Was it meant to be? . . . {hehehe}

General Discussion
#1

The problem with the determinism philosophizing is that it crosses over into metaphysical realms that do a free human no good.
we humans living here in these four dimensions, we’re products of the determinism of countless circumstances,
each offering many options that each leads down different paths, along with a fair share of pure randomness,
yet somehow possessing a synchronicity.
My grandfather’s blood and some of his spirit infuses me; and his life was one factor in creating the
particular polarized lens I view my life through.
That is determined, but it’s only a spirit among many influencing me.
Every day is filled with choices and random chance and weird chains of events that can’t be grasped but happen none the less.
For instance, this morning I wrote the following post http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17497/ about Grothe,
re Massimo Pigliucci’s interview, after writing that I returned to the talk, but found myself wondering over to
TheRandiFoundation http://web.randi.org.
I’m familiar with him since early TV days, and his great work exposing frauds influenced me.
I was familiar with that stuff and he’d always impressed me. But, that’s all been long ago,
now it was fun refamiliarizing myself with him, while I was dealing with the denialist/contrarian mind and reasoning.
Then I had to break it off. Had to pack for tomorrow’s departure and trip home.
Now let me go back a few days. I happen to be in Napa Valley on a work trip and this week they have their Film Festival,
big deal around here, though I ain’t going. I am after all a poor boy, even if I can clean up.
I picked up the 1/3 inch thick large format event magazine, beautiful paper, excellent binding, and reproduction, classy all the way.
Filled with ads for the good life and how it should be lived. I though of it as a souvenir to smile at, back home in the hicks,
no inclination to participate in the festival.
Back to today and packing, I riffle through the mag considering if I should bring it or leave it.
All of a sudden Randi’s picture appears. Full stop! Well what the hey.
Some new documentary, 3 years in the making, about him: “An Honest Liar” is being featured at the festival.
Then I look at the schedule and it’s playing tonight, dang and not that far away.
Pure change, leading to decisions having to be made,
Now back up the chain of events this started with Massimo Pigliucci - Nonsense on Stilts
leads to wrestling with the Demarcation Problem
leads to “For Good Reason” i.e. JamesRandiFoundation
leads to JamesRandiFoundation
leads to recalling Randi and his struggling with/against “people’s need to believe bunk”
So by pure happenstance, this one time opportunity, presents itself.
Of course, I’m predetermined to choose to get over there and watch the documentary.
Determinism plays so much a part of it, but also a whole series of decisions I made about how to spend the day
and where to let my curiosity take me, and lordie :wink: only knows where it will lead.
In the real world, you must make choices with consequences, in never ending spirals that take you places,
Adopting the odd sort of determinism I’ve heard described robs life of it’s reason to be,
the choices and making the best of the consequences is what our lives are,
trying to transfer that off to some agency of “determinism” seems …
So my magical mystery tour continues, I got to watch a fantastic documentary
that turned out easily twice as absorbing and in the end compelling
then what I’d expected.
Even got to meet Thee Amazing Randi himself along with Deyvi Pena
Tyler Measom and Justin Weinstein.
I’m hoping I can put together a decent report to share tomorrow.

"An Honest Liar" http://anhonestliar.com/wp/
It's coming out early next year I believe. If you get a chance it's worth watching! *****
#2

Show one scintilla of evidence for free will. Truth does not have to do anyone “good.”
What good does the theory of free will do anyone but to soothe uninformed people with pretense?
You might as well ask what good atheism does when belief in god is so comforting. Is that how you decide what to accept or reject as true?
Lois

#3

Lois, I didn’t read “free will” in CC’s post. He used the term “free human” when he said that “determinism philosophizing”… “crosses over into metaphysical realms that do a “free human” no good.”
(I don’t think that “determinism philosophizing” always crosses over into metaphysical realms, but when it does, I think that little good comes of it.)
CC seemed to be mostly talking about his enjoyment of his experience of the ride, so to speak, that he was “determined” to have.
The important question that arises from his overall post, I think, is:
Can one recognize that everything we do and experience is determined, AND recognize that some of what we experience is illusory, in some respects, AND still, optimally, enjoy life? (Or, as CC may be suggesting, does such a recognition “rob life of it’s reason to be”.?)

