Jung and Deleuze

[Soul_of_Shu]

Different languages, same basic message.

IMV, totally different vibe, and I'm with McLuhan ... 'The medium is the message'

[SanteriSatama]

IMV, totally different vibe, and I'm with McLuhan ... 'The medium is the message'

Good point. Being with McLuhan, the medium of Internet is, or at least still ideally strives to be, peer-to-peer communication.

If the medium is ontology of vibrating feel, communication requires that vibes are neither exactly same nor exact opposites.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Well as embodied mediums being the 'message' go, this one put me into relapse ...

[SanteriSatama]

Well as embodied mediums being the 'message' go, this one put me into relapse ...

First Youtube comment to the video:

Misleading title, he was not kicked out, he left! And he doesn’t regret, he points out that people are not motivated in the search of the truth unlike the Satanists who are extremely motivated to manipulate the truth.

He also expresses, very genuinely and profoundly the very common condition of a curandero, of which also Jung spoke in his memoir: "Feeling terribly sad and horribly lonely".

The sadness and loneliness is not the choice, it's the consequence a curandero accepts, by the terrible choice to follow your heart and accept responsibility in the true world, where if one suffers, everybody suffers. And yet, as the alternative is to close your heart and stay unaware and refuse to learn, it's a choice of no-choice.

I must admit, that the very direct and genuine way the curandero expresses his truth of feeling terribly sad and horribly lonely feels very refreshing from my perspective and fills my heart with sympathy. So, thanks for sharing the link, Shurandero. <3

[Soul_of_Shu]

I must admit, that the very direct and genuine way the curandero expresses his truth of feeling terribly sad and horribly lonely feels very refreshing from my perspective and fills my heart with sympathy. So, thanks for sharing the link, Shurandero. <3

Maybe he needs an oracle girl/anima friend

[JustinG]

This post is about deterritorialization and accelarationism. It relates to Deleuze's work rather than Jung's, but perhaps there may be some Jungian relevance to it, in terms of respecting that which comes from the past.

According to Anti-Oedipus (based on my rudimentary understanding of it), the world is made of flows of desires. One of the key themes of Deleuze and Guattari related to this is deterritorialization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterritorialization), which refers to the breaking up of organizations and structures of desire flows. D&G describe the dynamic of capitalism to constantly deterritorialize flows as its creative aspect (they are less positive about the constant reterritorialization of desires into new flows determined by markets).

Deterritorialization is one one the main theoretical drivers behind accelerationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism), which holds that the creative destruction of capitalism should be intensified to engender radical social change. Accelerationism has adherents from both the right and left of the political spectrum.

Relating deterritorialization and accelerationism to contemporary non-physicalist ontologies, I would say the these concepts could have some resonance with some forms of panpsychism, but less so with others (such as Whitehead's process panpsychism and cosmopsychism) or with idealism. The reason for this is that these concepts seem to have no respect or reverence for what is given, what currently is. It seems to me that deterritorialization and accelerationism celebrate the breaking up of existing flows and structures regardless of their nature, whether these structures be Western conservative norms, indigenous traditions or ecological systems.

This line of thinking is reflected in this article by Daoist-influenced panpsychist philosopher Freya Mathews called 'Letting the world do the doing' (http://australianhumanitiesreview.org/2 ... the-doing/). She laments contemporary ways of treating the material world like 'inert putty', which could be seen as a common feature of things like capitalism, physicalism and post-structuralism. Her alternative is to favour "letting things be" over abstractiveness. She writes:

"This is the distinction between what happens when things are allowed to unfold in their own way, or run their own course, and what happens when, under the direction of abstract thought, agents intentionally intervene to change that course of events for the sake of abstractly conceived ends of their own. By ‘abstractly conceived ends’ I mean here not ends discovered through abstraction from the particular but ends constructed through reduction of the actual to a blank slate for the abstractly imagined possible. In this latter sense, abstraction, or as I shall characterize it here, abstractiveness, is a matter of finding one’s starting point for a course of action in the realm of the abstractly conceived or imagined rather than finding it within the reference frame of the actual. From the point of view of this distinction then, nature might be understood as whatever happens when we, or other agents under the direction of abstractive thought, let things be, while artifice is what happens when such agents redirect events towards their own ends. The radical environmental injunction to live with rather than against the grain of nature then translates into an injunction to let things be."

