Wholeness

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:21 pm

Tab wrote:
The second dream was all about her vagina. Of course it was sexual, but it is also the organ of birth and, in this context, connotes rebirth. Death and rebirth is a recurring archetypal theme that is present in world mythology including Christianity.


If you'd like to forward that dream to me tonight.

My dream-mail address is: [email protected]. And I'll give you a critique.

Ok, seriously now :D , Doesn't that statement 'conotes rebirth' etc. assume that your unconscious somehow 'knows' the higher metaphysic language of your conscious awareness..? And is able to use it to tell you stuff..? I thought the whole exercise of channeling your unconscious assumed that communication between these two states was difficult because of the lack of a shared set of meanings..?


My dream generating unconscious psyche is smarter than me, knows me better than I do myself, reveals things to me I didn't know about myself, and is a consummate artist and trickster. The maker of my dreams surpasses Hitchcock, Kubrick, the Coen brothers, and Tarantino as an entertaining storyteller. And I'm not even a lucid dreamer who remembers 1/10 of what goes on once I wake.
Last edited by felix dakat on Mon Mar 30, 2020 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Tab » Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:33 pm

I think you're probably selling yourself short.

Anyway, tired Tab is tired, online teaching is a pain. I'll have a think, but not sure really what about.

So far we've covered:

1) Dreams as an interface with our unconscious inner selves/inner space and its resident deamons.
2) Individuation achieved through intergrating/harmonizing oneself with both external reality and internal 'reality'.
3) Cigars and vaginas.

Did I miss anything..?
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Mar 31, 2020 1:12 pm

Tab wrote:I think you're probably selling yourself short.

Anyway, tired Tab is tired, online teaching is a pain. I'll have a think, but not sure really what about.

So far we've covered:

1) Dreams as an interface with our unconscious inner selves/inner space and its resident deamons.
2) Individuation achieved through intergrating/harmonizing oneself with both external reality and internal 'reality'.
3) Cigars and vaginas.

Did I miss anything..?


One thing: that we are living under the archetype of death and rebirth. Here's an anecdote from Tarnas which I think is relevant to our situation of social distancing and quarantine:

I recall a lecture by Joseph Campbell in the late '60s. He was telling a story of
North American shamanic initiation. Rasmussen, who was exploring the northern part of the North American
continent, had conversations with a number of old shamans. One of them told the story of his own initiation as
a young boy. He said that he was taken by an older shaman out on a sled over ice, and placed in a small igloo
just big enough for him to sit in. He was crouched on a skin, he was left there for thirty days with just a little
water and meat brought in occasionally during that period. He said, "I died a number of times during those
thirty days, but I learned and found what can be found and learned only in the silence, away from the
multitude, in the depths. I heard the voice of nature itself speak to me, and it spoke with the voice of a gentle
motherly solicitude and affection. Or it sounded sometimes like children's voices, or sometimes like falling
snow, and what it said was, 'Do not be afraid of the universe'." This discovery, Campbell goes on, became a
point of internal, absolute security for the initiate, and made possible his return to his community with a
wisdom and assurance that was unmatched by everyone there, so that he could help others from that inner place.


May nature speak to us in this time of isolation, social distancing, sickness and death.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:18 pm

felix dakat wrote:My dream generating unconscious psyche is smarter than me, knows me better than I do myself, reveals things to me I didn't know about myself, and is a consummate artist and trickster. The maker of my dreams surpasses Hitchcock, Kubrick, the Coen brothers, and Tarantino as an entertaining storyteller. And I'm not even a lucid dreamer who remembers 1/10 of what goes on once I wake.
The unconscious has much more stuff in it and it notices much more. It's not not the conscious mind. The conscious mind is the part of the sea we are aware of (at any given moment) but it also is part of that sea.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:24 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:My dream generating unconscious psyche is smarter than me, knows me better than I do myself, reveals things to me I didn't know about myself, and is a consummate artist and trickster. The maker of my dreams surpasses Hitchcock, Kubrick, the Coen brothers, and Tarantino as an entertaining storyteller. And I'm not even a lucid dreamer who remembers 1/10 of what goes on once I wake.
The unconscious has much more stuff in it and it notices much more. It's not not the conscious mind. The conscious mind is the part of the sea we are aware of (at any given moment) but it also is part of that sea.


