it.

Yes, a cure for post traumatic disorder would be good. I will be very surprised if a psychedelic gets prescribed, even CBD is being frowned upon by many. In my antipsychiatry voice I would say that psychiatry is far more in favour of antipsychotics for post traumatic disorder than psychedelics because visionary healing is not valued enough. — Jack Cummins

Measure 109
Allows manufacture, delivery, administration of psilocybin at supervised, licensed facilities; imposes two-year development period. — Oregon Voters Pamphlet

Pot was made legal sometime ago and there are stores selling everywhere. We have also moved from stiff criminal sentences for possession of drugs to treatment.

Personally I do not want to be around people who are stoned or under the influence of alcohol. However, when I face death I am looking forward to doing psilocybin in a facility that includes that in its services. I do not believing dying has to be an unpleasant experience and I am glad Oregon has assisted suicide.

Freud's Theories of Life and Death Instincts - Verywell Mindwww.verywellmind.com › ... › History and Biographies
Death Instincts (Thanatos) The concept of the death instincts was initially described in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, in which Freud proposed that “the goal of all life is death.” Freud believed that people typically channel their death instincts outwards. 2 Aggression, for example, arises from the death instincts. — very well mind

PS measure 109 passed.

I agree with you that it is hard to see how issues like post traumatic syndrome can be accounted for without the idea of the subconscious.

Psychiatrists have not dismissed the tradition of psychoanalysis as many undertake training in psychodynamic therapy. Many are progressing thinkers, go beyond sexism and homophobia. Of course psychiatry does use drugs, but most do recognize the importance of the subconscious and the past, especially relevant for both post traumatic borderline disorder.

Of course psychiatry can come under attack. The whole anti antipsychiatry tradition questioned some of the labelling of disorders. — Jack Cummins

It seems today everyone is ready to attack anything and everything. This is a serious spiritual disease. That is something materialist have a problem discussing, but I will say our spirit is as important as material substance. The American Spirit is a high morale. We feel it when we believe we doing the right thing. But something has gone very wrong with our spirit. I am sure those people standing outside of polling places yelling "stop the count" believe they are doing the right thing, but they are angry and threatening. That does not look like a high morale to me.

I have no idea how Freud would judge what is happening now, but I know it is about spirit not just matter and facts.

Oregon has just legalized the clinical use of psilocybin and we have great hope for this drug. I would love to know what Freud would have to say of this? A cure for depression, addiction, post trauma syndrome without pyschoanalysis. Another cure can be art especially if the individual is being creative and making art. I think both the drug and creativity share something in common.

I think Freud's ideas do reflect the prejudices of his times but would say that I am not so sure that he was really against gay issues because he spoke of the dangers of repression. — Jack Cummins

Freud was as accepting of homosexuality as the Greeks were because he got a good share of information from the Greeks. Here Hippocrates is important to our understanding and judgment of Freud. Freud like Hippocrates held a materialistic understanding of disease. He said it is what happens in the body that causes disease, not the gods or demons. This was vital to the Christian understanding of medicine that associated illness with sin and demons. For biological reasons a person could be homosexual and we can dismiss everything the Bible has to say about it being sinful and disliked by a God.

As Ciceronianus the White mentioned there may not be a personal God who deals with us individually or cares what we do in private. No demons or miracles from a God and homosexuality is not a mental disease but a biological reality. HIV is not a punishment from God to punish people gay men.

My personal feeling is we have no good reason to believe (at this time, anyhow) there's anything beyond the universe. Nothing, therefore, that transcends it. Maybe we'll find out there is, sometime, or maybe there are other universes. People speak of a transcendent God, but we attribute characteristics to that God we can only conceive of though our existence as a part of the universe, and cannot even guess what is beyond it. The transcendent God makes no sense to me, and can't be known. If there's a God, I think it's immanent and impersonal.

So I would tend to doubt anything being "our true selves" unless it's thought to be a part of the universe. There's still a great deal we don't know about the universe, though. — Ciceronianus the White

Freud was materialistic, right? Matter follows laws, right? Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, is nothing like the God of Abraham. It is not personal. We can live in harmony of the law or suffer the consequences of not doing so.

It is said there could be other dimensions. I think our 3 dimensional reality is only in our 3 dimensional reality and I have no concept of any other. :lol: I am reminded of The Disney movie Inside Out when the girl goes into the abstract room.

As for other controlling rules that are not about matter, Jean Shinoda Bolen's books Gods in Everyman and Goddess in Every Woman presents a realty that is not material. Using the Gods and Goddesses she tells us how these archetypes influence our lives and how our childhood influences us. A concept and an experience are not made of matter yet they influence what we think and how we feel. I don't think we can deny there is more to reality than matter.