#4
Lois, I didn't read "free will" in CC's post. He used the term "free human" when he said that "determinism philosophizing"... "crosses over into metaphysical realms that do a "free human" no good." (I don't think that "determinism philosophizing" always crosses over into metaphysical realms, but when it does, I think that little good comes of it.) CC seemed to be mostly talking about his enjoyment of his experience of the ride, so to speak, that he was "determined" to have. The important question that arises from his overall post, I think, is: Can one recognize that everything we do and experience is determined, AND recognize that some of what we experience is illusory, in some respects, AND still, optimally, enjoy life? (Or, as CC may be suggesting, does such a recognition "rob life of it’s reason to be".?)
I liked that. Thanks. Plus there's the little matter of constantly having to make decisions that determine future events... not to mention the spontaneous events that no one or thing had any control over, or even influences, Unless it was some 'power' that made me grab that magazine in that fashion, and though I literally just fanned through the paged, distractedly watching the pages flash by, what made that picture jump at me, what determined my passing focus on that man. Lois sounds like she believes all that random spontaneous jazz was somehow determined for me. Fine believe it. The past is determined as hell, nothing anyone can do about it, of course my thoughts took me down that road, what else could it have done, now that it's done. And I appreciate the countless way the future is also determined, but not it is not all completely determined. Which seems to me, the sum total of the pill Lois' want's me to swallow. Those pronouncements,one liners, they come across as self-certain preachers folks I've learned to distrust long ago. {Don't get me wrong, I find myself on their (Lois and Stephen) side and enjoying their posts more times then not, but so far this determinism jazz, it's simply too much luft gesheft.} And NO I don't presume to have an alternate hypothesis I'm more interested in focusing on the utilitarian aspects of living life, navigating the moments of my life.
#5
...I'm more interested in focusing on the utilitarian aspects of living life, navigating the moments of my life.
Probably not a bad stance. Or as James Taylor put it "No one seems to know how we got to the top of the hill, but since we're on our way down... might as well enjoy the ride... Isn't it a lovely ride?..."
#6
The problem with the determinism philosophizing is that it crosses over into metaphysical realms that do a free human no good. we humans living here in these four dimensions, we're products of the determinism of countless circumstances, each offering many options that each leads down different paths, along with a fair share of pure randomness, yet somehow possessing a synchronicity. I enjoyed reading this as its so nice to come across a fellow traveller. I am trying to write a book on coincidence and its message for science - a lonely business!
#7
The problem with the determinism philosophizing is that it crosses over into metaphysical realms that do a free human no good. we humans living here in these four dimensions, we're products of the determinism of countless circumstances, each offering many options that each leads down different paths, along with a fair share of pure randomness, yet somehow possessing a synchronicity.
I enjoyed reading this as its so nice to come across a fellow traveller. I am trying to write a book on coincidence and its message for science - a lonely business! Thank you, welcome to CFI - I hope you find some interesting stuff in the various threads here at CFI and join in on the conversation
#8
Lois, I didn't read "free will" in CC's post. He used the term "free human" when he said that "determinism philosophizing"... "crosses over into metaphysical realms that do a "free human" no good." (I don't think that "determinism philosophizing" always crosses over into metaphysical realms, but when it does, I think that little good comes of it.) CC seemed to be mostly talking about his enjoyment of his experience of the ride, so to speak, that he was "determined" to have. The important question that arises from his overall post, I think, is: Can one recognize that everything we do and experience is determined, AND recognize that some of what we experience is illusory, in some respects, AND still, optimally, enjoy life? (Or, as CC may be suggesting, does such a recognition "rob life of it’s reason to be".?)
Thanks for the clarification aboout CC's post. As to your question above I see no reason to think that "recognizing the truth" will rob life of its meaning. It seems as if he's saying that only belief in fantasy makes life worth living. Theists make a similar case that atheism will "rob life of its meaning." That hasn't been my experience and I don't see atheists as more depressed than theists. In fact I see just the opposite. I don't understand why people would think that fantasy makes life worth living and the truth will destroy it. I wonder where that idea comes from? From believers, apparently, who can't imagine a world of reality over fantasy.They want their blankey.
#9

I like a blankey, too, at times, (i.e., I enjoy fiction, fantasy, science fiction as entertainment) but I do recognize it for what it is. We live in a universe, that has as one of its qualities being, that it is wondrous.

