quote: "Kingsley believes, with some evidence, that many of Jung’s followers hid the most disturbing prophecies Jung made in his days of dying. These prophecies foresaw the end of the world with 50 to 60 years."
One thing I think is worthy to note here is that less than 18 months after Jung's passing came the Cuban Missle Crisis with some of the events leading up to it already in motion when he had those premonitions.
another quote: "Kingsley believes that much of Jung the Prophet wanted and desires was disregarded against his wishes. For example, he was firmly against the formation of any type of Jungian training or institutes, but they started, nonetheless."
This is an unfortunate pattern seen time and time again over millenia with the "prophet" archetype and one that does dishonor to the person who embodied it. Which leads me to ask:
Is it possible to 'remix' archetypes (to use a musical metaphor)?
For example, Bittersweet Symphony by the Verve is more 'bitter' than 'sweet' - very melancholic (at least for me). But that Amonita & Makebo Remix takes the familiar riff from the song (itself a sample from the Rolling Stones) and transforms it into something more sweet than bitter, almost euphoric (again, at least for me).
Would it be possible to do this with archetypes or are the patterns so ingrained in the collective consciousness that everyone (save for the very few, but not enough to matter in the end) will unconsciously fall into the same groove and replay the same story that's already been told and retold and retold over and over and over?
It's a great question. I notice when we remix the myths they don't land- because they deviate from the evolutionary information they encode. See: Matrix sequels and Star wars after TFA. We also feel cheated if the movie ends at the climax. We want to see the pattern resolved. Why?
But the existence of free will I think makes it possible or likely that the patterns can be deviated from? I'm not sure. Not every psychotic descent into chaos has a happy ending.
Anecdotally I'm seeing even more "madness" around me than usual recently. So I worry Kingsley's prediction of a descent before the rise might be playing out now. I hope not.
One thing that resonated with me from the von Franz book I read recently (alchemical active imagination) is that Jung stressed that the individuation process doesn't get any easier - one is always skating on the razor's edge - just that the process evolves from the personal realm into the collective realm.
There’s good stuff here, but I’m a little confused because this is exactly what I’ve been saying (that I feel like you haven’t been on board with). The only explanation is that we are interpreting the same words differently.
These quotes below are all instances of life living us. In other words, it’s not my will, but thy will (also capital “S” Self = God):
“relocate the center of gravity of the personality from the ego to the Self, another way of saying what the apostle Paul once observed: ‘I must decrease that He may increase.’”
“everything meaningful or worthwhile depends absolutely on the divine will.”
“It's all done through us, for us. In fact we don't do a thing because, thanks to a divine process we can't or won't acknowledge, it's the sacred that takes care of everything.”
Here’s more Kastrup that I’d love to hear your thoughts on:
“The meaning of life has nothing to do with making ‘free’ choices, as if such freedom were somehow distinct from the necessity of making said choices. The meaning of life has to do with paying attention to what is going on, observing the dance of existence, taking it in, reflecting, bearing witness. This is humanity’s service to nature, not the egomaniacal delusion of individual agency. Only when you truly see this, will you be free in the only way that holds water: the freedom to allow yourself to be what you cannot help but be, and to choose to do what nature demands.” — Bernardo Kastrup
“A free choice is not the opposite of a determined choice; indeed, a free choice is always determined, but determined by that which we identify with. And what we identify with is our subjectivity. Choices determined by our subjectivity are free, while choices determined by agencies outside our subjectivity aren’t …
The necessities entailed by our being are experienced by us as our desires. Allow me to repeat this, for it is the key point: the necessities entailed by our very being are our desires; this is what our desires are, have always been, and will always be: the manifestation of the necessities intrinsic to our being. This is why the question of free will is a meaningless red herring: it presupposes that necessity and desire are distinct—even dichotomous—things …
This is what you must try to see so to realize that the whole discussion about free will is nonsensical … There is no fundamental distinction between necessity and desire. What the universal subject desires to do is what its intrinsic dispositions dictate; its desires are determined by what it is. And what the universal subject must do is what it desires irresistibly to do; it can’t desire otherwise because its desires, too, are dictated by what it is.” — Bernardo Kastrup
Maybe we don’t understand each other then. I believe we have maximal free will to follow an optimal path. Or not. And we can co create as active afoot participants. So if there’s an opposite of the belief we have no free will, I hold that belief.
Here's new stuff from Kastrup that was just posted this month that elaborates on his views that free will is an incoherent concept. I'm working on a summary of everything Kastrup on free will that will be available soon. https://youtu.be/zoOi79nQywE?feature=shared
So 18min in he says we have free will, it's just got lots of internal and external variables affecting it. I agree, you agree, conversation mercifully over at last.
😂 Are we watching the same video? Here's what Kastrup says at the 18min mark: "We don't choose who we fall in love with, we don't choose what we like to do and what we don't like to do. Do you choose your next thought? Do you choose your emotions? If you did, you'd never feel angry, you would never feel depressed, you would never feel anxious. Our choices are determined by nature."
There is an optimal path, we are free to deviate from that path. Maybe I'll come to realise that's wrong one day. But right now I think the total denial of free will is the worst and most dangerous idea on the internet.
Sloww, you believe in a stong-form 'no free will'. I am open to it but its a very difficult argument as of today. However, I do believe there is a lot to be said for a weak-form 'no free will'. I could say, "Under the right conditions, Self/God manifests within and through the individual. We do not live the hero's journey, but the hero's journey lives through us." That is pretty far from a strong free will. But I think I can see myself getting here. Nevertheless, we as individuals still need to provide a bit of those conditions, no? Even if it is as simple as just being aware. Isn't there at least a tiny bit of intentionality needed to achieve that state of non-action and non-attachment?
Just to be clear, "no free will" isn't a belief. It's not a belief you hold in your mind and then act according to; it's a clear seeing (hence why spirituality often describes it as seeing "beyond mind"). Everything I've ever posted on free will and interconnected topics like the birth lottery, moral responsibility, agency (mis)attribution, etc can be found here in these 30+ posts: https://www.sloww.co/popular-posts/#freewillseries
You realized that 'no-free-will' is our natural state. It is not a belief but 'just is'. After we see through our delusional beliefs, we do not have a choice but to realize the lack of free will. And with enough spiritual work, others too can realize this natural state.
I am very open to this. However, I am concerned that an intellectual understanding of 'no-free-will', without the deep spiritual work, will lead people to nihilism and not clear seeing. And the intellectual scaffolding isn't exactly fireproof, but that's besides the point.
From Nagarjuna's middle way by Jay Garfield:
"11. By a misperception of emptiness
A person of little intelligence is destroyed.
Like a snake incorrectly seized
Or like a spell incorrectly cast.
The Madhyamika doctrine of emptiness is subtle and is easily misinterpreted. In particular, it is often misinterpreted as a thoroughgoing nihilism about phenomena."
I have gone through a similar nihilistic phase after discovering eastern thought. Took me years to snap out. I love your website, and I keep sharing many summaries from it with friends. Which is why I want you to take Nagarjuna's warning very seriously when it comes to the free will debate.
Thanks for the kind words about the website/summaries. It sounds like your concern/warning is that when many people (let's say 80% of Western humans who are still at conventional levels of psychological development) hear "there is no free will," they will only be able to hold this on the intellectual/belief/mind level which could lead to problems like nihilism. Many people think this (or that people will run amok in the streets). It reminds me of Dan Dennett's thinking which is something like: there's no free will, but we shouldn't tell anyone. Many people also reference research studies that show the implications/consequences of priming/belief in no free will. I Iooked into 25+ of the research studies, and there is nothing conclusive. Aside from some of the research actually showing the opposite, there are all sorts of problems with the research in genereal (not to mention many (most?) fail to replicate): https://twitter.com/SlowwCo/status/1682155556193320960
In regards to my role in all this, the nature of Sloww content is itself a self-selecting filter for people. In other words, people are primarily finding Sloww content when they are questioning and seeking it out (75% of Sloww site traffic is from organic search). Questioning leads to learning leads to development leads to questioning leads to learning leads to development leads to... So, people are primarily finding the content when they are ready; it's not being forced on anyone.
Sloww is a direct reflection/record of my deepening inquiry into myself (my self). I only share things as I see them, and I do this as honestly and truthfully as possible given I report to no one, am funded by no one, and am outside of academia (I'm as "free" as it gets in the sense of lack of constraints on me speaking my mind). I'm unable to get on board with the Dan Dennett line of thinking. Instead, Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira come to mind:
"It’s a matter of how committed you are to wanting to know the truth as opposed to wanting something that is functionally useful. Is the notion of free will functionally useful? In this case, you ignore whether it’s true or not—and if it's useful, you embrace it. I can’t do that. My mind is set up in such a way that I’m too committed to truth. I can’t knowingly deceive myself. Of course I deceive myself unknowingly like all of us, but I am incapable of saying, 'Okay I’ll buy into this because it’s useful.'" — Bernardo Kastrup
"Self-inquiry most of all requires love for the truth—irrespective of the consequences that it may have for your life ... At some point the interest in the nature of 'I' eclipses all other interests. It is like falling in love with truth or reality ... Our understanding of our self is the most important element of our experience because everything we do we do on behalf of our self." — Rupert Spira
Thanks for the detailed reply. You have stated my concerns accurately. From where is stand, a good spiritual undertaking seems to require 1) some intentionally 2) keen awareness of intellectual traps & rabbit holes.
Perhaps I will see things differently as my work deepens. I will definitely keep Kastrup and Spira in mind. This has been useful. Regards.
A thought-provoking essay, thank you.
I found another review of Catafalque that I also found rewarding here:
https://appliedjung.com/catafalque-carl-jung-and-the-end-of-humanity/
quote: "Kingsley believes, with some evidence, that many of Jung’s followers hid the most disturbing prophecies Jung made in his days of dying. These prophecies foresaw the end of the world with 50 to 60 years."
One thing I think is worthy to note here is that less than 18 months after Jung's passing came the Cuban Missle Crisis with some of the events leading up to it already in motion when he had those premonitions.
another quote: "Kingsley believes that much of Jung the Prophet wanted and desires was disregarded against his wishes. For example, he was firmly against the formation of any type of Jungian training or institutes, but they started, nonetheless."
This is an unfortunate pattern seen time and time again over millenia with the "prophet" archetype and one that does dishonor to the person who embodied it. Which leads me to ask:
Is it possible to 'remix' archetypes (to use a musical metaphor)?
For example, Bittersweet Symphony by the Verve is more 'bitter' than 'sweet' - very melancholic (at least for me). But that Amonita & Makebo Remix takes the familiar riff from the song (itself a sample from the Rolling Stones) and transforms it into something more sweet than bitter, almost euphoric (again, at least for me).
Would it be possible to do this with archetypes or are the patterns so ingrained in the collective consciousness that everyone (save for the very few, but not enough to matter in the end) will unconsciously fall into the same groove and replay the same story that's already been told and retold and retold over and over and over?
It's a great question. I notice when we remix the myths they don't land- because they deviate from the evolutionary information they encode. See: Matrix sequels and Star wars after TFA. We also feel cheated if the movie ends at the climax. We want to see the pattern resolved. Why?
But the existence of free will I think makes it possible or likely that the patterns can be deviated from? I'm not sure. Not every psychotic descent into chaos has a happy ending.
Anecdotally I'm seeing even more "madness" around me than usual recently. So I worry Kingsley's prediction of a descent before the rise might be playing out now. I hope not.
Great points.
One thing that resonated with me from the von Franz book I read recently (alchemical active imagination) is that Jung stressed that the individuation process doesn't get any easier - one is always skating on the razor's edge - just that the process evolves from the personal realm into the collective realm.
Carl Jung: "The world hangs on a thin thread...."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppFlVouq-Mc
God that’s powerful. The responsibility lies with the individual to wrestle with god.