After dealing with post trauma syndrome it is hard to believe we do not have a subconscious. What is the argument for that?

As for Freud, the guy was a quack. I honestly wonder how he had such an influence for so long when much of his work has been discredited along the way. Even his notion of the subconscious was later found to be incorrect. — Darkneos

I have been confident individuals and cultures have a consciousness and a subconsciousness. What is the explanation of Freud being wrong about that?

Thank you. Freud was a great man, but I think his focus was too narrow. Still, I think I prefer him to Jung, who it seems to me may not have had enough evidence to conclude that virtually the entire cultural history of our species was packed away somewhere in our brains, unknown to us but available to pop out when appropriate. — Ciceronianus the White

That seems compatible with how Socrates saw things. Our true selves know everything, but when we come into this three-dimensional existence we forget what we know. He demonstrated this by talking an uneducated boy through a math problem. His objective in life was to ask questions to raise awareness of what he expected everyone to know but thought they had forgotten. This would imply a subconscious, right?

I have said before, I think the genius of Freud came from the Greeks. Joseph Campbell followed Jung and said a hero is someone who makes us aware of the past. We have a personal past and a cultural past and a planetary past. A New Age follows awareness of the past. Which if there is no linear time is the present. :smile:

The only legal right to free speech here in the U.S. arises from the fact the law prohibits government from restricting speech in most, but not all, cases. When people complain that their right to free speech is being restricted by anyone but the government, through laws or government agents, they refer to a right which isn't a legal right. — Ciceronianus the White

You seem to speak in favor of authority over the people? I can not read any further until I express my objection to your understanding of our rights and i must state my understanding of the importance of freedom of speech.

Now I have to use the word God but I am not speaking of the Christian God. I am speaking logos and universal law.

Our liberty depends our human rights if they are formalized by law of not. Our democracy is about our God/nature given rights, not authority above the people.

Our liberty and democracy depend on God/nature's truth and our freedom of speech is about speaking truth. It is our duty to speak truth to authority and to combat ignorance. And on this day, I must say Trump and his followers are a horror to truth because they are living in denial of truth and their behavior leaves all of us either forced into denial or with a dread of what the pandemic is doing to us because their actions spread the virus and keep it out of control. If Trump understood and defended our democracy, he would not be using his power to silence people who say things he doesn't want to hear. A strong government is not in line with liberty and democracy. Liberty and democracy depend on individual authority and power. We have a culture for that or we do not.

People might think they have power, but the ultimate powers is with God/nutare. What you said maybe technologically correct, but I worry about the wisdom.

oldtimer: education was always meant to benefit the ruling elite. It is only when civilizations went from agricultural to industrial that the elite realized that the lower class/farmers needed to be educated so they could run complex equipment...and the rest is history — archaios

I do not believe our education was about benefiting the ruling elite because I have books about the history of education, and collect old books written about education and primary grade text books. That most certianly was not how Jefferson, nor any of the education experts I have read, have said about education. The priority purpose of education was Americanizing immigrants, prevent social chaos and the end of our democracy with liberty. Education for technology was added as we mobilized for the first world war, and we could not have won the war without that change in education because we were not prepared for a war with advanced technology. That change in education greatly benefiitted all labor class people, because it prepared them for trades that provided better wages and better working conditions. But we retained education for citizenship until 1958.

We can see the result of replacing the former education for citizenship with education for a technological society with unknown values. We are now bracing for acts of war that we fear may follow the election no matter who wins the election.

We took our democracy for granted and we are in big trouble! We have culture wars and this cultural divide is likely to turn violent.

Whoo, I got busy and forget about this thread. Amazing considering this my favorite subject. I am surprised by the responses because there is a huge problem with this subject. It is confused with conspiracy theories and that ruins discussion.

Yes. I agree totally. And one of my great frustrations is that the warfare state, as some libertarian blogs might call it, is deeply bipartisan. Joe Biden represents the warfare state. Trump, by the way, ran in opposition to it; and to date has not started any new wars and has kept John Bolton from starting one with Iran. Just to toss in a little politics. — fishfry

I am undecided about the international good or evil of Trump. I sure do not like him giving Israel the green light to close Palestinians out of Jerusalem. But the most important point might be the difference fracking has made? When Reagon told us we did not need to conserve oil, he was lying to us! At that time mid-east oil was essential to our economy and for economic reasons we had to get control of mid-east oil. If fracking had been more developed when Sadam is in control of Iraq, that war would have been avoided. In fact, Israel would not have become so strong with the help of the US if our economy did not depend on the control of oil. We have to defend our control of oil exactly as Rome hand to secure its supply of gold, for the same reason and has the same results of militarizing the nation. The Military-Industrial Complex is about economics.