Right. And the ego itself is an archetype which we know as an archetypal image, the concept being based on that image.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:35 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:My dream generating unconscious psyche is smarter than me, knows me better than I do myself, reveals things to me I didn't know about myself, and is a consummate artist and trickster. The maker of my dreams surpasses Hitchcock, Kubrick, the Coen brothers, and Tarantino as an entertaining storyteller. And I'm not even a lucid dreamer who remembers 1/10 of what goes on once I wake.
The unconscious has much more stuff in it and it notices much more. It's not not the conscious mind. The conscious mind is the part of the sea we are aware of (at any given moment) but it also is part of that sea.


Right. And the ego itself is an archetype which we know as an archetypal image, the concept being based on that image.
I guess I sort of think of the ego as a process. And a useful one, within limits. And yes, I guess I could think of it an archetype or for me more a set of ideas, images, feelings and then a set of reactions when 'threats' to those ideas/images/feelings are called into question by something egodystonic.

I've spent a lot of time identifying with the unconscious, allowing its contents, even really rather horrifying ones, to arise, and learned to accept them. This gives a whole different relation tot he conscious mind and to the ego in relation to the unconscious. I am not threatened when enraged, sexual, terrified, violent, twisted, vengeful (etc) contents come up. I don't act these things out, except where appropriate, but I no longer feel horrified. I don't need to deny that this is a part of me. Even quite clearly wrong reactions. Like being enraged when I am at fault. My wife and I have an agreement that it is alright to express our anger even when we acknowledge we are at fault. This is extremely comforting, to be able to do this. To be able to say 'Shit, you are right, and I hate that and I am still pissed that you did X.' Even very expressively letting the anger out, even in just pure sound,w hich is best.

I find it amazing how distant most people are from their own mixed feelings and what is actually going on in the bulk of them. Teh conscious mind is the tip of the iceberg and if you cannot face egodystonic stuff, you can even be quite wrong about what you feel and believe.

Even that idea that you believe just one thing. People never seem to notice that sometimes they believe in God, sometimes not. Sometimes think women are generally X, sometimes they believe the opposite.

No, it's all simple in there. All these totally unified people never noticing their own body language and voice and dreams and passive aggressiveness and slips of the tongue and taste in music or art and....(so on) showing that actually a lot of other stuff is going on underneath and who the think they are is actually only built on noticing a tiny portion of themselves.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:11 pm

There are many theories of the ego. What stands out in my mind is the self-image. Yes we are distant from ourselves. Our culture has taught us to be. Our emotions are based on images and the images come from our soul. Secularism has taught us that we don't have a soul. And Christianity teaches that soul needs to be saved not experienced. The Jungians and archetypal psychologists direct us back to our own souls. And what is the soul if not imagination?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:26 am

felix dakat wrote:There are many theories of the ego. What stands out in my mind is the self-image. Yes we are distant from ourselves. Our culture has taught us to be. Our emotions are based on images and the images come from our soul. Secularism has taught us that we don't have a soul. And Christianity teaches that soul needs to be saved not experienced. The Jungians and archetypal psychologists direct us back to our own souls. And what is the soul if not imagination?
I guess I would say the soul is what imagines, not imagination. And that it does other things too. It is the experiencer, the one underlying what gets called the body.

More than ontology, I think it is interesting how people try to achive wholeness and then what they consider to be themselves and what they consider not to be. If you are a whole, what is that whole made of, or what parts of what one does, feels, expresses, thinks, experiences is oneself. And what is not.

If you listen to most modern people they identify with parts of themselves then disidentify suddenly. Emotions becomes things they have or even are plagued by. Thoughs are theirs, then they are invaders, memes from others. Desires are a part of them, then they are plagued by them.

Compared to most paths/identifications I am more incluslive.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:10 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:There are many theories of the ego. What stands out in my mind is the self-image. Yes we are distant from ourselves. Our culture has taught us to be. Our emotions are based on images and the images come from our soul. Secularism has taught us that we don't have a soul. And Christianity teaches that soul needs to be saved not experienced. The Jungians and archetypal psychologists direct us back to our own souls. And what is the soul if not imagination?
I guess I would say the soul is what imagines, not imagination. And that it does other things too. It is the experiencer, the one underlying what gets called the body.

