Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

I know a pretzel factory in Pennsylvania that's looking for help.

Sub, interesting, do they employ Jungians without a green card?
ASA he lived in it, I think and creatively, which is hardly comfortable and yes, he "co-existed", I think, in the way you so astutely describe. ...in a stable sense transcending..difficult to answer, I doubt it, have to think more about it, perhaps too much a child of the 19th century....archetype for wielding rulers and bashing heads with it ? No... but Anna Freud has it amongst her "defensive mechanisms" against the oh so chaotic and evil unconscous (-;

detlof: yea, I know, part of me wants to say, yea, he did, then another part says, nah. Stable is usually pretty obvious, although I would suppose that Victorian remnants/attachments were a real bug to get past back then - big conformist pull of the exterior assumptions upon the individual mind. As I said though, there are transitionary zones, so to speak, so 'ol carl may have spent more time there than not. His "visions" of archetypes in the collective subconscious and especially synchronicity (archetypes can be constructed cognitively easier with less direct experience, but synchronocity is not deja vu, and requires, in order to percieve it as he did, more direct immersive experience) are both symptoms of the next level of consciousness emerging in him. Where such perceptions become stable, continuous and co-existent and integrated with "normal" cogntive-based perception is not a bounded line at that stage (at certain higher stages, symptoms can enable greater discernment of stage stability).

Order/Chaos: where does one begin and the other end? When water swirls in "chaotic" turbulence, where is it order-ly? Humans impose a cognitive construction that is binary and dualistic upon "Reality" (and, being the accommodating, maternal reality it is, it is suseptible to such imposition...). Dualism breaks reality into points of reference in which to compare over time, or comparison of data-events over the stream of change ("time" also being a construction), but that does not mean that at deeper symmetries of perception, that at once integrate those above, that the cognitive differentiation between order/chaos is not seen for what it is: a wonderful tool of the mind, a great gift, but still a tool. If 'ol Anna F. wants to break up reality into chaos face (evil) and order-face (bliss) thats ok, but it doesn't exclude its integration. And yes, recoil from the instinctual in one's own mind - seeing it as the beast - is merely a manegestation of one's fear from seeing oneself. Which, of course, keeps all of you Jungians in business! [that, and, of course, the yawning nihlism of the simultaneous recoil of the human mind from everything not it-self; recoil from instincts inside - seeing it in Judeo-Christian terms as the beast/sin and earth as sin-place - and recoil from all outside the ego - categorizing non-human minds as things/products (science and capitalism, respectively). Its ONE BIG recoil, inside/outside at once, not separate. You see, capitalism, scientific materialism and Judeo-Christian doctrine aren't all that much in disagreement afterall. Hmmm, I wonder what that means in evolutionary terms...?]

Subaru, oh thank you for keeping me company! Yes, becoming downwardly mobile is always a worry...

It strikes me as somewhat interesting that Jung has so many fans here, inasmuch as he was a Nazi sympathizer and sometimes fan. So much for a solid philosophical base!

Nrchy yes, he was a political fool, realised too late what was going on in the "Reich", but was fascinated not by the man Hitler, but by the phenomenon Hitler and the sort of mass psychosis which was going on in Germany at the time, it seemed to fit his theories. He had an opportunstic streak, which let him play along with his Nazi collegues, at the same time he sincerely tried with some success to help his Jewish collegues as long as he could. It is a complex story, with lots of dark and some more positive sides to it and he acknowleged that he had failed in his later years. I feel as far as that.. and only that... is concerned,one has to differentiate between Jung the man and his findings. If I can use these, to understand and help people better, solid philophical base or not, I will use them gladly. But it is a different story of course, if I concern myself with Jung the man. A man may be a villain of whatever shade, but his ideas may change a small part world for better. It is not as easy as you suggest.