September 28, 2009
“Jung’s prominent disciple Marie-Louise von Franz gave her friend, Barbara Hannah, a vivid picture of being in analysis with Jung in the garden room of his house on the Lake of Zurich, when he was attentive to every natural event as comprising a synchronistic commentary on the analytic dialogue: “insects flying in, the lake lapping more audibly than usual, and so on” (Hannah, 1976: 202, n. k). He had come to the view that the psyche is not so much a factor locked inside our bodies but “more like an atmosphere in which we live” (Adler, 1973: 433). For one who has attained an on-going intuitive relationship with the self, events both inner and outer constitute the voice of the forest spirit or the snake.”
“More like an atmosphere in which we live”…
Words and forms act as simply carriers for information contained in that atmosphere. They true meaning only within the realm of that specific atmosphere. And there is never anything other than that atmosphere. Only here, only this. I don’t know if we can know it completely (either we already do or we can’t ever). But to look for the REAL anywhere else is to fall into dream.
For “form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form. Form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form. Sensation, conception, discrimination, awareness are likewise like this.”
Interestingly, Jung had Pauli (he of the Exclusion Principle) as a client.
*
The medium of the computer is pattern. Information is pattern bent to a will. (i.e., previous post). Caveat emptor…
Comment by speedbird — September 29, 2009 @ 5:45 am
I would say information is the making of a pattern out of noise. Or perhaps information is what happens where two pattern makers meet. Patterns make things easier (ie: the computer) and more easily neglected. Caveat Lector. ;)
And on Jung and Pauli, I recently bought this from the UK (for a relatively cheap price). Haven’t read it yet, but I’m very excited…
Comment by Ian — September 29, 2009 @ 10:49 am
I suspect the pre-existence of certain patterns within the noise, like the ocean has waves. The computer can let us see them. Information is what happens /when/ we see (or hallucinate) them.
Comment by speedbird — September 30, 2009 @ 2:26 am
So what’s the difference between seeing and hallucinating?
Or rather, what’s the difference between the ocean and a wave? :)
Comment by Ian — September 30, 2009 @ 8:10 am
:-) indeed.
*
I have something of a disclaimer to declare on this topic, before we get any deeper down the rabbithole.
I grew up with Computers from an early age. Then one day at school they started teaching Information Technology. I knew immediately that Computing and Information Technology were not the same thing. Rather, it seemed obvious that they were poles apart, and furthermore, that I.T. was some sort of corruption, a kind of offence against nature. I have never managed to shake off this certainty, though neither have I ever managed to make it fully concrete. I do sometimes feel that I am in a dwindling minority…
Comment by speedbird — September 30, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Sounds kind of like a gnostic vs orthodox view of computers. InfoTech is dumbing things down to make it easy, predictable, and workable for everyone. Computing is working with the raw power of the processor. There’s a kind of ego quality about InfoTech, I guess, that it build a framework that’s limited but workable, which we then mistake for the actual computer itself. Too much IT and we forget that computing is even possible, nor are we able to explain computing to people if we find it again, because everyone else understand only the IT…
Am I close?
Comment by Ian — September 30, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
> Am I close?
Hell yeah, that’s pretty darn insightful. Never saw that connection coming. Fits with the feeling I sometimes get of PC as home-altar, like the Romans used to have… and just DON’T get me started on icons. But where the heck does IT come from? (whatever IT is ;-D )
Much to think about…! :-)
Comment by speedbird — September 30, 2009 @ 1:59 pm