Can you help me? What did Carl Jung mean here?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
focusinc
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:28 pm

Can you help me? What did Carl Jung mean here?

Post by focusinc » Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:32 pm

"We do not know whether what we on the empirical plane regard as physical may not, in the Unknown beyond our experience, be identical with what on this side of the border we distinguish from the physical as psychic. Though we know from experience that psychic processes are related to material ones, we are not in a position to say in what this relationship consists or how it is possible at all. Precisely because the psychic and the physical are mutually dependent it has often been conjectured that they may be identical somewhere beyond our present experience, though this certainly does not justify the arbitrary hypothesis of either materialism or spiritualism."

I'm having a real hard time figuring out the first sentence. I think he's saying that we think the unknown is psychic, but it could be something completely different? What does he mean it may be identical somewhere beyond our present experience? Thanks!

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can you help me? What did Carl Jung mean here?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:43 am

focusinc wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:32 pm
"We do not know whether what we on the empirical plane regard as physical may not, in the Unknown beyond our experience, be identical with what on this side of the border we distinguish from the physical as psychic. Though we know from experience that psychic processes are related to material ones, we are not in a position to say in what this relationship consists or how it is possible at all. Precisely because the psychic and the physical are mutually dependent it has often been conjectured that they may be identical somewhere beyond our present experience, though this certainly does not justify the arbitrary hypothesis of either materialism or spiritualism."

I'm having a real hard time figuring out the first sentence. I think he's saying that we think the unknown is psychic, but it could be something completely different? What does he mean it may be identical somewhere beyond our present experience? Thanks!
Considering reality is composed of experiential phenomena, not just limited to the senses but the observation of phenomena that may indeed be imaginary or abstract, and these phenomena in turn form our perceptions which further form reality, what we understand of reality and imagination/abstraction (the process of "imaging" or forming abstract structure) may not be entirely seperable.

However we are not able to perceive exactly where they are unified either, as these realities are not entirely observable. In these respects it implies a separation.

So one is left with the observation that they are both separated and unified...and a paradox occurs. Materialism and spiritualism, due to a seeming dependence on the other, are not entirely justifiable in their own rights however are regarded as separate entities. A dimension of "unknowing" seems to imply a lack of total justification in a separate and simultaneous respect, however is the foundation for these justifications in themselves.

Even where empirical and psychic realities may be perceived as seperable, the lines themselves may be blurred as the lines are dimensions which are both empirical and abstract.

What we observe through the empirical and abstract realities however is a form of mirroring in which one reflects through the other. Take again the example of the "line", there is great debate whether it is a physical entity in itself (which gives root to the abstract version) or vice versa. In these respects the phenomena of "dimensionality" (which is not what jung specifically intended in his text but may be inferred somewhat) is the observation of order through boundaries, which maintains itself regardless of its degree of empiricism or abstractness. His work in synchonicity, which is worth a read when you have the time, observes this "mirror" effect where one phenomena (either empirical or abstract) seems to mirror another.

It may be implied from this that synchonicity, or a mirror effect as what I call it (along with Pythagorean/Platonic philosophers) seems to be an ever present binding median to reality synonymous to "causality". Structure, through empirical and abstract phenomena, mirrors further structure.

In a separate respect the physical plane, as temporality through motion or change, observes physical phenomena in a state of perpetual flux as growth and evaporation. A principle of universal frequency (being and non-being) may be implied from this in one respect. In a separate respect, considering the nature of change, what is deemed "physical" in one moment is no longer "physical" the next and what we understand of an empirical phenomena comes into question.

In these respects all physical phenomena can be observed as medial points, or signs/axioms, that lead to further medial points/signs/axioms. Considering the nature of the axiom, and therefore consciousness, maintains a dualistic empirical and abstract nature, what we understand of an empirical phenomena observes a dimensionality that binds it to the abstract. Using this understanding of a physical phenomena as a medial point, one is lead to a simple question: What is the point? It is a simple question, however its interpretation cause many to confusion. This is considering, what we understand of reality as medial points, the point itself is either physical, abstract, both, or neither. Considering we cannot separate it entirely, as consciousness seems bound to this simple dimension, the question (at least the one I have) is: Why not all?

To give further insight to your questions you may want to do research into:

Phenomenology (Heidegger and Husserl)
Buddhist Conception of Causality

Hopefully this will provide you some clarity, however I must premise this with the fact that this is an educated opinion. One cannot fully read into another's thoughts.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests