Mimsey & ESMB

The theme of this post apocalypse life is amazingly prevalent in books and film - H.G. Well's Time Machine is a perfect example - will we become the Eloi or the inbred Morlocks? Is it a suppressed racial memory right out of Jung?

morlocksphinx_head.jpg
 
Last edited:

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Mimsey,
We go back a ways, you and I, and I want to wish you and your loved ones a belated Happy and Healthy New Year.
Also wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your continued dialogue with HH.

Be well, my friend.
 
Carl Jung never referred to any "suppressed racial memories."

You have huge misunderstandings. Jung was about the collective unconscious and archetypes. Apparently you've never read much of his work.

Here: http://changingminds.org/explanations/identity/jung_archetypes.htm
I thought it was him - I had remembered reading it somewhere. As I scanned through the below - I began to recall that racial memory was posited by someone as the explanation behind why and where architypes sprung from. Well, my bad for being inaccurate. I apologize, and stand corrected.

I had long wondered what Hubbard meant by mankind's 4th dynamic engram, which I had presumed he meant the OT III incident 2, however, the above OP certainly qualifies as such (if one were to believe in engrams)

Mimsey

"Carl Jung understood archetypes as universal, archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious and are the psychic counterpart of instinct.[1] They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.[2] They are autonomous and hidden forms which are transformed once they enter consciousness and are given particular expression by individuals and their cultures. In Jungian psychology, archetypes are highly developed elements of the collective unconscious. The existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by using story, art, myths, religions, or dreams.

"In theory, Jungian archetypes refer to unclear underlying forms or the archetypes-as-such from which emerge images and motifs such as the mother, the child, the trickster, and [bcolor=#ffff00]the flood[/bcolor] among others. History, culture and personal context shape these manifest representations thereby giving them their specific content. These images and motifs are more precisely called archetypal images. However it is common for the term archetype to be used interchangeably to refer to both archetypes-as-such and archetypal images.[2] "

"Anthony Stevens explains that the archetype-as-such is at once an innate predisposition to form such an image and a preparation to encounter and respond appropriately to the creature per se. This would explain the existence of snake and spider phobias, for example, in people living in urban environments where they have never encountered either creature.[2] "

wiki
 

JustSheila

Crusader
I thought it was him - I had remembered reading it somewhere. As I scanned through the below - I began to recall that racial memory was posited by someone as the explanation behind why and where architypes sprung from. Well, my bad for being inaccurate. I apologize, and stand corrected.

I had long wondered what Hubbard meant by mankind's 4th dynamic engram, which I had presumed he meant the OT III incident 2, however, the above OP certainly qualifies as such (if one were to believe in engrams)

Mimsey

"Carl Jung understood archetypes as universal, archaic patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious and are the psychic counterpart of instinct.[1] They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.[2] They are autonomous and hidden forms which are transformed once they enter consciousness and are given particular expression by individuals and their cultures. In Jungian psychology, archetypes are highly developed elements of the collective unconscious. The existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by using story, art, myths, religions, or dreams.

"In theory, Jungian archetypes refer to unclear underlying forms or the archetypes-as-such from which emerge images and motifs such as the mother, the child, the trickster, and [bcolor=#ffff00]the flood[/bcolor] among others. History, culture and personal context shape these manifest representations thereby giving them their specific content. These images and motifs are more precisely called archetypal images. However it is common for the term archetype to be used interchangeably to refer to both archetypes-as-such and archetypal images.[2] "

"Anthony Stevens explains that the archetype-as-such is at once an innate predisposition to form such an image and a preparation to encounter and respond appropriately to the creature per se. This would explain the existence of snake and spider phobias, for example, in people living in urban environments where they have never encountered either creature.[2] "

wiki
Thanks, Mimsey. Hugs!

Studying Jung is different than studying many other philosophical concepts. Jung's archetypes have nothing to do with engrams, though. Archetypes are not bad, there is no conflict, incident or engram that causes them. They aren't even similar to engrams. They are not implants, not even an individual or group experience. Archetypes just ARE. What Jung proposes is an entirely different line of thought, but if someone just casually reads it who believes in past lives, engrams, etc. they often try to understand it through those preconceived ideas and misunderstand the whole thing. You're not the first to do this. Jung just can't be studied casually.

You have to clear your mind first, and that's true for many philosophical concepts. Philosophy as a subject is a mind-blower, because there are so many different ways to look at things and think about things. There are completely different lines of thought than Hubbard and past lives to be explored.

Jung is one of those different lines of thought. So clear your mind.

The briefest explanation I can give you is that archetypes are basic character patterns that make it possible for us to assume roles in our lives, There are basic conflicts and other interactions between those roles/archetypes that are part of living. One understands things through archetypes or defines self or others through archetypes; one does not get rid of an archetype. They are not a bad thing, that's your preconceived Scientology idea. Archetypes just ARE.

Carl Jung's archetypes preceded Hubbard writings about implants, past lives, OT3, etc. If Hubbard copied Jung, as you seem to believe, then Hubbard didn't understand Jung's work and only used it superficially to forward his cult agenda and sell his implant hocus-pocus. What Hubbard writes has little to nothing to do with Jung, but you wouldn't know that unless you really studied Jung with a clear mind and no preconceived ideas.

Jung's work is theory, but it is fascinating and has been a springboard for thousands of things, from Sociology to computer games.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Mimsey. Hugs!

Studying Jung is different than studying many other philosophical concepts. Jung's archetypes have nothing to do with engrams, though. Archetypes are not bad, there is no conflict, incident or engram that causes them. They aren't even similar to engrams. They are not implants, not even an individual or group experience. Archetypes just ARE. What Jung proposes is an entirely different line of thought, but if someone just casually reads it who believes in past lives, engrams, etc. they often try to understand it through those preconceived ideas and misunderstand the whole thing. You're not the first to do this. Jung just can't be studied casually.

You have to clear your mind first, and that's true for many philosophical concepts. Philosophy as a subject is a mind-blower, because there are so many different ways to look at things and think about things. There are completely different lines of thought than Hubbard and past lives to be explored.

Jung is one of those different lines of thought. So clear your mind.

The briefest explanation I can give you is that archetypes are basic character patterns that make it possible for us to assume roles in our lives, There are basic conflicts and other interactions between those roles/archetypes that are part of living. One understands things through archetypes or defines self or others through archetypes; one does not get rid of an archetype. They are not a bad thing, that's your preconceived Scientology idea. Archetypes just ARE.

Carl Jung's archetypes preceded Hubbard writings about implants, past lives, OT3, etc. If Hubbard copied Jung, as you seem to believe, then Hubbard didn't understand Jung's work and only used it superficially to forward his cult agenda and sell his implant hocus-pocus. What Hubbard writes has little to nothing to do with Jung, but you wouldn't know that unless you really studied Jung with a clear mind and no preconceived ideas.

Jung's work is theory, but it is fascinating and has been a springboard for thousands of things, from Sociology to computer games.
Actually - I think Hubbard refers to him on some tapes, and possibly in the old versions of the books where he credits various thinkers, philosophers. I have no idea if Hubbard copied Jung or not. The person I read something by, possibly Sheldrake or Robert Monroe or Michel Talbot, attributing the root cause of architypes to previous lives was not a scientologist, nor was it put into a scientological context. I wish I recalled where I read it but I can't get anything more specific.

I will say this though - some of Hubbard's R6 stuff he describes on the class IV ser fac tapes, has some similarity - such as his discussion of the priest and the temple virgins - these beingnesses or valences and their goals sounded much like archetypes. He was an equal opportunity plagiarist so who knows what inspired him.

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Actually - I think Hubbard refers to him on some tapes, and possibly in the old versions of the books where he credits various thinkers, philosophers. I have no idea if Hubbard copied Jung or not. The person I read something by, possibly Sheldrake or Robert Monroe or Michel Talbot, attributing the root cause of architypes to previous lives was not a scientologist, nor was it put into a scientological context. I wish I recalled where I read it but I can't get anything more specific.I will say this though - some of Hubbard's R6 stuff he describes on the class IV ser fac tapes, has some similarity - such as his discussion of the priest and the temple virgins - these beingnesses or valences and their goals sounded much like architypes. He was an equal opportunity plagiarist so who knows what inspired him.
.

I just checked it on a fully charged i-meter and it reads on "wrong spilling".
 
Last edited:
If you hadn't blown Scientology before the Hubbard Mark 8 auto spell check meter (c) was released, you could have used it to correct my typo. What do they say - a minute late and a dollar short? Thanks - Since I don't have one either, I'll fix it the old school way. Mimsey
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Just Sheila - for you:

Mims ... do it like this when you want to post something to someone specifically.

@JustSheila


... and Sheila will receive an alert and will see your post to her.

I replied to your post so didn't need to use your correct or exact name (spelling) or use the @ thingy because just replying will alert you.

Sheila will see your post now anyway because she will get an alert from my post but next time you may want to do it this way ... or not (but I'm not telling you again, lol).


;)
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
When I first saw this only about three quarters of the image was visible on my monitor. I thought it was very funny and gave it a 'LOL'. Later, after scrolling down a bit I noticed the caption 'Wife of Pi' and it immediately lost it's appeal (for me anyway). I already knew Pi was an irrational number whereas the number four isn't, and I felt like I was being treated like a half-wit. I know it's a pun on 'Life of Pi', but it was unnecessary IMO and I think it would have been funnier without it.
 
Last edited:

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
I had the idea that, because I was a Class 6 auditor, I could answer questions that came up by curious newcomers posting here, about how the tech worked. I feel that the tech is plenty wacky by itself and it didn't need erroneous ideas of it spread around for the simple reason - if a non-scientologist were to talk to a scientologist and spout incorrect concepts, he would lose the attention of the scientologist needlessly. How did that fare? Dagwood Gum accused me of being a Scientologist and put me on ignore.
Get real dude!
Sometimes you've posted like a still in and I'd grown tired of reading it all, so yes I did have you on ignore for a couple of months.
But it's not like I've even been one of your detractors on the board.
What? Am I more confrontable to you than your "posse of detractors"?
I actually empathized with you for a while. Empathized is a non clam concept.
 
Top