I love this translator. So far I have covered Baudelaire, Vonnegut, Kafka, Burroughs, and Dostoevsky. This is C.G. Jung as a 12 year old AOLer
( Read more... )
Pretty funnyparadox777January 28 2004, 18:02:49 UTC
But I have to add my two cents in seriousness. As far as I'm concerned, thoughts (mind, states, etc.) are, in fact, entirely spatial. All things are material (at least simpliciter). My mental states are a combination of electricity and chemicals, and my inability to intuit this is no strong evidence to the contrary. Also, he means a fourth temporal dimension, I would assume, since a being of the fourth dimension would have infinitely many spatial three-dimensional parts, just as we have infinitely many spatial two-dimensional parts. I would argue that a temporally 4D being also has infinitely many 3D parts, and that I am such a being, where my larger 4D self spans a 4D "space" from my birth to my death, just as my 3D self spans from my left hand to my right, and that I have an infinite number of 3D spatial parts, "connected" in a continuum, each existing for one temporal instant which I perceive as the present. (I put quotes on connected because no two points in a continuum can "touch," or connect, since for any two points, there are infinite points between them.) In other words, just as I have a part of me which occupies the space of "my left leg" (a filled recepticle), I have a temporal part of me which occupies the "space" of "my four-year-old," which is one year in length. Therefore, even temporally 4D beings would have spatial parts -- infinitely many, in fact. Jung gets away with this, however, because of his position in history. Nowadays, metaphysicians would slap him. And psychologists would have no clue what he's talking about.
Re: Pretty funnycecil_beeJanuary 28 2004, 20:54:33 UTC
You seem to think that I am a Jung follower. Fuck bringing all that spiritual bullshit into pyschology. All of my beliefs stem from the knowledge that all things are spatial, hence the atheism/nihilism/secular humanism. I also have huge problems with him trying to prove that all thoughts are purely objective. I put Modern Man's Search for a Soul down when I hit that point and refused to put any more time into reading Jung. If you want to argue about Jung talk to Michael or Erin. I only used the that piece because it was funny.
Re: Pretty funnyparadox777January 29 2004, 04:56:17 UTC
That's hilarious, you sound offended! Anyway, it's only because Mike buys into it that I felt the need to post; I wasn't really arguing with you. :) I'm a materialist, myself. I don't think that atheism follows from materialism, though. In fact, I think that theism follows logically from the Principle of Necessary Reason, which is entirely unarguable (if you try to argue against it, you're probably thinking of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which can be reduced ad absurdem given certain logical assumptions). But that's for a different, longer, not-5-in-the-morning-before-a-noon-midterm post.
Also, he means a fourth temporal dimension, I would assume, since a being of the fourth dimension would have infinitely many spatial three-dimensional parts, just as we have infinitely many spatial two-dimensional parts.
I would argue that a temporally 4D being also has infinitely many 3D parts, and that I am such a being, where my larger 4D self spans a 4D "space" from my birth to my death, just as my 3D self spans from my left hand to my right, and that I have an infinite number of 3D spatial parts, "connected" in a continuum, each existing for one temporal instant which I perceive as the present. (I put quotes on connected because no two points in a continuum can "touch," or connect, since for any two points, there are infinite points between them.) In other words, just as I have a part of me which occupies the space of "my left leg" (a filled recepticle), I have a temporal part of me which occupies the "space" of "my four-year-old," which is one year in length. Therefore, even temporally 4D beings would have spatial parts -- infinitely many, in fact.
Jung gets away with this, however, because of his position in history. Nowadays, metaphysicians would slap him. And psychologists would have no clue what he's talking about.
Reply
Reply
I'm a materialist, myself. I don't think that atheism follows from materialism, though. In fact, I think that theism follows logically from the Principle of Necessary Reason, which is entirely unarguable (if you try to argue against it, you're probably thinking of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which can be reduced ad absurdem given certain logical assumptions). But that's for a different, longer, not-5-in-the-morning-before-a-noon-midterm post.
Reply
Leave a comment