[Buddha-l] Jung and Dignaga

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Dan wrote:

DL> Jung was an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazi regime through the 1930s,
DL> and, as I mentioned, wrote position papers for the Nazis, including
DL> deploying his concept of Collective Unconscious as a racial category to
DL> argue for the superiority of Germanic Aryans and the genetic inferiority of
DL> Jews (and others).
DL> [...]
DL> In short, rehabilitating reputations of Europeans tainted by their
DL> associations with the Nazis has been a major industry since the war, one
DL> infused with dishonesty and angry passions. For instance,

Thanks for your bibliography in the subject. I think everybody agree
in the first moment Jung welcomed the nazi regime but it was a short
time and not any exception. I think the point here is not judging
those times from the actual perspective but trying to understand them.
In those days many people were afraid to lose the "spirit". The West
was perceived in decadence, and the communist threat was the
definitive barbaric invasion to destroy that spirit. In example if we
read O.Spengler "The decadence of the West" we can be aware of these
feelings in the intellectual world. In the first moment the nazi
movement was welcome by many western countries, even in the USA.
The racial theories were present from years ago everywhere (also
in the USA) as another valid academic topic. As a visible example,
the Rockefeller foundation was funded the main Eugenesic institute in
Berlin. 

All this converges and become fully visible with the nazi regime,
although they were not the real source of the eugenesic schizophrenia
of 20th century. The scientific roots are in the Darwinist apotheosis
as the new explanation for the world, leaving behind theology.
The political eugenesic was quite inspired by Francis Galton. In
following years, many countries like England, USA, Germany, Norway,
Denmark.. (mostly the anglo world as owners of the knowledge) were
strong supporters and designers of eugenics experiments and policies
in their own countries and outside them. England was the first country
to include the notion of a biological superiority like a political
argument in the expansion of his empire. The famine genocide in India
(up to 20 billion!!) under governor Lytton was the first "modern"
genocide using eugenesic arguments of social darwinism. Read "Late
Victorian Holocausts", Mike Davis
http://www.amazon.com/Late-Victorian-Holocausts-Famines-Making/dp/1859843824 

It is quite important because today we talk about the nazi regime
until exhaustion but forgetting his success was possible because
several ingredients today alive. The same eugenesic moral exists in
the some practices of transnationals of pharma, food, etc..
They are causing genocides around the world without any regret or
consequences, because still there is an implicit racist-cultural
superiority. Today we have 4 billion victims of genocide in Congo
because the commercial fights for the Coltan mineral, needed for the
mobile phone industry. Same with pharma products, etc..
The actual world morality of this system protect the same moral
of genocide. When we watch the TV, we cannot hear the names of
these companies and their managers, just vague explanations of
unintelligible disputes among tribes and factions.  There are only
some "fools" devoted to denounce them and giving names.
How many academic people is involved in denounce these companies?.
Mostly they write in their magazines and working in their
laboratories. 

In those past times, only a few fools were devoted to denounce the
unmorality of Eugenesic theories with political implications. They
received the silence or the superiority laughs from the academic
world. We cannot demand seeing a social compromise in Jung which in
fact was strange for any famous intellectual of that time. Well, or
we can demand that but then few names can be innocent.



DL> He said the same when repeatedly
DL> pressed to comment on Spinoza (from whom, by the way, Schopenhauer got many
DL> of his own ideas!). His own students would often comment to him that this or
DL> that psychoanalytic idea had a precedent or antecedent in the Talmud or
DL> Kabbalah, to which he typically responded with bemusement, though denying he
DL> was aware of it. That one can account for all the supposed Schopenhaurian
DL> elements simply by reference to Spinoza and Nietzsche -- whom Freud
DL> acknowledged as influences, though he resisted further comment on them --
DL> makes this silly accusation evaporate.

I don't have knowledge about Freud interest in Kabbalah. Btw, if you
have some information I would be happy to know.
Until now I have read his serious prejudices in front any religion,
and his neglect of his own Jewish background. In the M.Houlin book
there are Freud letters showing his unjustified reactions to the
religious field. The Freud interests before building his theory were
mainly contemporary, like the Mesmer experiments in hypnosis, and in
philosophy those of his own time: Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, etc...

Zarathustra papers you cited are named inside that PDF. Take a read,
it is quite interesting and objective, I think.


best regards,