The validity of BK claiming Jung was an idealist

[OofieMCM]

Speaking of Pauli, this quote taken from this article, certainly is not out of sync with BK's or Jung's approach ...

“It is only a narrow passage of truth (no matter whether scientific or other truth) that passes between the Scylla of a blue fog of mysticism and the Charybdis of a sterile rationalism. This will always be full of pitfalls and one can fall down on both sides.”

Well but if this is the way that Pauli thought of it then BK claiming that Jung had to reframe his words in some clever way to hide his idealistic views makes even less sense. If Pauli was in the exact same boat as Jung then for example this quote from BK's book makes 0 sense: 'By associating the “non-psychic” with something “autonomous”—i.e. outside deliberate volitional control—Jung is using the qualifier ‘psychic’ in the more restrictive sense of properly psychic. So the statement does not contradict idealism, in that it only acknowledges that there is something beyond consciousness, not necessarily beyond experience. Yet, the wording is just ambiguous enough that it could be interpreted by Pauli as an acknowledgment of the possibility of a material world outside and independent of experience.'

Why would Jung have to reframe his words if Pauli thought of it the same way?

[Jim Cross]

I think much of the confusion particularly for newcomers to BK ideas arises from how we normally use the term "consciousness".

In BK's philosophy, your consciousness and my consciousness is the consciousness of an alter. An alter is a part of the mind at large that has become dissociated from the greater mind - that is, it appears isolated and separated even though still a part of the greater mind.

Psyche is broader in concept than consciousness, since it would include the unconscious, I think we could make the following approximations:

BK	Jung
alter	psyche
mind at large	Jung's unknown substance

[AshvinP]

I think much of the confusion particularly for newcomers to BK ideas arises from how we normally use the term "consciousness".

In BK's philosophy, your consciousness and my consciousness is the consciousness of an alter. An alter is a part of the mind at large that has become dissociated from the greater mind - that is, it appears isolated and separated even though still a part of the greater mind.

Psyche is broader in concept than consciousness, since it would include the unconscious, I think we could make the following approximations:

BK	Jung
alter	psyche
mind at large	Jung's unknown substance

Jung used "objective psyche" for totality of conscious and unconscious realms (distinguished only by awareness of experience vs. not yet aware of experience). That is equivalent of BK's MAL.

[Jim Cross]

I think much of the confusion particularly for newcomers to BK ideas arises from how we normally use the term "consciousness".

In BK's philosophy, your consciousness and my consciousness is the consciousness of an alter. An alter is a part of the mind at large that has become dissociated from the greater mind - that is, it appears isolated and separated even though still a part of the greater mind.

Psyche is broader in concept than consciousness, since it would include the unconscious, I think we could make the following approximations:

BK	Jung
alter	psyche
mind at large	Jung's unknown substance

Jung used "objective psyche" for totality of conscious and unconscious realms (distinguished only by awareness of experience vs. not yet aware of experience). That is equivalent of BK's MAL.

Isn't objective psyche more or less the same as the collective unconscious?

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 3100243609

That would make it the common unconscious part of the psyche.

[OofieMCM]

I think much of the confusion particularly for newcomers to BK ideas arises from how we normally use the term "consciousness".

In BK's philosophy, your consciousness and my consciousness is the consciousness of an alter. An alter is a part of the mind at large that has become dissociated from the greater mind - that is, it appears isolated and separated even though still a part of the greater mind.

Psyche is broader in concept than consciousness, since it would include the unconscious, I think we could make the following approximations:

BK	Jung
alter	psyche
mind at large	Jung's unknown substance

Jung used "objective psyche" for totality of conscious and unconscious realms (distinguished only by awareness of experience vs. not yet aware of experience). That is equivalent of BK's MAL.

Isn't objective psyche more or less the same as the collective unconscious?

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 3100243609

That would make it the common unconscious part of the psyche.

Yes you are right Jim, that's why Jung called it the objective psyche. But BK claims that somehow this objective psyche is experiential too which would make it subjective, i.e. in favor of idealism. This is because according to him you can experience things unconsciously, such as your breathing. This might be true (although still debatable, because IMO I am always breathing but only 'experiencing' my breathing when I pay attention to it). But even if it is true that I am always experiencing my breathing then still you really can't immediately draw the line that far to saying 'well the entire objective psyche is also experiential so it is subjective, because it is possible to experience things unconsciously'. Jung called it the objective psyche for a reason, because it is indeed objective.

[AshvinP]

I think much of the confusion particularly for newcomers to BK ideas arises from how we normally use the term "consciousness".

In BK's philosophy, your consciousness and my consciousness is the consciousness of an alter. An alter is a part of the mind at large that has become dissociated from the greater mind - that is, it appears isolated and separated even though still a part of the greater mind.

Psyche is broader in concept than consciousness, since it would include the unconscious, I think we could make the following approximations:

BK	Jung
alter	psyche
mind at large	Jung's unknown substance

Jung used "objective psyche" for totality of conscious and unconscious realms (distinguished only by awareness of experience vs. not yet aware of experience). That is equivalent of BK's MAL.

Isn't objective psyche more or less the same as the collective unconscious?

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10 ... 3100243609

That would make it the common unconscious part of the psyche.

That may be accurate, but the "collective unconscious" for Jung is the creative matrix from which all existence comes forth. That is the point I am making - Jung views the CU as BK does MAL. It is also not a static realm of non-experience existing apart from our realm of conscious experience - rather it is a relational term used to describe all those psychic processes-contents in the Cosmos that we may not be aware of at any given moment. He thinks of the archetypes of the CU as "autonomous" idea-beings (BK alters) which mediate between localized consciousness and the CU.

I'm pretty tired, though, and have lost sight of what we are even debating re: Jung and BK now... so the above may not make any sense.