Even if we could supply our own oil for hundreds of years, our banking system is tied the petrodollar. If the world stopped trading oil in dollars, our banking system would collapse. Oil is to our economy what gold was to Rome. That makes me very nervous about Trump because if the rest of the world follows Saddam's switch to trading oil in Euro's, we are in big trouble. The main reason Saddam did that was he objected to our connection with Israel. It is pretty important the world likes us and wants to play ball with us and I am not sure Trump is maintaining that? Which puts into question, who is managing the Military-Industrial Complex? Fracking has changed things.

People who take education seriously advocate for school vouchers and basically demolishing the publi schools and the teachers unions that have destroyed them. — fishfry

This is disastrous! The most important role of education in a democracy with liberty is cultural unity. There are two ways to maintain social order; culture or authority over the people. Jefferson understood this and devoted his life to universal education for a strong and united Republic. For nearly 200 years we had education for citizenship. That was replaced with education for a technological society with unknown values. Now we are dependent on authority over us to maintain social order and this is getting ugly!

I do not the National Education Association as the problem with education, but giving control of education to the military. This ended defending our democracy in the classroom and lead to leaving moral training to the church. Historically the church has not been good at keeping things peaceful. Leaving moral training to Christians is a huge problem leading to our very serious cultual divide. The book "NEA: Propaganda Front of the Radical Left" by Sally D. Reed is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the cultural divide we have today. Christians are very well organized to control education but they are loosing because science is getting the upper hand. In a few days we will see who wins the struggle for our nation, the Christians or the people who put their faith in science.

I better stop here because people don't like long post. I hope to reply to more but not all at once.

Of course we are all humans, and so have certain characteristics and needs in common. That commonality has consequences as it means that that there are certain things we do similarly. It seems dubious, though, to infer from that a murky collective body of archetypes, symbols and instincts which supposedly are part of the inherent structure of our brains. It's rather like inferring, as some have, that the fact that pyramids were constructed in Egypt and by the Mayans and Aztecs shows that ancient Egyptians found their way to the Americas, or that refugees from Atlantis traveled to Africa and Central America, or better yet that aliens taught us to make them. It makes far more sense, I think, to recognize that when people at a certain level of civilization wanted to build tall structures without the benefit of metals like iron and steel, they would rapidly understand that in order to do so in a manner which would avoid the structure falling over the base of the structure should be broad, and should become successively less broad the taller it was built.

Similarly, rather than speculating that there is such a thing as a collective unconsciousness with its mystic and mythical overtones buried in our minds, it would seem to me more reasonable simply to recognize that we're living organisms having certain characteristics existing and trying to live in an environment of which we're a part. There are certain things we must do as a result. One of those things is thinking, at least when we encounter a problem or situation we wish to resolve. Interacting with the rest of the world, we have similar experiences. Those experiences create habits, customs, language, laws, etc. We're better off studying those empirically than conjuring up Wise Old Man, or Mother, or Father, or Trickster, etc. in an effort to attribute them to some inherited unconscious. — Ciceronianus the White

You missed the hundredth monkey theory. That being when enough monkeys know of something, that knowledge is in our universe and can be received by other monkeys even though there is no contact between the groups of monkeys. However, Jung and Joseph Campbell spoke of spontanious awareness of knowledge, which is like the voice of God speaking to Moses and hundreds of others who heard the voice of a god and I don't believe gods speak to people. However, we do have the concept of a tipping point. I think that is like a pandemic. When enough people have a virus or a thought, it spreads to just about everyone.

I was not aware that I was speaking of a mystical power when I mentioned cultures have a consciousness and subconsciousness. I don't think we can mediate about become aware of what is in the consciousness or subconsciousness unless it is our own thought, but rather is would unlikely to not be aware of cultural consciousness and we would not be aware of what our culture has made it taboo to think about.

I think nations require pschoanalysis just like indiividuals. We are the product of our history, but we may not know that history. Right now the US is in serious trouble because too few are aware of the history that made the US as it is. It was a terrible thing when our right to speak truth became confused with the freedom to say any damn thing we want to say, such as the pandemic should not concern us and should go on about our lives as though it did not exist and defending this right with guns and rebellion against majors. This problem is a failure of education. It is Satan on earth or a god punishing people for their sins.

Bottom line, I don't whink we have a disagreement but maybe a misunderstanding of culture and how history becomes culture, and the problem when a cultural value is known but not the history of the value. That makes a nature crazy just the same as something in a person's subconscious can make the person crazy.

