logo
Howto | Events | Announcements List | Resources Map | Mobile | Copyleft | About
Home » Content

Divination, Astrology And The Pre-Trans Fallacy by Ken Wilber

| Share this | Download audio file | 5777 downloads | 327 plays | Stumble

To Geoffrey

Hi Geoffrey,

I appreciate your deep background with Jung's work and thought. In reading your criticisms, I suspect you might not be catching some of the nuances in Ken's approach. I also think you're expecting a completely detailed presentation here, whereas this recording is a part of a series of casual conversations for the layperson, and Ken's presentation is necessarily simplified here.

If you'd like to understand his point of view better, perhaps a book like his "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" would be worth looking into. You'll find tons of endnotes and references as well as a much more thorough presentation of his thoughts on these topics and many others.

You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Ecology-Spirituality-Spirit-Evolution/dp/15706...

Michael

Jungian psychology

I am not an expert on Ken Wilber's philosphies and theories only Jungian theory. First, Jung sad a whole, complete judgment with the least amount bias must include all four functions; Thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. Reason and logic ARE included in thinking so Ken Wilber is wrong. Jungian psychology does include reason but it is not limited to logic. Jung said the problem with logic and reason was it is always has a one-sided point of view. One is either on one side of the opposites or the other. Naturally one can think one is smart by simply taking one aspect of Jungian psychology, the unconscious, occult and metaphysical side and saying it does not include the causual side like synchronicity for example. The self includes ALL opposites the casual and the acasual, cause and effect and connection through meaning, contingence, and equivalence.

Second, Jung said the archetypes and complexes are the planets, signs, houses and the astrological mandala is a symbol of the self.; P. 224, Journey through the planetary houses and the planetary bath. p. 358, Mysterium Coniunctionis, Volume 14 of the

jungian psychology

I am not an expert on Ken Wilber's philosphies and theories only Jungian theory. First, Jung sad a whole, complete judgment with the least amount bias must include all four functions; Thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. Reason and logic ARE included in thinking so Ken Wilber is wrong. Jungian psychology does include reason but it is not limited to logic. Jung said the problem with logic and reason was it is always has a one-sided point of view. One is either on one side of the opposites or the other. Naturally one can think one is smart by simply taking one aspect of Jungian psychology, the unconscious, occult and metaphysical side and saying it does not include the causual side like synchronicity for example. The self includes ALL opposites the casual and the acasual, cause and effect and connection through meaning, contingence, and equivalence.

Second, Jung said the archetypes and complexes are the planets, signs, houses and the astrological mandala is a symbol of the self.; P. 224, Journey through the planetary houses and the planetary bath. p. 358, Mysterium Coniunctionis, Volume 14 of the Collected Works of C.G Jung.

geoffrey, you might want to

geoffrey,

you might want to study wilber more. once you understand the pre/trans fallacy you will see that he values jung but is pointing out a tendency that is the mirror opposite of the freudian tendency. he is not saying that jung had nothing meaningful to offer - just that the tendency to see all non-rational material as trans-rational is a mistake...

also there have been several studies - one big one even designed with the participation of very famous astrologers - to test astrology and they have all failed dismally. the most famous one (and what i think is wilber talking about) is described here:

http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm

astrology and Jungian psychology

I don't like the Ken Wilber says when he implies that Jung placed too much emphasis on higher consciousness etc and meaning so he saw meaning where there was none; He putting down Jung but he gives no concrete specific examples to support his opinion. I know Jungian psychology very and I have never seen any evidence; In fact Jung always included both views the reductive and the synthetic. He has no proof or examples to support his cricitisms of Jung. Second; He invalidates the predictive ability of astrology but does not do it from his PERSONAL experience with astrology; He has none; he doesn't even know what his Moon sign is. As a result, Wilber has taken over other peoples opinions against astrology and accepted them uncritically as a resutl but no experience of his own. He says astrologers themselves saw their predictions disproven. He gives no specific examples of such tests of astrology. I don't believe there are any.