The injunction to 'let things be' might seem overly passive and conservative, but Mathews notes that it need not necessarily be so, and that it also goes against the grain of many features of contemporary modern life including consumerism, commodification, productivity, progress, efficiency, development, profit, automation and property.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything to do with Mathews' notion of letting things be, it does seem a useful counter-weight to the celebration of 'change for the sake of change' implied by deterritorialization and accelerationism. In any case, it is interesting to note how different non-physicalist ontologies can jumble up and realign what is conventionally thought of as progressive or conservative or left or right.

[SanteriSatama]

This post is about deterritorialization and accelarationism. It relates to Deleuze's work rather than Jung's, but perhaps there may be some Jungian relevance to it, in terms of respecting that which comes from the past.

According to Anti-Oedipus (based on my rudimentary understanding of it), the world is made of flows of desires. One of the key themes of Deleuze and Guattari related to this is deterritorialization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterritorialization), which refers to the breaking up of organizations and structures of desire flows. D&G describe the dynamic of capitalism to constantly deterritorialize flows as its creative aspect (they are less positive about the constant reterritorialization of desires into new flows determined by markets).

Deterritorialization is one one the main theoretical drivers behind accelerationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism), which holds that the creative destruction of capitalism should be intensified to engender radical social change. Accelerationism has adherents from both the right and left of the political spectrum.

Relating deterritorialization and accelerationism to contemporary non-physicalist ontologies, I would say the these concepts could have some resonance with some forms of panpsychism, but less so with others (such as Whitehead's process panpsychism and cosmopsychism) or with idealism. The reason for this is that these concepts seem to have no respect or reverence for what is given, what currently is. It seems to me that deterritorialization and accelerationism celebrate the breaking up of existing flows and structures regardless of their nature, whether these structures be Western conservative norms, indigenous traditions or ecological systems.

This line of thinking is reflected in this article by Daoist-influenced panpsychist philosopher Freya Mathews called 'Letting the world do the doing' (http://australianhumanitiesreview.org/2 ... the-doing/). She laments contemporary ways of treating the material world like 'inert putty', which could be seen as a common feature of things like capitalism, physicalism and post-structuralism. Her alternative is to favour "letting things be" over abstractiveness. She writes:

"This is the distinction between what happens when things are allowed to unfold in their own way, or run their own course, and what happens when, under the direction of abstract thought, agents intentionally intervene to change that course of events for the sake of abstractly conceived ends of their own. By ‘abstractly conceived ends’ I mean here not ends discovered through abstraction from the particular but ends constructed through reduction of the actual to a blank slate for the abstractly imagined possible. In this latter sense, abstraction, or as I shall characterize it here, abstractiveness, is a matter of finding one’s starting point for a course of action in the realm of the abstractly conceived or imagined rather than finding it within the reference frame of the actual. From the point of view of this distinction then, nature might be understood as whatever happens when we, or other agents under the direction of abstractive thought, let things be, while artifice is what happens when such agents redirect events towards their own ends. The radical environmental injunction to live with rather than against the grain of nature then translates into an injunction to let things be."

The injunction to 'let things be' might seem overly passive and conservative, but Mathews notes that it need not necessarily be so, and that it also goes against the grain of many features of contemporary modern life including consumerism, commodification, productivity, progress, efficiency, development, profit, automation and property.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything to do with Mathews' notion of letting things be, it does seem a useful counter-weight to the celebration of 'change for the sake of change' implied by deterritorialization and accelerationism. In any case, it is interesting to note how different non-physicalist ontologies can jumble up and realign what is conventionally thought of as progressive or conservative or left or right.