Phenomenally we have the images. From them we can infer a soul or an experiencer. Jung did that when he talked about the "objective psyche". Phenomenally, that is another image. So again, we come back to the images. If I call that the imagination, I refer to yhe images themselves as they appear to me.

More than ontology, I think it is interesting how people try to achieve wholeness and then what they consider to be themselves and what they consider not to be. If you are a whole, what is that whole made of, or what parts of what one does, feels, expresses, thinks, experiences is oneself. And what is not.


In wholeness, opposites like order and chaos are reconciled with each other and become one. All the dualities of the personality becomes integrated and balanced. The image is that of the mandala, the sacred circle. This, it can be argued is a monistic or monotheistc image of the Self. By contrast, the soul may be expereince as a caldron of subpersonalities, gods, daemons, and heroes vying for dominance and attention. That would be a polytheistic view of the personality.

If you listen to most modern people they identify with parts of themselves then disidentify suddenly. Emotions becomes things they have or even are plagued by. Thoughts are theirs, then they are invaders, memes from others. Desires are a part of them, then they are plagued by them.


Yes. I take that to be the ego battling with the ego-dystonic part of the Self. Thus, we have the myth of the hero, battling with the forces of chaos, the emergence of consciousness from the unconscious. The significance of that myth cannot be overestimated. However, as with Christ, the hero-- the ego, is ultimately sacrificed for the sake wholeness. "Not my will, but Thy will be done"

Compared to most paths/identifications I am more inclusive.


You seem to see yourself on the path of self-transcendence. Some happy times I imagine I am too. But, the soul can be a trickster and a deceiver too. There may be demons and dragons to be overcome or defeated by.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:49 pm

felix dakat wrote:In wholeness, opposites like order and chaos are reconciled with each other and become one. All the dualities of the personality becomes integrated and balanced. The image is that of the mandala, the sacred circle. This, it can be argued is a monistic or monotheistc image of the Self. By contrast, the soul may be expereince as a caldron of subpersonalities, gods, daemons, and heroes vying for dominance and attention. That would be a polytheistic view of the personality.
I would say I am both polytheistic and monotheistic. There are versions of Hinduism that are like this in relation to deities. Also indigenous and pagan set ups.


Compared to most paths/identifications I am more inclusive.


You seem to see yourself on the path of self-transcendence. Some happy times I imagine I am too. But, the soul can be a trickster and a deceiver too. There may be demons and dragons to be overcome or defeated by.
I would say instead of self-transcendence it's more like self-acceptance. The ego is transcending itself - not without occasional resistence - but the self is learningt o get out of its own way. Not transcending, in fact in some ways becoming more immanent.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:14 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I would say I am both polytheistic and monotheistic. There are versions of Hinduism that are like this in relation to deities. Also indigenous and pagan set ups.


OK. If we are discussing the soul, my present impression is that it is polytheistic. It is composed of subpersonalities. The unconscious is better termed the unconsciousnesses. Now if there is a process of individuation in the direction of wholeness then in a narrow sense it might be considered monotheistic in a metaphoric sense. Howver, if we view it in the context of the experience of the soul, polytheism encompasses it. After all, both the Greek and the Hindu pantheons have gods who are supreme over the others, Zeus and Brahman respectively. So the archetype of wholeness--the Self, appears supreme over or is inclusive of the other archetypes and thus the soul is polytheistic.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I would say instead of self-transcendence it's more like self-acceptance. The ego is transcending itself - not without occasional resistence - but the self is learning to get out of its own way. Not transcending, in fact in some ways becoming more immanent.


In this context by self-transcendence I meant individuation. It has a self-transcending aspect, in so far as the ego must die so that more of the Self can be realized.
Last edited by felix dakat on Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Apr 03, 2020 10:27 pm