Western culture is materialist and Eastern culture is not. Leading to the West developing technology, but India was a leader of math and gave us the zero, something essential to our own progress. Our cultures have a consciousness and an unconsciousness.

You asked me about my thoughts on the world as we know it becoming part of the mythical past. I would say that I do wonder whether we are at endpoint of civilisation or a new beginning. I will say that I created a thread on whether we were on the verge of cultural collapse, which was last active 19 days ago. I don't know if you are aware of this thread and you might be able to contribute to this discussion.

I will also say that I managed to download the book Thinking Fast and Slow, so hopefully I will manage to read it at some point while I am in the limbo land of England's second lockdown. — Jack Cummins

Please PM me the link to your other thread.

I wish everyone would become familiar with fast and slow thinking. There are YouTubes on the subject. The explanation of why we make bad decisions is discouraging. We can make better decisions but we have to stop and methodically think about them. That is no fun. We take great pleasure in deciding on things based on how we feel. We think we are choosing for our happiness but unless we do the methodical thinking, down the road we can realize our judgment was wrong. Freud was not wrong but his understanding of this was inadequate. He had none of the tools such as brain imaging that we have today. With today's tools, I think Freud would be in 7th heaven.

I think Freud was distracted by "sex". I need to go on to whatThe Mad Fool said because I think much is more about power than sensual gratification. Making bad decisions comes with a sense of pleasure and a feeling of power. I am horrified by the risky behaviors of some in my family. A common problem is short term thinking or doing something for the fun of it while ignoring the possible consequences. You know, having the highest calorie drink on the menu because you know it will taste good, and ignoring the possible health problems of this choice. The pandemic is demonstrating what is wrong with that thinking, while people are carrying guns to protect their liberty to do as they please, and marching around their guns gives them a wonderful sense of power! It is not all about sex although carrying a gun and risky behavior can have sex appeal. The alpha male does get the females but I don't think he is choosing his behaviors with sexual gratification on his mind.

and the veritable catch-all of the "collective unconscious" makes me leery of his conclusions. — Ciceronianus the White


I completely understand how you could feel that way just from a surface understanding.

When I combine it with the understanding of a 'bridge' between instinct, induction, abduction, deduction, the interplay that takes place in a species specific semiosphere, and how this epigenetically feeds back down to the organism, a collective unconscious makes perfect sense to me. — Mapping the Medium

Edward T. Hall wrote of culture as group consciousness and subconsciousness. An example of our cultural subconscious is it is taboo to think about cannibalism. We might read of it being something "those people" do but there is a concern for the person who thinks of doing it in our culture.
If a person shared thoughts with us about participating in cannibalism, we might pull away. Thinking about cannibalism is not the only taboo. Thinking about being gay was also taboo, preventing some from realizing their homosexual feelings, and why they struggled to be "normal", leading them to enter marriages they didn't work for them. Our more open discussion of homosexuality today, resolves the problem created when homosexuality is taboo and something we must not think about.

I will try not to drown in the deep seas of the unconscious mind which I wish to explore. — Jack Cummins


You can't drown in "the deep seas of the unconscious mind" because YOU are the deep sea. This isn't Freud. My theory is that "I" exist in the unconscious. Not Freud's SUBconscious sea of unutterable wishes, but my sea of enormous back-office operations where I exist outside the view of my front-office public relations staff, spies (observed sensory input), and all the public stuff. The front office (consciousness) isn't writing this. The public relations people are watching this as it goes up on the screen. The big Composition Group in the back office is putting the ideas together and sending it out to a transmission desk where fingers are instructed to hit the right keys. — Bitter Crank

Psilocybin and other psychedelic drugs can give us an interesting view of our consciousness and subconscious. Some have argued natural psychedelics played a role in making humans different from other animals. This is outside of a discussion of Freud but I had to mention it when the subject became the "deep sea" and possibility of drowning.

Also when our ego splits the "office consciousness" is not possible because different aspects of a personality are arguing about who will be in control. Schizyophernia can distract the person in the office. As one woman said, it is hard to stay on task when the boss has an elephant's trunk.

If I must say something on Freud and the Oedipus complex it's that the whole idea makes sense, at whatever level it does, even if not to everybody. This is either a sign of Freud's genius or evidence that all is not well, if one isn't, even in the slightest sense, "adventurous". — TheMadFool

A problem I have with Freud and Oedipus is there is not an equal story for females. It is normal for the mother and daughter to clash and for jealousy to become a problem that drives the daughter from the house. This is far more complex than two women competing for the favored position with the male head of household. While some women count on their daughters to be caregivers, typically they do not get along. In the East, typically the old mother goes to the son's home, not the daughters. Having to depend on a daughter or son can be extremely trying for all involved. The Biblical advice that the young go their own way seems well suited to our nature.