Nice post. Gelassenheit, going with the flow, is of course not against common sense constructive reterritorialization of all sorts of alternative - and/or traditional - structures that support ethical and compassionate sustainability and help to make the transition more smooth and less hurtful. The self-destructive forces of current system and it's metanarratives seem swift enough without trying to pour more oil in the flames.

My favourite take of accelerationism:

[Ben Iscatus]

Nagarjuna, at least, anticipates this with his teaching of the emptiness of emptiness. Emptiness also has no inherent existence, as do the teachings which teach emptiness. Further, emancipation (or nirvana) is itself the cessation of grasping for inherent existence, an overcoming of the 'will to truth'........The Buddha taught the doctrine of no-self in opposition to the Brahmanic concept of Self....

Justin, do you see any essential difference between the doctrines of emptiness, no-self and what Idealists often seek to overcome, i.e. Nihilism? If so, can you elucidate please?

[Eugene I]

"This is the distinction between what happens when things are allowed to unfold in their own way, or run their own course, and what happens when, under the direction of abstract thought, agents intentionally intervene to change that course of events for the sake of abstractly conceived ends of their own. By ‘abstractly conceived ends’ I mean here not ends discovered through abstraction from the particular but ends constructed through reduction of the actual to a blank slate for the abstractly imagined possible. In this latter sense, abstraction, or as I shall characterize it here, abstractiveness, is a matter of finding one’s starting point for a course of action in the realm of the abstractly conceived or imagined rather than finding it within the reference frame of the actual. From the point of view of this distinction then, nature might be understood as whatever happens when we, or other agents under the direction of abstractive thought, let things be, while artifice is what happens when such agents redirect events towards their own ends. The radical environmental injunction to live with rather than against the grain of nature then translates into an injunction to let things be."

The injunction to 'let things be' might seem overly passive and conservative, but Mathews notes that it need not necessarily be so, and that it also goes against the grain of many features of contemporary modern life including consumerism, commodification, productivity, progress, efficiency, development, profit, automation and property.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything to do with Mathews' notion of letting things be, it does seem a useful counter-weight to the celebration of 'change for the sake of change' implied by deterritorialization and accelerationism. In any case, it is interesting to note how different non-physicalist ontologies can jumble up and realign what is conventionally thought of as progressive or conservative or left or right.

In reality there is always a co-existence and balance between "natural" and "abstractive" processes, and it's this balance between them that makes the progression of life sustainable but also non-stagnant.

Regarding idealism: from a general idealist perspective, the apparent world is a creation of consciousness. Yet, there are various flavors of idealism with different views on the creation and evolution of the world. Some variants (Bernardo's included) pose that the creation of the world is caused by natural instinctual and non-abstractive/non-cognitive volitional impulses and motivations of the MAL, and the abstractive type of creativity comes into play only at later stages of the evolution. Other variants variants (theistic, virtual-reality etc) pose that the creation of the world is a pre-meditated activity originated in abstractive ideas.

[AshvinP]

This line of thinking is reflected in this article by Daoist-influenced panpsychist philosopher Freya Mathews called 'Letting the world do the doing' (http://australianhumanitiesreview.org/2 ... the-doing/). She laments contemporary ways of treating the material world like 'inert putty', which could be seen as a common feature of things like capitalism, physicalism and post-structuralism. Her alternative is to favour "letting things be" over abstractiveness. She writes:

"This is the distinction between what happens when things are allowed to unfold in their own way, or run their own course, and what happens when, under the direction of abstract thought, agents intentionally intervene to change that course of events for the sake of abstractly conceived ends of their own. By ‘abstractly conceived ends’ I mean here not ends discovered through abstraction from the particular but ends constructed through reduction of the actual to a blank slate for the abstractly imagined possible. In this latter sense, abstraction, or as I shall characterize it here, abstractiveness, is a matter of finding one’s starting point for a course of action in the realm of the abstractly conceived or imagined rather than finding it within the reference frame of the actual. From the point of view of this distinction then, nature might be understood as whatever happens when we, or other agents under the direction of abstractive thought, let things be, while artifice is what happens when such agents redirect events towards their own ends. The radical environmental injunction to live with rather than against the grain of nature then translates into an injunction to let things be."

