Jung, the occult, and astrology of Liz Greene. 

Over the decades I've noticed that it is not about the left or right when it comes to a fascist impulse. It is more about that desire to impose new revelations about our "true nature" and the true nature of our race, state, nation, or tribe, and planet and then "lording" it over others. The global warming event is complicated. Since Al Gore turned it into an evangelical cause to "save the planet," the planet being Gaia our goddess mother (Campbell's the Power of Myth), it's become another "fascist" impulse, using it as a political weapon, thus distorting what can be done and is being done.

Done enough of that. First read him in 1969. Modern Man in Search of a Soul. and so on. I get what he was after, but I no longer am impressed.

@@josephszimhart9431 "the undiscovered self" aged very well imo. at least that's what i would recommend for anyone under greater risk of falling into cult like circles.

Certainly, good people can find good and comforting support for their current cognitive style in an astute astrologer like Liz Greene. I’m merely offering a critique that helped me and may help others. None of this affects the price of beans.

Thanks. I was aware of the recent change, but I thought most knew him at time of taping as Samvara. Yeah, he is a slippery one. There is a lot to expose about him. Solidly recovered ex-members who have firsthand information should be the ones to talk to press or authorities. My information is second hand.

Thanks. Just relocated this info. www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13517 ....and... "Chilean diplomat and explorer. Serrano is one of the most important authors of esoteric Hitlerism, claiming that Aryan white people originated from an extra-terrestrial visitors."

Good idea. Much of deceptive cult ideation is not so much delusional as pushing the edges, grandiose, and overvalued.

Interesting view on Jung, but I think you are dismissing what he believed and said was his most important exploration of the psych that was hardly "scientific." He experimented with a form of channeling or automatic writing and art expression in what came to be known as the Red Book. www.thecollector.com/what-is-carl-jungs-red-book/ If that is not occultism, then the word has no meaning. He was trying to unlock the hidden (occult) being within him in order to better grasp his essence. In my view, The Red Book remains one of the finest examples of 20th Century occult illustrated literature that some scholars compare with the art and spirituality of W Blake and Hildegard De Bingen.

We might fall into two different definition of the word scientist here . And this can create a wittgenstanian missunderstanding Jung firmly believed in science. Had faith in science. He firmly believed in the scientific method. He was also one of the first psychologist/psychiatrist who understood that psychologists have their own biases , personal traumas, unresolved issues that affect their therapy sessions . He saw this clearly in Freud , how he was projecting his own personal feelings into his patients and thus becoming extremely dangerous to them,. . For this reason it was Jung who established that every psychologist need to be psychanalized . so as to be conscious of their own issues and not to project them to their patients. This explains how unbiased and faithful to science Jung was Now I understand that you have a Bertrard Russel type of aversion to ocultism and mysticism. That you seem to take Bertrard Russel positivist view ( even though it was crushed by Godel ) Russel hated any short of Mysticism , and wanted to eliminate it from existence. Anything that didnt seem rational and couldnt explain Russel wanted to eliminate. In fact this made him try to eliminate Pythagoras, the father of Mathematics from all the school books . And that was a cultural crime. Wittgenstein on the other side respected that there are things that are ocult , that we cannot speak about them in philosophy. They should not be eliminated but just not be spoken about as it is not the task of the philosopher to speak about them Jung on the other side thought that It was unscientific either the denial or the avoidance of studying things that millions of people believe . Why so many people believe in gods, others in the occult , are they all stupid or there are some pieces of truth inside religions and mysticism ? So he honestly tried to apply the scientific method to them. Try to find scientific ways to make experiments on them . Which is an amazingly difficult and courageous thing to do and seemed like a professional suicide. Jung had also understood the significance of simbols , finding them in the scientific/psychanalitic interpretation of dreams . He understood that simbols were a universal language that we all use in our dreams , and artists use in ther paintings , poems , etc . The same simbols are used in mythology. And Mysticists are known for hiding many things in simbols . So more he would study mysticism , more he would learn about this universal language and so he would understand better art , simbolism , mythology , religions and dreams . So his investigations were rational and in the spirit of unbiased science The Red book was his unfiltered diary . He would let himself be crazy , irrational and write down whatever thoughts he had . Lets not forget that Automatic writing was something that all the surrealist writers ( Like Andre Breton) and Painters like Dali were exploring then. Again his intention was scientific. The question he asked was what will happen if I start writing things completely unfiltered , unsensored . So yes comparing the Red Book with William Blake poems is a fair comparison. Now what most positivists try to hide is that a fair amount of great scientists were studying alchemy . Including one of the strongest pillars of Science. Sir Isaak Newton webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/project/about.do Newton was obsessed with Alchemy . Does this make him a bad scientist ? No He just made him a very curious man. So if someone wants to disregard Jung should also disregard Newton

@@josephszimhart9431you’re conflating terms. There’s nothing ‘occult’ about the archetypes. Jung was Christian. Stop with your slandering. It’s clear you have a tenuous grasp of academics, let along something as dense as Jung. Just stop. You’re making a fool of yourself.