Yes, Freud got penis envy wrong; it's a problem for us guys--we all have one, but envy others. We at least make comparisons whenever we get the chance. Even guys with enormous penises aren't always satisfied; as one well endowed guy confessed, "they attract too much attention". — Bitter Crank

For women, back in the day, it was the size of our breast. The bigger the better, and this led to enlarging our breast with surgery if we were not well endowed. I think we can say in the whole animal world there is an instinctive reaction to the features that define if we are male or female. The male peacock
struts his feathers, humans focus on the penis and breast. It can be hard to not look at the features that define our sexuality.

I will bear in mind the possibility of links but I am not a big fan of them and rarely open them on other people's threads.

Really, my quest is about the territory of the imagination. I visited the Freud museum in Hampstead several years ago and that inspired me looking at Freud's desk and the statues he had of mythological figures. I think his journey was about mythical dimensions.

I will probably see what happens on this thread in the next couple of days but want to exist a bit in the physical world before London's second lockdown begins. I don't want to only exist in a room using my phone and do feel a bit overwhelmed by the prospect of lockdown because it seems that life as we know it is becoming part of the mythical past. — Jack Cummins

Good morning. I wish I could undo all my comments and get in line with your intended purpose. I listened to a lecture about Freud last night and was shocked by the professor's absolute enthusiasm for him. To be fair he does have a problem with the ladies but I guess we should not take him out and hang him because his source of information is the same as the source for democracy. And In his favor, he did not see homosexuality as a mental illness and he tried to decriminalize. The Greeks accepted homosexuality and his information comes from them.

Do you know which mythological figures he had on his desk? They are evidence of his sources of information.

The term hysteria comes from the Greek word hysterika, meaning Uterus. In ancient Greece it was believed that a wandering and discontented Uterus was blamed for that dreaded female ailment of excessive emotion, hysteria. The disease's symptoms were believed to be dictated by where in the body the offending organ roamed. It was not religious belief but a social belief. https://academic.mu.edu/meissnerd/hysteria.html — academic.mu.edu

Please explain your last comment about becoming part of the mythical past. I do believe the past is being resurrected and this is the process of entering a New Age, but would such a resurrection relate to what Freud said? Greeks and their democracy goes with a concept of reincarnation.

The main thing I would say is that I don't believe that any tutor or professor could get away with calling a female student 'a castrating bitch' although you say he was your favourite so perhaps it was humour. Nevertheless, I think if it was said to many women who I know they would put in a letter of complaint. The professor might get disciplined or even dismissed for misconduct.

That is not to say that prejudice in all its forms has gone away. If anything, in this time of political correctness, prejudices are often expressed less directly but people may still feel the subtle effects of prejudice which is less overt and Freud's understanding of unconscious is a useful for thinking about the unspoken elements of interaction.

I started this discussion, not really with an intent to focus on Freud's to focus on his discussion of sexuality but of course this aspect of his writing cannot be side-stepped.

Personally I want to be reserved about discussing my own sexuality on this site because it is a public forum openly showing on the internet. I was surprised to find recently that when I googled my name all my posts and my picture were showing. I don't want to take the paranoid position but I am applying for jobs so I want to be a bit cautious. I know that I could create a pen name but I do not plan to at this stage because I have disclosed some personal information but it would be hard to find unless someone really wanted to read and read to find it. But I know that I have the option of creating a pen name and have even joked on another thread that I would choose Dr Dream. But for the time being I would rather reserve Dr Dream for a character in fiction projects.

Anyway, perhaps Freud's ideas on sexuality will be the way forward for this thread discussion. So far only a couple of people apart from you have commented on this thread so far, so I am hoping it does not die before it has even reached puberty. And, it may be a good thing if there was more discussion of sex on this site as it such a central part of life. — Jack Cummins

It is my aim to encourage the success of your thread. The best I know to do, is to use a link to open up the conversation. Is there anything in the link that works for you.

How to solve the Mind-Brain Mystery with Eastern Philosophy

Oriental philosophy emphasizes phenomenological aspects of consciousness while Western philosophy emphasizes functional aspects.

Freud proposed that the mind was made up of the ego, id, and superego before the methods of behaviorism became popular. The study of behaviorism tried to resolve this by looking at the responses to a given stimulus. This was, however, a very limited scope with which to try and reconcile the subtle nuances of the mind.