felix dakat wrote:OK. If we are discussing the soul, my present impression is that it is polytheistic. It is composed of subpersonalities. The unconscious is better termed the unconsciousnesses. Now if there is a process of individuation in the direction of wholeness then in a narrow sense it might be considered monotheistic in a metaphoric sense. Howver, if we view it in the context of the experience of the soul, polytheism encompasses it. After all, both the Greek and the Hindu pantheons have gods who are suprem over the others, Zeus and Brahman respectively. So the archetype of wholeness--the Self, appears supreme over or is inclusive of the other archetypes and thus the soul is polytheistic.
Hinduism is pretty vast and diverse, but in those portions I participated in there was both polytheism and monotheism with the other gods 'really' being parts or avatars or facets of 'the one deity' whichever one that branch had - Shiva in mine of that time, but also Vishnu and others. There were even, on occasion, duotheism with a male/female counterpart dynamic that was reality. I think the self is both a unity and a plenitude. In the West we are trained to have things either A or not A. But I don't find that useful for some things.
In this context by self-transcendence I meant individuation. It has a self-transcending aspect, in so far as the ego must die so that more of the Self can be realized.

I'm not into the ego dying. In fact I think I needed to build up an ego in many ways as I think many people do. They are just these open gates. Some due to abuse. But then there are abusive aspects to media/schooling and often parenting without what is legally called abuse. To me it has been more about realizing that it is not Self vs. Ego in any way at all, and learning that opening to the id and also external mysteries can even make the ego more healthy. I am separate and I am not.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 04, 2020 12:27 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:OK. If we are discussing the soul, my present impression is that it is polytheistic. It is composed of subpersonalities. The unconscious is better termed the unconsciousnesses. Now if there is a process of individuation in the direction of wholeness then in a narrow sense it might be considered monotheistic in a metaphoric sense. Howver, if we view it in the context of the experience of the soul, polytheism encompasses it. After all, both the Greek and the Hindu pantheons have gods who are suprem over the others, Zeus and Brahman respectively. So the archetype of wholeness--the Self, appears supreme over or is inclusive of the other archetypes and thus the soul is polytheistic.
Hinduism is pretty vast and diverse, but in those portions I participated in there was both polytheism and monotheism with the other gods 'really' being parts or avatars or facets of 'the one deity' whichever one that branch had - Shiva in mine of that time, but also Vishnu and others. There were even, on occasion, duotheism with a male/female counterpart dynamic that was reality. I think the self is both a unity and a plenitude. In the West we are trained to have things either A or not A. But I don't find that useful for some things.
In this context by self-transcendence I meant individuation. It has a self-transcending aspect, in so far as the ego must die so that more of the Self can be realized.

I'm not into the ego dying. In fact I think I needed to build up an ego in many ways as I think many people do. They are just these open gates. Some due to abuse. But then there are abusive aspects to media/schooling and often parenting without what is legally called abuse. To me it has been more about realizing that it is not Self vs. Ego in any way at all, and learning that opening to the id and also external mysteries can even make the ego more healthy. I am separate and I am not.


Who's into the ego dying ? As evidence for the archetypal significance of ego death I submit the hero myth with it's motif of death and rebirth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:18 am

felix dakat wrote:Who's into the ego dying ?
It seemed like you were assuming it was a good thing and must happen for individuation.
It has a self-transcending aspect, in so far as the ego must die so that more of the Self can be realized.


As evidence for the archetypal significance of ego death I submit the hero myth with it's motif of death and rebirth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey
Significance? I am not sure Campbell's opinion counts as evidence - at least that's the one spot in the wikipedia article where I see ego death approached, though here it is the attachment to the ego. Oh, there's also something in Master of Two Worlds. I do know that for many influenced by either Eastern religions or Jung or both the idea that the ego must die is seen as necessary. I am not disputing that some people believe this.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 04, 2020 2:01 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Who's into the ego dying ?
It seemed like you were assuming it was a good thing and must happen for individuation.
It has a self-transcending aspect, in so far as the ego must die so that more of the Self can be realized.


Not a good thing by a psychic fact--an archetypal image.

As evidence for the archetypal significance of ego death I submit the hero myth with it's motif of death and rebirth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey
Significance? I am not sure Campbell's opinion counts as evidence - at least that's the one spot in the wikipedia article where I see ego death approached, though here it is the attachment to the ego. Oh, there's also something in Master of Two Worlds. I do know that for many influenced by either Eastern religions or Jung or both the idea that the ego must die is seen as necessary. I am not disputing that some people believe this.


Campbell's proposition then, as one who was a student of mythology and the psyche. What did Jung say?