I've never wanted 4 hours of your undivided attention more. Someday.
Third time lucky on dinner!!
There’s good stuff here, but I’m a little confused because this is exactly what I’ve been saying (that I feel like you haven’t been on board with). The only explanation is that we are interpreting the same words differently.
These quotes below are all instances of life living us. In other words, it’s not my will, but thy will (also capital “S” Self = God):
“relocate the center of gravity of the personality from the ego to the Self, another way of saying what the apostle Paul once observed: ‘I must decrease that He may increase.’”
“everything meaningful or worthwhile depends absolutely on the divine will.”
“It's all done through us, for us. In fact we don't do a thing because, thanks to a divine process we can't or won't acknowledge, it's the sacred that takes care of everything.”
Here’s more Kastrup that I’d love to hear your thoughts on:
“The meaning of life has nothing to do with making ‘free’ choices, as if such freedom were somehow distinct from the necessity of making said choices. The meaning of life has to do with paying attention to what is going on, observing the dance of existence, taking it in, reflecting, bearing witness. This is humanity’s service to nature, not the egomaniacal delusion of individual agency. Only when you truly see this, will you be free in the only way that holds water: the freedom to allow yourself to be what you cannot help but be, and to choose to do what nature demands.” — Bernardo Kastrup
“A free choice is not the opposite of a determined choice; indeed, a free choice is always determined, but determined by that which we identify with. And what we identify with is our subjectivity. Choices determined by our subjectivity are free, while choices determined by agencies outside our subjectivity aren’t …
The necessities entailed by our being are experienced by us as our desires. Allow me to repeat this, for it is the key point: the necessities entailed by our very being are our desires; this is what our desires are, have always been, and will always be: the manifestation of the necessities intrinsic to our being. This is why the question of free will is a meaningless red herring: it presupposes that necessity and desire are distinct—even dichotomous—things …
This is what you must try to see so to realize that the whole discussion about free will is nonsensical … There is no fundamental distinction between necessity and desire. What the universal subject desires to do is what its intrinsic dispositions dictate; its desires are determined by what it is. And what the universal subject must do is what it desires irresistibly to do; it can’t desire otherwise because its desires, too, are dictated by what it is.” — Bernardo Kastrup
Maybe we don’t understand each other then. I believe we have maximal free will to follow an optimal path. Or not. And we can co create as active afoot participants. So if there’s an opposite of the belief we have no free will, I hold that belief.
Here's new stuff from Kastrup that was just posted this month that elaborates on his views that free will is an incoherent concept. I'm working on a summary of everything Kastrup on free will that will be available soon. https://youtu.be/zoOi79nQywE?feature=shared
So 18min in he says we have free will, it's just got lots of internal and external variables affecting it. I agree, you agree, conversation mercifully over at last.
😂 Are we watching the same video? Here's what Kastrup says at the 18min mark: "We don't choose who we fall in love with, we don't choose what we like to do and what we don't like to do. Do you choose your next thought? Do you choose your emotions? If you did, you'd never feel angry, you would never feel depressed, you would never feel anxious. Our choices are determined by nature."
Sorry 1630 onwards.
There is an optimal path, we are free to deviate from that path. Maybe I'll come to realise that's wrong one day. But right now I think the total denial of free will is the worst and most dangerous idea on the internet.
This may help in terms of understanding Kastrup's perspective on free will (lots of good stuff in here): https://www.sloww.co/bernardo-kastrup-synthesis/
Sloww, you believe in a stong-form 'no free will'. I am open to it but its a very difficult argument as of today. However, I do believe there is a lot to be said for a weak-form 'no free will'. I could say, "Under the right conditions, Self/God manifests within and through the individual. We do not live the hero's journey, but the hero's journey lives through us." That is pretty far from a strong free will. But I think I can see myself getting here. Nevertheless, we as individuals still need to provide a bit of those conditions, no? Even if it is as simple as just being aware. Isn't there at least a tiny bit of intentionality needed to achieve that state of non-action and non-attachment?