#10
... I am trying to write a book on coincidence and its message for science - a lonely business!
Welcome, Coin. I imagine that you may have already thought about this. to some degree, but I think that our experiences of synchronicity are largely an artifact of our naturally evolved predisposition to recognize patterns. Also, in the study of verbal behavior, there is a class of verbal behavior known as intraverbal behavior (in which words have a controlling impact upon the emission of subsequent words). e.g., If I said to you "Mary had a little...", you would tend to say, or think the word "lamb". Extending this line of thinking a bit, one might theorize that there could be a class of "intra-thought" behaviors. Such a concept might be useful in understanding what is happening when we experience synchroncity.
#11

Actually Coin,
seems to me it wouldn’t hurt starting any investigation into “synchronicity”
by first becoming familiar with Carl Jung since he’s the dude that originally coined it and wrote about the phenomena.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_synchronicity03.htm
http://www.carl-jung.net/biography.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Synchronicity.html

Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. (From Vol. 8. of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) [Kindle Edition] C. G. Jung (Author), Sonu Shamdasani (Foreword), R. F.C. Hull (Translator) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0073X0GCE?btkr=1
I admit, it's been decades since I actually read his writings on the subject. But, I remember Jung's writings made sense, whereas Freud seemed unhinged from the gitgo for me, and the more I learned about Freud, the more he repelled me. Jung kept growing in my estimation. And I tossed the work into this conversation for the fun of it, to see what reaction it might elicit. Though it's in dim memory I know that Jung's thoughts definitely influenced and educated how I'd go on observing my life ever since, in particular paying attention to those odd chains of coincidence that can take a person to incredible experiences. Back to "synchronicity" unlike what some assume, I don't believe in any entity driving those things, or a KarmaBank, or some of the odd ideas claimed on my behalf by some pals here at CFI - they're upset I see their determinism philosophy as void of useful answers or evidence, as all the other daydreamings out there. All I know is we need to keep our eyes open, try to remain aware and make lots choices then follow through . . . blahblahblah…
#12
As to your question above I see no reason to think that "recognizing the truth" will rob life of its meaning. It seems as if he's saying that only belief in fantasy makes life worth living.
How I wish you would actually try paying attention to what I write, rather than jumping to these conclusions that wash the words right off the page, before they have a chance to hit your mind.
Theists make a similar case that atheism will "rob life of its meaning." ... I don't understand why people would think that fantasy makes life worth living and the truth will destroy it.
Lois I challenge you to produce the quotes, from me, that have lead you to such a conclusion. :long:
#13
Lois, I didn't read "free will" in CC's post. He used the term "free human" when he said that "determinism philosophizing"... "crosses over into metaphysical realms that do a "free human" no good." (I don't think that "determinism philosophizing" always crosses over into metaphysical realms, but when it does, I think that little good comes of it.) CC seemed to be mostly talking about his enjoyment of his experience of the ride, so to speak, that he was "determined" to have. The important question that arises from his overall post, I think, is: Can one recognize that everything we do and experience is determined, AND recognize that some of what we experience is illusory, in some respects, AND still, optimally, enjoy life? (Or, as CC may be suggesting, does such a recognition "rob life of it’s reason to be".?)
He doesn't use the words "free will" but he speaks of determinism in two places. Determinism means lack of free will by definition, hard determinism, anyway. As for enjoying life, many people enjoy life with disparate beliefs and philosophies. Some people enjoy life best with illusions, others enjoy life best without them. IMO a lot of what we experience is illusory, including the idea of free will. We live our lives as if we had free will and it shows in our language, even hard determinists like me. The recognition of it has not "robbed life of its reason to be" for me. I doubt it does for others. If that were the case hard determinists would be depressed all the time and not enjoying life, yet there is no evidence that that is the case. I see people who do and do not enjoy life on both sides of the spectrum. Neither has a corner on enjoyment of life. I'm one of many people who have experienced both sides. I am much happier knowing and understanding my illusions than I ever was when I did not. LL
#14
As to your question above I see no reason to think that "recognizing the truth" will rob life of its meaning. It seems as if he's saying that only belief in fantasy makes life worth living.
How I wish you would actually try paying attention to what I write, rather than jumping to these conclusions that wash the words right off the page, before they have a chance to hit your mind.
Theists make a similar case that atheism will "rob life of its meaning." ... I don't understand why people would think that fantasy makes life worth living and the truth will destroy it.