From Christ a Symbol of the Self Aion CW 9 ii, pars 79-98

"Just as we have to remember the gods of antiquity in order to appreciate the psychological value of the anima/animus archetype, so Christ is our nearest analogy of the self and its meaning. It is naturally not a question of a collective value artificially manufactured or arbitrarily awarded, but it one that is effective and present per se, and that makes its effectiveness felt whether the subject is conscious of it or not. Yet, although the attributes of Christ ( consubstantiality with the Father, co-eternity, filiation, parthenogenesis, crucifixion, Lamb sacrificed between opposites, One divided into many, etc.) undoubtedly mark him out as an embodiment of the self, looked at from the psychological angle he corresponds to only one half of the archetype. the other half appears in the Antichrist. the ladder is just as much a manifestation of the self, except that he consists of its dark aspect. Both are Christian symbols, and they have the same meaning as the image of the Savior crucified between two thieves. This great symbol tells us that the progressive development and differentiation of consciousness leads to an evermore menacing awareness of the conflict and involves nothing less than a crucifixion of the ego, it's agonizing suspension between irreconcilable opposites. Naturally there can be no question on a total extinction of the ego, for then the focus of consciousness would be destroyed, and the result would be complete unconsciousness. The relative abolition of the ego affects only those supreme and ultimate decisions which confront us in situations where there are insoluble conflicts of duty. This means, in other words, that in such cases the ego is a suffering bystander who decides nothing but must submit to a decision and surrender unconditionally. The “genius” of man, the higher and more spacious part of him whose extent no one knows, has the final word. It is therefore well to examine carefully the psychological aspects of the individuation process in the light of Christian tradition, which can describe it for us with an exactness and impressiveness far surpassing our feeble attempts, even though the Christian image of the self-- Christ-- lacks the shadow that properly belongs to it. "


What do you take away from that?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Apr 04, 2020 3:27 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Who's into the ego dying ?
It seemed like you were assuming it was a good thing and must happen for individuation.
It has a self-transcending aspect, in so far as the ego must die so that more of the Self can be realized.


Not a good thing by a psychic fact--an archetypal image.

As evidence for the archetypal significance of ego death I submit the hero myth with it's motif of death and rebirth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey
Significance? I am not sure Campbell's opinion counts as evidence - at least that's the one spot in the wikipedia article where I see ego death approached, though here it is the attachment to the ego. Oh, there's also something in Master of Two Worlds. I do know that for many influenced by either Eastern religions or Jung or both the idea that the ego must die is seen as necessary. I am not disputing that some people believe this.


Campbell's proposition then, as one who was a student of mythology and the psyche. What did Jung say?

From Christ a Symbol of the Self Aion CW 9 ii, pars 79-98

"Just as we have to remember the gods of antiquity in order to appreciate the psychological value of the anima/animus archetype, so Christ is our nearest analogy of the self and its meaning. It is naturally not a question of a collective value artificially manufactured or arbitrarily awarded, but it one that is effective and present per se, and that makes its effectiveness felt whether the subject is conscious of it or not. Yet, although the attributes of Christ ( consubstantiality with the Father, co-eternity, filiation, parthenogenesis, crucifixion, Lamb sacrificed between opposites, One divided into many, etc.) undoubtedly mark him out as an embodiment of the self, looked at from the psychological angle he corresponds to only one half of the archetype. the other half appears in the Antichrist. the ladder is just as much a manifestation of the self, except that he consists of its dark aspect. Both are Christian symbols, and they have the same meaning as the image of the Savior crucified between two thieves. This great symbol tells us that the progressive development and differentiation of consciousness leads to an evermore menacing awareness of the conflict and involves nothing less than a crucifixion of the ego, it's agonizing suspension between irreconcilable opposites. Naturally there can be no question on a total extinction of the ego, for then the focus of consciousness would be destroyed, and the result would be complete unconsciousness. The relative abolition of the ego affects only those supreme and ultimate decisions which confront us in situations where there are insoluble conflicts of duty. This means, in other words, that in such cases the ego is a suffering bystander who decides nothing but must submit to a decision and surrender unconditionally. The “genius” of man, the higher and more spacious part of him whose extent no one knows, has the final word. It is therefore well to examine carefully the psychological aspects of the individuation process in the light of Christian tradition, which can describe it for us with an exactness and impressiveness far surpassing our feeble attempts, even though the Christian image of the self-- Christ-- lacks the shadow that properly belongs to it. "