The common sense and intuitive reasoning focus in folk psychology can be closely compared to Oriental philosophy but is thought to be outdated by some Western psychologists.

The German zoologist Richard Semon wrestled with the unsolved problem of memory over a hundred years ago when he first formulated the engram concept. This history of continuous attempts to produce a valid formula with which to study the human mind led to the necessity of a field of science that could study all aspects of cognition.

This was to be cognitive science which is the interdisciplinary study of the mind. Cognitive science incorporates philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence along with robotics and neuroscience to give a more complete science with which to study the human mind and the brain.

https://medium.com/philosophy-caf%C3%A9/eastern-philosophy-and-the-mind-brain-connection-a44f9322cc0d

The traditional philosophical definition of knowledge, dating back at least to Plato, is that knowledge is justified true belief. That is to say that it is not enough merely to believe something to be the case, and it is not even enough for that belief to turn out to be true, but for someone to know something they must also have a justification for their belief, a reason to believe it, because it would not constitute knowledge to simply guess at an answer to a question (or otherwise come to believe it for insufficient reason) and just by luck turn out to be right. — Pfhorrest

I have a rather low opinion of thinking book learning equals having knowledge. I will go with Thomas Nagel and the notion that there is an explanatory gap between understanding the physical world and understanding conscious experience. I will go further and say without experience one does not have an adequate knowledge of the physical world. Young people accumulate facts but it is not until our later years that those facts begin to have a sense of meaning. That is the big problem with getting people to cooperate with wearing masks and distancing. Until they experience the reality of Covid by becoming ill or losing a loved one, the talk of wearing mask and distancing and warnings to not have gatherings, the number of people who died, etc. is just meaningless words. Words they don't want to hear. Blah, blah, blah. But when the truth comes home those words have meaning and the behavior is changed.

Edmund Gettier has since proposed that even justified true belief is not enough to constitute knowledge, to the extent that reasons to believe something can sometimes be imperfect, can suggest beliefs that nevertheless turn out to be false, yet we nevertheless want to say that someone can still be justified in believing something for such reasons. Because if justification can be imperfect, someone could be justified in believing something that, despite that justification, might nevertheless turn out to actually be false, and in such cases we would not want to say that it counts as knowledge to be misled by imperfect justifications to believe something that could nevertheless have still been false but, by an unrelated coincidence, does happen to also be true, just not for the reasons justifying the belief.

For all the rest, I will be pragmatic. We should never believe we know absolute truth for the reasons you explained. On the other hand, we need a starting point so I am in favor of treating our agreed truths as knowledge. It is our knowledge until better reasoning changes it.

I will even go out on a limb. I will say what we think we know, is knowledge, even if no one agrees with us. An example is knowing bacteria leads to infections and disease, and therefore, sanitation is essential. That is a fact of life even if no one agrees. It took the scientist a hundred years to convenice doctors sanitation is essential. And when we have knowledge that others do not have, it is our duty to continue the effort of pursauding others to accept that truth. That is essential to democracy. Education for "group think" has been detrimental to our democracy. Independent thinking may mean standing alone with a truth for a long time before winning the argument. We may even die before the truth is accepted.

Freud was entirely dismissive of Christianity. His essays such as Totem and Taboo and The Future of an Illusion attempt to depict Christianity as a result of a kind of collective neurosis. He was throughout his life an outspoken and uncompromising atheist. Generally speaking Freud’s philosophy, such as it was, was tied to his overwhelming desire to establish himself as a scientist; his dismissive attitude of the idea of the spiritual was one of the main factors in Jung’s splitting from Freud. — Wayfarer

Perfect, Freud and Nietzsche agree about Christianity being a form of neurosis. They also are sexist and have stood against the self-actualization of women. Both have had a strong political and economic impact on women for many generations. Women who have entered politics since women's liberation have been changing our reality through politics. I wonder where we would be if women had also had the power they have today?

While both men opposed Christianity, they still come out a culture dominated by Christianity and that matters when considering sexism! :rage: Oh no, I didn't mean be angry. :halo: There that is better. I now look like a proper woman. :wink:

I can see Freud's weakness but enjoy reading his writings, so I dare'nt think how some may psychoanalyse me. Actually, I discovered a Primer in Freudian psychology in the library of my Roman Catholic school library, so his ideas were a liberating factor for me during adolescence.

I also did a course in art psychotherapy and this brought Freudian ideas to life. I think Freud's ideas are extremely important for psychotherapy as questions of religion and sexuality seem to figure strongly in mental illness, especially in psychotic breakdowns.

The ideas of Melanie Klein are interesting too from a psychoanalytic point of view. In particular, the ideas of splitting, projective identification, in addition to the concepts of the depressive and paranoid position.