Just to be clear, "no free will" isn't a belief. It's not a belief you hold in your mind and then act according to; it's a clear seeing (hence why spirituality often describes it as seeing "beyond mind"). Everything I've ever posted on free will and interconnected topics like the birth lottery, moral responsibility, agency (mis)attribution, etc can be found here in these 30+ posts: https://www.sloww.co/popular-posts/#freewillseries
You realized that 'no-free-will' is our natural state. It is not a belief but 'just is'. After we see through our delusional beliefs, we do not have a choice but to realize the lack of free will. And with enough spiritual work, others too can realize this natural state.
I am very open to this. However, I am concerned that an intellectual understanding of 'no-free-will', without the deep spiritual work, will lead people to nihilism and not clear seeing. And the intellectual scaffolding isn't exactly fireproof, but that's besides the point.
From Nagarjuna's middle way by Jay Garfield:
"11. By a misperception of emptiness
A person of little intelligence is destroyed.
Like a snake incorrectly seized
Or like a spell incorrectly cast.
The Madhyamika doctrine of emptiness is subtle and is easily misinterpreted. In particular, it is often misinterpreted as a thoroughgoing nihilism about phenomena."
I have gone through a similar nihilistic phase after discovering eastern thought. Took me years to snap out. I love your website, and I keep sharing many summaries from it with friends. Which is why I want you to take Nagarjuna's warning very seriously when it comes to the free will debate.
Thanks for the kind words about the website/summaries. It sounds like your concern/warning is that when many people (let's say 80% of Western humans who are still at conventional levels of psychological development) hear "there is no free will," they will only be able to hold this on the intellectual/belief/mind level which could lead to problems like nihilism. Many people think this (or that people will run amok in the streets). It reminds me of Dan Dennett's thinking which is something like: there's no free will, but we shouldn't tell anyone. Many people also reference research studies that show the implications/consequences of priming/belief in no free will. I Iooked into 25+ of the research studies, and there is nothing conclusive. Aside from some of the research actually showing the opposite, there are all sorts of problems with the research in genereal (not to mention many (most?) fail to replicate): https://twitter.com/SlowwCo/status/1682155556193320960
In regards to my role in all this, the nature of Sloww content is itself a self-selecting filter for people. In other words, people are primarily finding Sloww content when they are questioning and seeking it out (75% of Sloww site traffic is from organic search). Questioning leads to learning leads to development leads to questioning leads to learning leads to development leads to... So, people are primarily finding the content when they are ready; it's not being forced on anyone.
Sloww is a direct reflection/record of my deepening inquiry into myself (my self). I only share things as I see them, and I do this as honestly and truthfully as possible given I report to no one, am funded by no one, and am outside of academia (I'm as "free" as it gets in the sense of lack of constraints on me speaking my mind). I'm unable to get on board with the Dan Dennett line of thinking. Instead, Bernardo Kastrup and Rupert Spira come to mind:
"It’s a matter of how committed you are to wanting to know the truth as opposed to wanting something that is functionally useful. Is the notion of free will functionally useful? In this case, you ignore whether it’s true or not—and if it's useful, you embrace it. I can’t do that. My mind is set up in such a way that I’m too committed to truth. I can’t knowingly deceive myself. Of course I deceive myself unknowingly like all of us, but I am incapable of saying, 'Okay I’ll buy into this because it’s useful.'" — Bernardo Kastrup
"Self-inquiry most of all requires love for the truth—irrespective of the consequences that it may have for your life ... At some point the interest in the nature of 'I' eclipses all other interests. It is like falling in love with truth or reality ... Our understanding of our self is the most important element of our experience because everything we do we do on behalf of our self." — Rupert Spira
Thanks for the detailed reply. You have stated my concerns accurately. From where is stand, a good spiritual undertaking seems to require 1) some intentionally 2) keen awareness of intellectual traps & rabbit holes.
Perhaps I will see things differently as my work deepens. I will definitely keep Kastrup and Spira in mind. This has been useful. Regards.