Lois I challenge you to produce the quotes, from me, that have lead you to such a conclusion. :long: I also wish you would actually try paying attention to what I write. When I wrote the quote above, beginning with, "As to your question above . . ." I was responding to a post by TimB, not you. He wrote "Can one recognize that everything we do and experience is determined, AND recognize that some of what we experience is illusory, in some respects, AND still, optimally, enjoy life? (Or, as CC may be suggesting, does such a recognition “rob life of it’s reason to be".?)" At the end of which he was quoting you from your post from November 13 at 12:52 PM, where you said. "Adopting the odd sort of determinism I’ve heard described robs life of it’s reason to be,. . ." Lois
#15
Thanks for the clarification aboout CC's post. As to your question above I see no reason to think that "recognizing the truth" will rob life of its meaning. It seems as if he's saying that only belief in fantasy makes life worth living. Theists make a similar case that atheism will "rob life of its meaning." That hasn't been my experience and I don't see atheists as more depressed than theists. In fact I see just the opposite. I don't understand why people would think that fantasy makes life worth living and the truth will destroy it. I wonder where that idea comes from? From believers, apparently, who can't imagine a world of reality over fantasy.They want their blankey.
Excuse me, for assuming you were discussing my comments ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Here's the full context:
In the real world, you must make choices with consequences, in never ending spirals that take you places, Adopting the odd sort of determinism I’ve heard described robs life of it’s reason to be, the choices and making the best of the consequences is what our lives are, trying to transfer that off to some agency of “determinism" seems ... So my magical mystery tour continues, I got to watch a fantastic documentary
Guess perhaps you took "magical mystery tour" too literally, it's got cultural connotations and it's a sort of loose saying. And I'll admit "reason to be" is sloppy and I could see it as a red flag. I didn't mean reason as in "justification" - "meaning" ……….. how to explain what I did mean... hmmmm, scratching my head it's a rough one to nail down - it would be more like - to give a 'handle to deal with' than anything. You know growing up, my early discovers were all about the reality of "determinism" meaning the many different things about me that I were pre-determined, body, health, racial, socio-economic. Becoming a man coming to grips with the biochemical/emotional cascades as they coursed through my body - I'm empathetic, passionate, etc, etc, even including a bit of a hot head. All determining factors, can even point to a grandfather to blame. Appreciating my economic, opportunity, education limitations,… All that and more But that still left me with traversing every moment of my life. Having to make nonstop moment by moment decisions, how to act, how to allow my self to be effected, etc, etc {In me is some combination of a sperm, egg and spark of energy that provided the particular polarizing lens I witness my life through. United we grow and experience and witness and act and influence others, tight union, until death do us part and it dissolves like an Ink Mushroom.} It's a blank slate when I started and it's some grand painting when I'm done. (just like everyone else, whether they know it or not) Then I hear you Lois saying that EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED - PERIOD! and it's all my grandfathers doing and and and… it soo loses all sense. [cut… here I could go on and on, but best to stop] suffice it to say rather than "meaning" I meant something more along the lines of "navigating tool" Sometime I'll have to get into my Cuddle Fish Hypothesis about human behavior, but gotta run for now ;-)
#16
... But, I remember Jung's writings made sense, whereas Freud seemed unhinged from the gitgo for me, and the more I learned about Freud, the more he repelled me. Jung kept growing in my estimation. And I tossed the work into this conversation for the fun of it, to see what reaction it might elicit. ...
I agree that Freud seemed a bit of a weirdo in some respects, but some of his formulations made enough sense that they are a natural part of the language of many laypersons today, e.g. defense mechanisms like "denial", "projection", "suppression", "repression", "sublimation". You are right to bring up Jung, in the context of "synchronicity", if I recall correctly, as, I think that he brought the concept to the fore in his development of psychoanalytic thinking. Anyway, from my perspective, although these guys formulated some grand ideas that were of some utility in naming and describing certain human psychological processes and experiences, there was also a lot of circular reasoning. And their paradigm was/is not very amenable to scientific investigation. And, indeed, it seems to me that the very concept of "the mind" or "the psyche" tends to promote a dualistic line of thinking. It is better, IMO, to understand humans through the study of their behavior.
#17
... Then I hear you Lois saying that EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED - PERIOD! and it's all my grandfathers doing and and and… it soo loses all sense. [cut… here I could go on and on, but best to stop] suffice it to say rather than "meaning" I meant something more along the lines of "navigating tool"...