You are only half right: We are also easily fooled by our senses about sight and touch reality. Ask any stage magician or any con artist that sells bogus healing tonics. The "metaphysical" realities beyond sight, hearing, etc. (epistemology/ontology) depend on materialist information as well. There is no separation as the metaphysical and physical are intertwined in human experience. I am not sure what you think I am "frightened" of. It seems to me that you are bound up in a projection that I am a mere "materialist."

Thanks.. I’m just am not in the practice of seeing cults everywhere. Does make me think of T. Roszak’s book Cult Of Information.

Thank you for your comment and critique: "Just because your ignorant of modern psychology doesn’t mean you gave to wax poetic about the perceived misgivings of those pioneers who are no longer with us. Shame on you." You are assuming a lot about me as your throw your "shade" on what I stated in a short video. [Why would you do that?, asks the Jungian therapist.] Do you realize, for one small thing, that I worked in a psychiatric emergency hospital as a crisis intake worker for nearly 25 years? Your assumption about my "ignorance of modern psychology" may be ill informed. Introvert/extrovert labels remain controversial due to flawed instruments like the MMPI not taking cultural, personal, and ethnic variables into consideration well-enough. See, e.g.: mindtime.com/introversion-and-extraversion-real-or-fake/#:~:text=There's%20no%20such%20thing%20as,major%20news%20outlets%20these%20days.

You're probably great at *psychiatry* but psychology (the study of the soul) doesn't involve mindlessly filling out SSRI prescriptions and anti psychotic meds to patients. There's a little bit more involved. Like listening and a thing called analytic therapy. These are controversial for the psychiatry crowd who gets pay outs from big pharma. The fact is is that you may know what you're talking about with *psychiatry* but with Jung and analytic *psychology* you have a very tenuous grasp of the source material. Jung and dream interpretation and listening to the unconscious contents of patients is not fashionable when pill popping is the norm, but let's take a look at modern society and tell me who had the last laugh? Jung or modern psychiatry? Lastly, please address the substance of my comment. I just listed a couple huge terms and concepts that revolutionized how millions of people conceptualize the psyche because of Jung but you just linked an article saying that there's controversy surrounding the types. Well, ok, that doesn't take away the fact that introvert/extrovert is common everyday lexicon when referring to personality. I know it's not fashionable to even give Jung the time of day, but please, just stop the slandering like he was an occult leader or Gnostic. He was a Christian and not some sort of occult leader that Freudian attackers made him out to be. Please keep to psychiatry because it's not a good look speaking confidently about the character of the deceased when it's plain as day you fundamentally do not understand Jung's work.

I was never a psychiatrist, but I have worked with dozens of psychiatrists and psychologists from a variety of disciplines in the field. I''ll leave it at that. Your words remain for my readers to assess for themselves. Thank you. @@johngoldsworthy7135

@@josephszimhart9431 this comment says everything you need to know about your character. It’s really a shame too because I thought initially you maybe a common sense sort of person diving into abstract themes of human inquiry. But no, sadly you’re nothing more than an ignorant boob who conflates authority with Truth. Good day, sir

@@josephszimhart9431 also reading comprehension. I never said you were a psychiatrist. Psychiatry and psychiatrist are two different words in the dictionary. This goes with my point that you have zero idea about what your talking about

Thank you for that. As for a "cult of Islam" I can only say that the question is poorly framed. It is way too broad, like asking about the cult of Buddhism, Christianity, or ancient Roman religion. There are cults in the social academic sense at the core of all great religions. For example, Most Protestant Christians follow the cult of Sola Scriptura and a cult of Faith. Catholics, being more liturgical. follow the cult of the Eucharist. Buddhists turn meditation into a cult. Muslims tend to follow a cult of the book (Koran) and cult of honoring the Prophet. So, using cult in this way is not a condemnation. I imagine you are referring to bad or destructive cults. So, you would have to propose a sect or type of behavior within Islam that you consider as deceptive or abusive in some way and one that tends towards absolutism in doctrine. Ancient Romans practiced what they called the Cultus Deoram, or the practice of honoring the gods through ritual. All that means is that they had a way of "caring for the gods."

Islam is not a cult! If you are sincere about your question then read the Quran!

@@aisharoberts2583 thanks for your comment. Conservative Christians tend to ask questions framed that way. Likely due to the prejudice that anything but “them” is a cult. Often, it’s not worth arguing.

@@aisharoberts2583 i was a muslim, reading quran sincerly is what made me leave lol