Diver Dan said-

I’ll say this In defence of Islamists, at least they stand firm for what they believe in, and remain united. That has and will continue to be their strength. Their faith in God and his teachings, and their view of it!

Answer- Good point. "Modern" Australia doesn't seem to stand for much.

Dear Canem Malem,

I don’t think it’s great that Islamists stand firm for what they believe in, and remain united. You may stand firm for what you believe in and believe in crap.

I think it’s wonderful that Australians have many different opinions and have the right to express them. People in the greatest tyranny may be united and stand firm for what they believe in. In a free society there are many opinions, many religions and many doubters. Freedom is chaotic and disunited. However, those devoted to that freedom can defeat the unity that exists with tyranny. I am happy to live in a society that respects doubt, questions authority and gives the mickey to those who tell us what we should believe. I prefer Australia to Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Nazis had Ein Volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer. We’re better than that.

Australia is a free society, and I love it.

David F- Thanks for your feedback.

Carl Jung believed that by understanding the different personality types humans could be better adjusted and balanced- both within and without. He believed that you couldn't understand what a healthy human being was from studying mental illness (like Freud).

“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Freud

“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but licence.” – John Milton

Jung came up with his twelve archetypes which were apparently based on four key features- chaos vs order and individual vs social (as well as "strengths" and "weaknesses").

http://www.masterclass.com/articles/writing-101-the-12-literary-archetypes#whats-the-difference-between-archetypes-stereotypes-stock-characters-and-clichs

Based on Jung's view (though discredited by the big five character trait theory as I understand)- and others- I believe that society has become unbalanced, chaotic, individualistic, globalist, and hyper-dictatorial.

When we bring Saudi Arabia to Australia then the difference is moot.

Joseph Nye's "Soft Power" is interesting in this context- as well as the theories of neoliberalism and neorealism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

There are those that believe in the principles of "The Prince" and "engineered division as a tool of harmony- and power"- I believe these people are the enemies of the community.

The paradox is the ultimate freedom is a tyranny- there isn't an end point to the community- it just is. Locke should just leave us all alone. But the councils of community elders should still try and use their wisdom to create stability within their Traditional Community of Kinship. There are too many people- "but people should be free!"- yes this is the problem with Liberalism and Freedom- freedom requires discipline.

Dear Canem Malem,

I regard Jung’s archetypes as putting people in boxes. When one can classify another person as one of the archetypes one has put that person in a box equivalent to treating them as part of an ethnic stereotype. When we put a person in a box we may ignore those differences that don’t fit in a box.

When you say “He (Jung) believed that you couldn't understand what a healthy human being was from studying mental illness (like Freud).” you neglect the fact that Freud did not confine himself to studying mental illness.

In such works as “The psychopathology of Every Day Life” and “The Interpretation of Dreams” he dealt with mental states in the lives of people not suffering from mental illness.

In such works as “Totem and Totem” and “Moses and Monotheism” he dealt with the way ideas develop in society.

Ultimate freedom, either personal or societal, is undesirable. We have a lot of freedom in our posts. However, good manners require that we be respectful of the other person, avoid abuse and avoid sarcasm. I will try to observe good manners in my posts and terminate any interchange where a poster is not treating me with respect.

I am reading Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”. Kant explores the limits of reason and deals with God, immortality and freedom.

My opinion is that God is a human invention and https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 is my article about it. I never have believed in immortality and am thinking about freedom. What are its limits? What is its optimum?

Kant advocated treating every human being as an end in herself or himself and not as a means. That may be counter to Jung’s archetypes.

The concept of soft power is interesting. I feel Trump has greatly lessened US soft power by withdrawing from WHO, the Paris Emissions Agreement and JCPOA, not recognizing the Jurisdiction of ICC, increasing the military budget and decreasing the State Department budget.

In Davids view there is only one opinion - HIS!

I have relatives an Orthodox Jewish who's partners were chosen for them and they are most delightful family. Including a Rabbi whom had the choice of two to chose a wife.

Dear Josephus,

I hope your relatives have a happy married life. Certainly, other people have a right to have opinions that are different from mine. I object to people being kept in ignorance and not informed that there are other opinions. I have no objection to religious education if it is education and informs people about different beliefs and different practices. I object to religious indoctrination which keeps people in ignorance about other religions and science and may denigrate those who don't believe as they do.

Some people are quite happy to be in arranged marriages. My mother's parents had marriages arranged for them in Russia. However, they met each other, and those arranged marriages were left behind. They came to the United States, were married and had my mother and other children. I thought they were wonderful.