"navigating tool"... I like that. Perchance, I can challenge your navigation, even further. (Not to be mean, but rather, to possibly elicit further, fascinating, or not, discussion.) Lois, correct me if I'm wrong, but your use of the term "hard-determinist" suggests, to me, that you view, that not only our past, but, also, our future is determined. This would be consistent, I think, with (my extremely limited understanding of) Einstein-ian physics, which I understand can be used to, theoretically, deduce that the past, present, AND future, already exist. How does one navigate that? It prompts me to think of our experiences of life as a part of something roughly analogous to a pre-recorded DVD. (to all - please pardon my sharing of somewhat tangential thoughts). And to our resident philosopher, what is your individual philosopher's perspective on "predestination". (Again, I acknowledge that this is only loosely associated with the topic of free will, and probably not relevant, at all, to CFW)
#18
I enjoyed reading this as its so nice to come across a fellow traveller. I am trying to write a book on coincidence and its message for science - a lonely business!
Be prepared for a lot of pushback from science. In 1972, Arthur Koestler wrote this seminal book: The Roots of Coincidence]
The Roots of Coincidence is a 1972 book by Arthur Koestler, an introduction to theories of parapsychology, including extra-sensory perception and psychokinesis. Koestler postulates links between elements of quantum mechanics, such as the behaviour of neutrinos and their interaction with time, and these paranormal phenomena. It is influenced by Carl Jung's concept of synchronicity.
What is coincidence? From the wiki here]
A coincidence (often stated as a mere coincidence) is a collection of two or more events or conditions, closely related by time, space, form, or other associations which appear unlikely to bear a relationship as either cause to effect or effects of a shared cause, within the observer's or observers' understanding of what cause can produce what effects.
Coincidences vs. caused events:
The mathematically naive person seems to have a more acute awareness than the specialist of the basic paradox of probability theory, over which philosophers have puzzled ever since Pascal initiated that branch of science [1654] (for the purpose of improving the gambling prospects of a philosopher friend, the Chevalier de Méré). The paradox consists, loosely speaking, in the fact that probability theory is able to predict with uncanny precision the overall outcome of processes made up out of a large number of individual happenings, each of which in itself is unpredictable. In other words, we observe a large number of uncertainties producing a certainty, a large number of chance events creating a lawful total outcome.
Bold added by me. Thus, for any one isolated event, it is impossible to apply probability theory to predict the outcome. The problem to establish cause and effect:
To establish cause and effect (causality) is notoriously difficult, expressed by the widely accepted statement "correlation does not imply causation". In statistics, it is generally accepted that observational studies can give hints, but can never establish cause and effect. With the probability paradox considered, it would seem that the larger the set of coincidences, the more certainty rises and the more it appears that there is some cause behind the effects of this large-set certainty of random, coincidental events.
Interpretation of coincidences:
A coincidence lacks a definite causal connection. Any given set of coincidences may be just a form of synchronicity, that being the experience of events which are causally unrelated, and yet their occurring together carries meaning to the person observing the events.
What is synchronicity? From the wiki here]
Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events as meaningfully related, where they are unlikely to be causally related. The subject sees it as a meaningful coincidence. The concept of synchronicity was first described by Carl Jung, a Swiss psychologist, in the 1920s.
Synchronicity by The Police here]
The album's title was inspired by Arthur Koestler's The Roots of Coincidence, which mentions Carl Jung's theory of synchronicity. Sting was an avid reader of Koestler, and also named Ghost in the Machine after one of his works.
Carl Jung and the I Ching here]
The ancient Chinese mind contemplates the cosmos in a way comparable to that of the modern physicist, who cannot deny that his model of the world is a decidedly psychophysical structure. The microphysical event includes the observer just as much as the reality underlying the I Ching comprises subjective, i.e., psychic conditions in the totality of the momentary situation.
As such, explore and be enlightened. From here]
“We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time." ― T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets
Q.E.D.? :lol:
#19
Thanks for the clarification aboout CC's post. As to your question above I see no reason to think that "recognizing the truth" will rob life of its meaning. It seems as if he's saying that only belief in fantasy makes life worth living. Theists make a similar case that atheism will "rob life of its meaning." That hasn't been my experience and I don't see atheists as more depressed than theists. In fact I see just the opposite. I don't understand why people would think that fantasy makes life worth living and the truth will destroy it. I wonder where that idea comes from? From believers, apparently, who can't imagine a world of reality over fantasy.They want their blankey.
Excuse me, for assuming you were discussing my comments ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Here's the full context:
In the real world, you must make choices with consequences, in never ending spirals that take you places, Adopting the odd sort of determinism I’ve heard described robs life of it’s reason to be, the choices and making the best of the consequences is what our lives are, trying to transfer that off to some agency of “determinism" seems ... So my magical mystery tour continues, I got to watch a fantastic documentary
Guess perhaps you took "magical mystery tour" too literally, it's got cultural connotations and it's a sort of loose saying. And I'll admit "reason to be" is sloppy and I could see it as a red flag. I didn't mean reason as in "justification" - "meaning" ……….. how to explain what I did mean... hmmmm, scratching my head it's a rough one to nail down - it would be more like - to give a 'handle to deal with' than anything. You know growing up, my early discovers were all about the reality of "determinism" meaning the many different things about me that I were pre-determined, body, health, racial, socio-economic. Becoming a man coming to grips with the biochemical/emotional cascades as they coursed through my body - I'm empathetic, passionate, etc, etc, even including a bit of a hot head. All determining factors, can even point to a grandfather to blame. Appreciating my economic, opportunity, education limitations,… All that and more But that still left me with traversing every moment of my life. Having to make nonstop moment by moment decisions, how to act, how to allow my self to be effected, etc, etc {In me is some combination of a sperm, egg and spark of energy that provided the particular polarizing lens I witness my life through. United we grow and experience and witness and act and influence others, tight union, until death do us part and it dissolves like an Ink Mushroom.} It's a blank slate when I started and it's some grand painting when I'm done. (just like everyone else, whether they know it or not) Then I hear you Lois saying that EVERYTHING IS DETERMINED - PERIOD! and it's all my grandfathers doing and and and… it soo loses all sense. [cut… here I could go on and on, but best to stop] suffice it to say rather than "meaning" I meant something more along the lines of "navigating tool" Sometime I'll have to get into my Cuddle Fish Hypothesis about human behavior, but gotta run for now ;-) That's all right, CC. No need. We'll manage without it. As to your magical mystery tour, I hadn't even noticed it, so there was no possibility that I took it literally. Lois
#20
Anyway, from my perspective, although these guys formulated some grand ideas that were of some utility in naming and describing certain human psychological processes and experiences, there was also a lot of circular reasoning. And their paradigm was/is not very amenable to scientific investigation. And, indeed, it seems to me that the very concept of "the mind" or "the psyche" tends to promote a dualistic line of thinking. It is better, IMO, to understand humans through the study of their behavior.
Fair enough, I agree with all that. And don't get me wrong it's not like I want to put Jung on a pedestal - as I wrote, my reading was on the light side and decades ago - I ain't no disciple or adherent. but he 'resonated' more with my particular mind… weltanshaung. And it sure informed my understanding of the people around me and my interactions with them. With the hindsight of a few decades, I'm sure if I'd have drawn a lousy 'deck' - when they were dealing out parents - Freud would have been more relevant to me. {Admittedly in those early years I had a different perspective on the parent subject, but that's different story} And I also admit; my distain is more on a basic person to person level, Freud seems like a creep to me. Whereas Jung seemed like an example of a good citizen and that home of his on the lake, becoming a part of it and making it a life long project and having it blossom without and within… to my young eyes that was a thing to emulate. I just took a look to refresh my memory, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollingen_Tower - check images of BT gardens) alrightie, the home seemed more attractive to my then tastes, than it does now. but it's not the particular structure, it's the life long attachment… committing yourself to a chunk of land and a home and working at it, being in touch with the seasons as they passed, decade after decade watching it grow and mature and being interwoven into it's fiber and visa versa. That's what really wow'ed me about Jung. Who was Freud, a neurotic coke freak who couldn't stop thinking about sex… ? Plus what Jung wrote made more sense. But, I know full well I'm in no position to diss Freud's scholarly achievements, if for no other reason than that he was the one that broke the ice and penetrated the problem. He gave others eyes and a vocabulary for studying those issues and the ideas to wrestle with and rework and develop them into something more mature and realistic... though still quite incomplete. :cheese: Long way of saying, sorry, please don't get me wrong, I admit neither Freud or Jung is the cat's pyjamas. Interestingly, it's no wonder that this Professor Karl Jung, was one of Freud's students. A "follower" in his formative years. Who better to rebel against the teacher's blind spots and accesses? Which I believe was also repeated in Jung's own career ;-) We need each other to keep ourselves honest… perhaps I should make that my new tag line :)
...And, indeed, it seems to me that the very concept of "the mind" or "the psyche" tends to promote a dualistic line of thinking.
It would be fun to hear you explain that some. Also, I keep asking about the influence of random event's, no one has tried to explain how "randomness" fits into "determinism" - Care to give it a shot?