While I was doing the art psychotherapy course I undertook personal therapy. My therapist was trained in Jungian psychotherapy. However, the therapy did incorporate some elements based on Freud's ideas. It included 50 minute sessions and four many of my sessions I lay on a couch. I found lying on the couch in therapy very wierd. I definitely think the therapy affected me permanently, mainly making me view life experiences differently and making me a bit more aware of my own blind spots. — Jack Cummins

I should really pay more attention to what you read before making an argument but :lol: I have no self control.. I understand sex is important to some people but it is not something I recognize as important to my life. Rather the male sexual agenda is a huge irritation! Before sex became an issue, life was pretty good. We all went into the field and built forts, and just had fun. Then out of nowhere, I became a sexual object. That is like being the prey of an eagle, and it ruined everything. I am so glad that is behind me and there is a chance of having an intelligent discussion with a man, without sex being the agenda I want to avoid.

Sigmund Freud’s views on women stirred controversy during his own lifetime and continue to evoke considerable debate today. "Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own," he wrote in a 1925 paper entitled "The Psychical Consequences of the Anatomic Distinction Between the Sexes." — https://www.verywellmind.com/how-sigmund-freud-viewed-women-2795859

Really, you don't think that was very bad for generations of women? Like what about his influence on our fight for political and economic rights, and the right to actualize ourselves? Male deomination was a terrible thing. And what did he contribute that outweighs the damage done? And speaking of his popularity, I have been pondering this, ever since mentioning comparing Freud with Neitzsche. No one gets popular without saying what people want to hear. What is it about Germany that made him, Nietzsche popular?

Nietzsche's apparent misogyny is part of his overall strategy to demonstrate that our attitudes toward sex-gender are thoroughly cultural, are often destructive of our own potential as individuals and as a species, and may be changed. — Wikipedia

I think we have done a terrible thing by replacing Greek philosophy with German philosophy!

No doubt self reflection is very important! Socrates, "know thy self." Another way to discover more about yourself is Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., and her book "God's in Everyman". Each God and Goddess is an arche type and if you like Jung you will like her explanation of the archetypes. I think anyone wanting to study psychology should begin with the Greek archetypes.

We must forgive Europe because they were cut off from the anciet civilizations and they only had local paganism and Christianity with Christianity clearly dominating and controlling their consciousness, and the Bible is not the best book for understanding humans because the religion is based on myth that is not a study of nature. In contrast, Greek gods and goddess are based on nature. Freud and Neitzsche are coming out of Christian consciousness. That is problematic. Starting with the Hebrews and the story of Eden, the God of Abraham was male domination over women and foreigners. The only archetype Christianity provides for women is Mother Mary. I rather be Athena and carry a sword. :grin: My favorite professor said I am a casterating bitch. Does that explain my opionon of Freud?

Yes, I do agree ultimately. I do not consider myself as popular, but as a bit of an outsider.

If anything it is about survival. We live in a world of dog eat dog and a I have my own share of bullying and trying to resuscitate myself.

I would certainly not advocate a philosophy which elevates the popular. I do wish to advocate for many diverse and rejected philosophers. I believe that those most rejected can become the cornerstone as a Bob Marley track suggested and I would hate to think if Bob Marley was seen as below the level of the thinking of the philosophers, as in the most fundamental way he advocated the rights of all, beyond race, gender and all categories of exclusion.

One final remark, I am aware that Jung was attribute with racism against Jews and he had a certain amount of sexism too. This can be seen as a criticism of his work but is it to the point where his views should be rejected entirely?

The point I would make here is that I found meaningful in the writings of Ouspensky and passed a book onto him to a friend. I was dumbfounded when I discovered that my friend, who is gay, had latched onto a remark about homosexuality which I had barely noticed, and been thrown into an abyss of despair.

So, what I am saying is that the ideas of Freud, Jung and others have to be thrown into the cauldron of fire, juxtaposed with the relics of the Christian past as a way for a synthesis. This is a difficult endeavor with no easy answers and so returning to my thread discussion I would say simply that the ideas are a stepping stone for philosophical debate. — Jack Cummins

Whoo, we are focused on dog eat dog reality, but really? Humanity has survived because we worked together to achieve what has been achieved?

In part, I think our dop eat dog mentality is the result of how we have told history. Until recently history has always been his story. Increasingly, today, his story is our story. Archeologists are giving us the story of the men and women who built the pyramids.

As for Freud's id, ego, and super ego, many years ago I bought a book for my children that refered to the child, parent, adult of transactional psychology.

