made me wonder if I should feel guilty

Only you can decide if and when you should or shouldn’t feel guilty for anything.

Rev Max’s comment makes me think it may be okay

I think Rev Max is talking about not clinging to things that you believe to be your own creations but which are the common domain of all. I think there may be a significant difference with the sort of tell-all sharing that goes on with blogs and MySpace - is it done to make yourself look like something in the eyes of others? Is it made to unburden yourself of your own concepts of self?

Also, the comment from Rev. Max:

I used to want to hang onto my ideas and keep them secret so that nobody could steal them, but its more rewarding to share lately i think

This comment made me think of something I read in Newsweek* about how “kids today” have been raised in a world where MySpace and blogs and whatnot allow them to be narcissistic and sorta exabitionist — the whole “look at me, hooray Big Brother for paying attention” — I think you, Tim, may have written on this. Anyway, the Newsweek thing made me wonder if I should feel guilty for having a blog and a MySpace, but now Rev Max’s comment makes me think it may be okay, although the going theme seems to be that everything I do is wrong, but that’s a whole other issue.

* Jan. 1, 2007 issue. Page 24. “Living Online” by Andrew Romano, who introduces himself as a 24-year-old with a lot of photos and info of himself online.

Part of Jung’s genius was the way he tied psychology to history, but history seen as well-documented mythology.

I’ve also been thinking a lot about Jung lately. I think what Jung *said* and what Jung *did* were two completely different things. It must be that way with any teacher, because when we use language we initiate the task of crossing media formats. It’s like trying to write out a song or a movie in words. It doesn’t work, but it gives you an approximation. (And the matter is compounded because a song or movie is still only an approximation of real life turned into a kind of language)

There’s some famous Jung quote where he says something like, “I’m glad I’m Jung and not a Jungian.” Because those people were getting hung up on what he said and what he meant by it, rather than what he actually *did* and what was behind it all.

In a way, this all sounds pretty heavily Jungian — collective unconscious, archetypes, etc…

Hm, I can see what you’re saying, but that’s very different from what I am saying. Basically just do this: drop all the concepts and interpretation. Then, drop your “self” out of the picture. Then, drop the “picture,” then drop “dropping,” then “then”

And there you have it. Like you said, everything else is window dressing designed to hopefully hook you into it with curiousity. It sounds stupid when you write it out like I did above, so thats why you have to practice it. And practice it. And practice it.

I’ve been dwelling a lot lately on this sort of paradox I am initiating in my life: that I am nobody. That no “me” actually exists, when it’s patently obvious that something does. But the thing is that it’s obvious to other people. It’s not obvious to me. Where am I? What am I really made up of? The question isn’t unanswerable because it’s “mystical” or whatever. It’s unanswerable because no ‘thing’ at root exists. There is no me. There is no answer.

Part of Jung’s genius was the way he tied psychology to history, but history seen as well-documented mythology. Some of his stuff on alchemy and eastern philosophy makes this sense patent. Got to hand it to him when it comes to understanding the Gods in you head.

Like the way you make the point. Great stuff…

Tim, I got to the point where you said to imagine yourself as empty inside. I thought “Na, I don’t have a problem with that.” Didn’t really try it. Then I read you pretty much saying “No, try it” - so I did. I closed my eyes and imagined myself empty.

What I got was just this empty spot where I was, but this glow around it. I thought to myself “Hey, that’s pretty cool” and realized that my thoughts were coming from behind my back somewhere.

I’m going to have to play with that a bit now.

Another link with Wittgenstein and your posting is your comment about a “collective pool of human experience.” Wittgenstein also came to an interesting similar conclusion but referred to it as ‘language games’ where meaning and cognitive rules are passed down. Think of a game of chess. If you taught the game by merely naming the pieces, “This is the king. This is the knight. etc.”, the student would have no idea how to play. But show him how each piece moves and then the names of the pieces hold more significance since he now knows what it means when a piece is labeled a king. So it is with our daily discourse and mannerisms. We are embedded within human society through our shared experiences and our language. We use words constructed centuries ago and have been socialized to understand and respond to symbolic activity that was also set down before we were born. Just think of the concept of personal space which differs from culture to culture, and yet we all react physically to something we were never explicitly taught. We just pick up how close we and others should be in proximity by simply being around each other.

Like I said, its probably not exactly where you were going, but I thought it interesting that an analytic philosopher may have had some similar insight.

I have another post or maybe a podcast I want to do specifically on the subject of holding onto ideas… I’m waiting for a Bill Hicks track to download though as it is part of what inspired it.

But yeah it relates to the fact that a few nights ago I almost donated every thing I have ever or will write or create to the public domain… But then thought differently about it the next day

anyway they aren’t really in my head they’re out there, when i have an idea its actually being shared with me not coming from within me now i think. The zeigeist.