What do you take away from that?
I find Jung hard to interpret. There are points in there where I would not use the word ego the way he does. I think you could have an utterly egoless experience - in meditation, on a drug, in some intense ritual or experience - and be conscious. So I am not even sure what he means by that word and much of the rest seems not very clear to me. I like what I have gotten from Jung and Jungians and I have taken from them, but I do not find his work, in particular, very clear. Should it turn out, however, that he thinks of the ego negatively or considers to goal to be near to (but clearly from above not fully to) eradication of the ego, I disagree with him. I consider the ego our sense of ourselves as separate. certainly in some moments it can even be wonderful to not feel separate, though even in those cases I have found one can also, at the same time, be both separate and merged (with another person, with nature, with what seems other in the self and so on). But regardless I do not see the ending of the ego as a goal that interests me, nor does it seem to interest my id, however much negotiations are ongoing between my id and my ego. I also find that the ego can learn that the self is more than the ego realized and it is willing to be open and lose control while still being present. Of course all of this is very abstract and can be misinterpreted. Just doing my best given the slippery nature of these terms and the phenomenology of the experiences. I do think that some traditions want to get rid of the ego, want us to disidentify with portions of what I would call myself and would prefer to unify with and express. Those traditions and paths are not for me and I do not consider them an authority. Others, of course, can do what they wish with themselves.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:35 pm

You seem to be looking at ego death as a theoretical once -for -all phenomenon whereas it can be a daily phenomenon as we strive to better ourselves reaching for our ego ideal and shedding our worse identities.

Jung doesn't see ego death as an all-or-nothing phenomenon since he recognizes the necessity of a functioning ego to organize the conscious mind.

Anyway, in the first place, a phenomenological approach involves becoming aware of the images as they appear in the mind regardless of theory.
The myth of the dying and resurrecting hero has a long cross-cultural history and is present in the dreams of many of us including those with modern secular mindsets.
So what would be the basis for denying it universal archetypal status?
But perhaps you're not doing that either. Maybe you're just saying you don't like it.
After all most of us in the Western world encounter it first through traditional Christianity to which many have an aversion today. And few if any find death attractive.
And yet it surrounds us. So ego death is without a doubt a negative aspect of the individuation process from one point of view. But inasmuch as it is a natural process, and therefore a life process, how can death be avoided? Life and death always go together.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:58 pm

felix dakat wrote:You seem to be looking at ego death as a theoretical once -for -all phenomenon whereas it can be a daily phenomenon as we strive to better ourselves reaching for our ego ideal and shedding our worse identities.
I'm not assuming at all that it is a one big one shot thing.

As far as the ego ideal, I don't think that striving for the ego ideal is a good thing. In fact I think it is part of the problem....
(in Freudian theory) the part of the mind which imposes on itself concepts of ideal behaviour developed from parental and social standards.
So, it's kind of an image portion of the superego.

I don't want to shed my worse identities, but integrate them.

Jung doesn't see ego death as an all-or-nothing phenomenon since he recognizes the necessity of a functioning ego to organize the conscious mind.
Yes, he seems to have a different idea of what the ego is than I do or Freud does. Though to be honest I don't really think in those terms. I am not Freudian nor Jungians though they affected me in many ways. I don't really buy either of their models of the self.

Anyway, in the first place, a phenomenological approach involves becoming aware of the images as they appear in the mind regardless of theory.
The myth of the dying and resurrecting hero has a long cross-cultural history and is present in the dreams of many of us including those with modern secular mindsets.
So what would be the basis for denying it universal archetypal status?
I think Freud and to a lesser degree the Jungians have a lot of confirmation bias in their culling of archetypes from myths and stories. They 'see' their models and avoid seeing contradictions.

Further cultures do have some common judgements of, for example, the limbic system. Just because many cultures 'think' that a certain thing should happen does not mean it is right.

But perhaps you're not doing that either. Maybe you're just saying you don't like it.
After all most of us in the Western world encounter it first through traditional Christianity to which many have an aversion today. And few if any find death attractive.
And yet it surrounds us. So ego death is without a doubt a negative aspect of the individuation process from one point of view. But inasmuch as it is a natural process, and therefore a life process, how can death be avoided? Life and death always go together.
Ego death is not death.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:17 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:You seem to be looking at ego death as a theoretical once -for -all phenomenon whereas it can be a daily phenomenon as we strive to better ourselves reaching for our ego ideal and shedding our worse identities.
I'm not assuming at all that it is a one big one shot thing.