According to "Simply Psychology"

According to Freud psychoanalytic theory, the id is the primitive and instinctual part of the mind that contains sexual and aggressive drives and hidden memories, the super-ego operates as a moral conscience, and the ego is the realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego. — Simply Psychology

Does that compare well with the child, parent, adult of transactional analyss? It does not carry the fascination with our sexuality of Freud. It is better in tune with the modern science mental development. If a child is aggressive or not, might have more to do with how the child is raised than masterbation? Did Frued even know of hormones?

I believe I experienced post trauma syndrome because I was pre-verbal when I as put in a body cast. I strongly believe past experiences are retained in our subconscious and that they have impact on our lives. What is in our subconscious can have of benefacial or destructive impact on our lives. But when it comes to Freud, he was full of prejudices and apparently pretty hung up on sex. Obviously he had an important effect on our culture but this could have been more damaging then helpful?

I perfer Socrates and his concern for expanding our consciousness and Cicero's concern with right reason, to Frued and the cultural prejudices that played into his popularity. The Father in heaven and titlating interest in our sexuality distort his work.


We might play with Freud's instinctual drives and Nietzsche's anti-Christian, superman philosophy?

I am a bit surprised to hear that you are are checking for signs of dementia because my imaginary picture of you was an extremely young person, probably with a degree in psychology as so many people have nowadays. I imagined you as a force to take the world by storm.

This is not in any way a criticism as I am in Bedford drinking wine in Bedford in a venue calle Coffee With Art, reading a paper book called History and Spirit: An Inquiry into the Philosophy of Liberation by Joel Kovel. It is based on Hegel's philosophy but draws upon psychoanalysis and the whole spirit of authenticity.

I encourage you in your philosophical quest rather than too much worry about dementia until necessarily. Dementia is a label in itself. In the meantime I think philosophy needs a wake up call from the smart thinkers and at the present time your thinking is smart and offers a valuable contribution to philosophy. — Jack Cummins

:lol: Well thank you darling but I am more like a moldy loaf of bread or an old car ready for the junkyard.
My epitaph needs to read "gone to get a new body" but if we do not have a major awakening and turn to caring for our planet and all life on it, I am not sure I want to come back.

As for a wake-up call, now you really excite me. I would so much like to be part of that. We could be moving into a New Age and unlike all the transitions we have made so far, built on our past and religious belief, the New Age is new because it is such a transformation of consciousness, those of the New Age will not be able to relate our history.

I am totally blown away by recent social change and today's politics! It is like we have come to a fork in the road that will mean our end or a completely new consciousness. Congress helping the little guy financially is mind-blowing! I have been through many recessions and wish the little guy had always been supported. Reagon was especially devasting to millions of lives with his Hollywood fanatacy of our national greatness that did not include the reality of the victims of economic collapse. Why is congress aware of the economic victims now and not in the past? We have marched for the end of war and the end of racism at least since the sixties, but now, at least the march against racism seems to be turning things around. And global economic collapse because of the virus could be a blessing or curse?

Talk about obsecure, how many people have a copy of Jose' Aarguelles' book The Mayan Factor- Path Beyond Technology. He says some very strange things, but really why is his explanation of The Mayan Factor strange but the Biblical explanation of Eden seems a like a story of God's truth? At least the Mayan had a more realistic notion of good times and bad times. Our Christian mentality is so dependent on a God who takes care of us, rather than a natural cycle of good times and bad times. Now I am going too far, but you mentioned a possible awakening and maybe we need other prespectives to stir up our creative thinking of how we are going to past some really bad times?

I think that Joseph Campbell is a long lost prophet but possibly too obscure for many on this site to understand.

I chose Freud as a pioneer because I think that he engaged with so many debates at the heart of philosophy, including religion and sexuality. — Jack Cummins

Well, I am iconoclastic and drawn to less obscure thoughts. I hope I am not offensive but useful in keeping the discussion alive.

And I am noticing another prejudice of mine. Following the popular guy. It does not seem right to me that we pay more attention to someone because s/he was in a position to be popular. Excluding someone like Joseph Campbell and others who effectively question Christian notions, trouble's me a lot.

I do not disagree and think that Freud and Jung drew upon the ideas of their time, but point to them as exponents of ideas about the unconscious. I certainly would not wish to dismiss those who paved the way for their work. — Jack Cummins

It's all good. You are dealing with my female resentment of Freud's sexism and my pagan resentment of Christianity. Sometimes I am impressed by how strongly our feelings can influence our thinking. My feelings make me think we are dealing with very important ideas. I believe the East has played an important role in advancing our consciousness so I stress awareness of the Eastern philosophy.