The injunction to 'let things be' might seem overly passive and conservative, but Mathews notes that it need not necessarily be so, and that it also goes against the grain of many features of contemporary modern life including consumerism, commodification, productivity, progress, efficiency, development, profit, automation and property.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything to do with Mathews' notion of letting things be, it does seem a useful counter-weight to the celebration of 'change for the sake of change' implied by deterritorialization and accelerationism. In any case, it is interesting to note how different non-physicalist ontologies can jumble up and realign what is conventionally thought of as progressive or conservative or left or right.

Mathews is making some good points above, although I need more information on what is meant by "let things be" to really evaluate her position. Clearly large-scale economic and political interventions have failed miserably, and I think the reasons for that can be found in spiritual wisdom. So if that is what she means, then I am agreed. However, like you say, it cannot become "overly passive". Because each individual is active in the structure and appearances of the phenomenal world, whether they know it or not. Either they are unconsciously projecting ignored qualities onto the world around them, they are consciously using the power of knowing for disharmonious aims, or they are consciously using that power within to co-create harmonious relations, to engage in "final participation". Obviously we should strive for the last option, and that is done through self-knowledge which lays the path for higher cognition into infinitely abundant Self-knowledge.

By Coleridge's time philosophy had moved further into the realm of psychology. He fully grasped the part played by imagination in constructing not only the fictions of poets, but also the ordinary physical world which we speak of 'perceiving', though in fact we half perceive (that is, receive through sense-impressions) and half create it. The act of imagination, performed by every man at this level, he called 'primary', to distinguish it from the same act performed at a more sophisticated level in the production of poetry ' an echo of the former, co-existing with the conscious will, yet still . . . identical with the primary in the kind of its operation' which he called the 'secondary' imagination...

Science deals with the world which it perceives but, seeking more and more to penetrate the veil of naïve perception, progresses only towards the goal of nothing, because it still does not accept in practice (whatever it may admit theoretically) that the mind first creates what it perceives as objects, including the instruments which Science uses for that very penetration. It insists on dealing with 'data', but there shall no data be given, save the bare percept. The rest is imagination. Only by imagination therefore can the world be known. And what is needed is, not only that larger and larger telescopes and more and more sensitive calipers should be constructed, but that the human mind should become increasingly aware of its own creative activity...

But here the problem is, no longer to proceed from life to thought, but to start from thought and move from there back to life. If law is the point where life and logic meet, perception is the point where life and imagination meet. But the point is out of sight though not out of mind. Consequently, if men are ever to grow aware of it, they must start, in this case, from the other, the more subjective end. And I maintain that, just as the study of law was once a valuable exercise for other purposes besides the practice of law, so today the study of poetry and of the poetic element in all meaningful language is a valuable exercise for other purposes than the practice or better enjoyment of poetry. The secondary imagination can be our pointer to the primary...

here was a time when they had not yet frozen into rules and then he still regarded himself as responsible, and thought he might do something to change them. Of such a nature was the Romantic revolt against the encroaching grip of scientism on the mind of Europe, when prophetic voices like those of Blake, Schiller, Coleridge, Wordsworth, were raised in warning. But, with the single exception of Goethe, the doctrine of imagination died where it was born, in the garden of art and literature, and to-day a practising psychologist like Jung knows, and perhaps feels, more of the strength and primary significance of man's imaginal and myth-making faculty than the average poet or critic. Yet it is my belief, and my experience, that down in the oubliette where she has, perhaps necessarily, for a time immured herself, English poetry is still very much alive, and I shall count myself well paid if these scanty, but I believe suggestive, pages contribute, in however slight a degree, to her re-emergence into the daylight of imagination.