As far as the ego ideal, I don't think that striving for the ego ideal is a good thing. In fact I think it is part of the problem....
(in Freudian theory) the part of the mind which imposes on itself concepts of ideal behaviour developed from parental and social standards.
So, it's kind of an image portion of the superego.

I don't want to shed my worse identities, but integrate them.

Jung doesn't see ego death as an all-or-nothing phenomenon since he recognizes the necessity of a functioning ego to organize the conscious mind.
Yes, he seems to have a different idea of what the ego is than I do or Freud does. Though to be honest I don't really think in those terms. I am not Freudian nor Jungians though they affected me in many ways. I don't really buy either of their models of the self.

Anyway, in the first place, a phenomenological approach involves becoming aware of the images as they appear in the mind regardless of theory.
The myth of the dying and resurrecting hero has a long cross-cultural history and is present in the dreams of many of us including those with modern secular mindsets.
So what would be the basis for denying it universal archetypal status?
I think Freud and to a lesser degree the Jungians have a lot of confirmation bias in their culling of archetypes from myths and stories. They 'see' their models and avoid seeing contradictions.

Further cultures do have some common judgements of, for example, the limbic system. Just because many cultures 'think' that a certain thing should happen does not mean it is right.

But perhaps you're not doing that either. Maybe you're just saying you don't like it.
After all most of us in the Western world encounter it first through traditional Christianity to which many have an aversion today. And few if any find death attractive.
And yet it surrounds us. So ego death is without a doubt a negative aspect of the individuation process from one point of view. But inasmuch as it is a natural process, and therefore a life process, how can death be avoided? Life and death always go together.
Ego death is not death.


For me to take a hard stand on the ego ideal or ego death or even whether any of the images I present are archetypes of the collective unconsciousness would be counter to what I'm trying to do here which is to promote awareness of the spontaneous images which appear in the mind.
Now I will present images that have been produced by world mythology with a view to the question of whether these or similar images have occurred spontaneously in my mind.
Even the images of wholeness like the mandala I'm looking at from the standpoint of an image and bracketing the theory that it is an actual process of human development.
Thus do I intend to promote awareness of mental images, correlate them with world mythology, if possible, and avoid the pitfalls of objective theory and religion.
With that in mind, would you say that your above comments mean that you do not interpret such images of death and rebirth as you have in terms of ego death which is a concept or range of concepts?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:44 pm

felix dakat wrote:For me to take a hard stand on the ego ideal or ego death or even whether any of the images I present are archetypes of the collective unconsciousness would be counter to what I'm trying to do here which is to promote awareness of the spontaneous images which appear in the mind.
Now I will present images that have been produced by world mythology with a view to the question of whether these or similar images have occurred spontaneously in my mind.
Even the images of wholeness like the mandala I'm looking at from the standpoint of an image and bracketing the theory that it is an actual process of human development.
Thus do I intend to promote awareness of mental images, correlate them with world mythology, if possible, and avoid the pitfalls of objective theory and religion.
With that in mind, would you say that your above comments mean that you do not interpret such images of death and rebirth as you have in terms of ego death which is a concept or range of concepts?
I would say that I do not know how many of these people intended these images to be interpreted (or what they meant in their unconscious minds). If I understand what you are saying here is that you are not trying to say what one should think or do, but rather just report what has been present in many places (myths dreams folk tales and so on). I would guess that a part of the human soul thinks that ego death is necessary for individuation, for example. I think there are other parts that do not. Further I think that some parts that seem to be presenting it - death rebirth - as a necessary stage could mean a variety 'things' by death and rebirth or the more specific detailed version in this or that myth.

There is a deep imprinting in us, about what must be. Even down in the collective unconscious there are ideas based on imprinting, not necessarily what is needed or possible.

So, I suppose I am saying that a bunch of things are going on, and one of them is that there is a stage of ego death and there are other competing ideas in there also.

A little bit like how there is the Oepdipus myth and then there is the myth of Ganesh, where the child (Ganesh) enters a realm of serious competition and drama and even hatred between his parents. IOW he is not the active creator of the problems, but someone caught in the middle - at least in some of the versions of his story.

Freud noticed myths that reinforced the story that he felt was central. Jung did this also - though he definition came up with more core stories than Freud. I see an oversimplification and also an appeal to authority in relation to the collective unconscious. Though I realize part of my response is now going where you aren't really intending to go.

Perhaps I have takne the thread to far from your intent and I don't want to hijack so I will leave it here. I hope I have been clear, and that even if I wandered off topic, I did also respond to the topic.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3418
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:50 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:For me to take a hard stand on the ego ideal or ego death or even whether any of the images I present are archetypes of the collective unconsciousness would be counter to what I'm trying to do here which is to promote awareness of the spontaneous images which appear in the mind.
Now I will present images that have been produced by world mythology with a view to the question of whether these or similar images have occurred spontaneously in my mind.
Even the images of wholeness like the mandala I'm looking at from the standpoint of an image and bracketing the theory that it is an actual process of human development.
Thus do I intend to promote awareness of mental images, correlate them with world mythology, if possible, and avoid the pitfalls of objective theory and religion.
With that in mind, would you say that your above comments mean that you do not interpret such images of death and rebirth as you have in terms of ego death which is a concept or range of concepts?
I would say that I do not know how many of these people intended these images to be interpreted (or what they meant in their unconscious minds). If I understand what you are saying here is that you are not trying to say what one should think or do, but rather just report what has been present in many places (myths dreams folk tales and so on). I would guess that a part of the human soul thinks that ego death is necessary for individuation, for example. I think there are other parts that do not. Further I think that some parts that seem to be presenting it - death rebirth - as a necessary stage could mean a variety 'things' by death and rebirth or the more specific detailed version in this or that myth.

There is a deep imprinting in us, about what must be. Even down in the collective unconscious there are ideas based on imprinting, not necessarily what is needed or possible.

So, I suppose I am saying that a bunch of things are going on, and one of them is that there is a stage of ego death and there are other competing ideas in there also.

A little bit like how there is the Oepdipus myth and then there is the myth of Ganesh, where the child (Ganesh) enters a realm of serious competition and drama and even hatred between his parents. IOW he is not the active creator of the problems, but someone caught in the middle - at least in some of the versions of his story.

Freud noticed myths that reinforced the story that he felt was central. Jung did this also - though he definition came up with more core stories than Freud. I see an oversimplification and also an appeal to authority in relation to the collective unconscious. Though I realize part of my response is now going where you aren't really intending to go.

Perhaps I have takne the thread to far from your intent and I don't want to hijack so I will leave it here. I hope I have been clear, and that even if I wandered off topic, I did also respond to the topic.

No I think that insofar as you have countered the leap from phenomenon to theory, you have facilitated my intention for this thread.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:12 pm

From James Hillman the originator of post-Jungian archetypal psychology:

...Archetypal psychologizing, unlike phenomenology, does not use concepts for the categories of its vision. Psychologizing what dissolves as it specifies, first into ”Which”-- which among the many traits and moods are here being demonstrated at this moment?-- and then ultimately into “Who”-- who in me says I am ugly, makes me feel guilty; who is it in my soul that needs you so desperately? Seeing through to this who dissolves the identification with one of the many insistent voices that fill us with ideas and feelings, steering fate on its behalf. At first these persons, who are at the core of what we feel, say, and do, seem interiorized bits of our personal history. But soon they show their impersonality. For in the last instance the who refers to an archetypal figure within the complex, the dream, and the symptom.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Aware-ness » Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:45 am

What are the methods to achieve wholeness? Can it be accomplished by intellectual discourse?

I think that just maybe this concern for wholeness is a modern invention/concern. I don't think it was a concern of hunter-gathers, of stone agers. Was it a concern during pre-written-language times?

Is it a sign of our age that we're suddenly concerned about wholeness? What has happened that has produce this need for wholeness?
God forgives. Nature doesn't.
"Praying to an otherworldly God is like kissing thru glass." - Paul West
There's a serpent in every paradise.
User avatar
Aware-ness
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:30 am

Aware-ness wrote:What are the methods to achieve wholeness? Can it be accomplished by intellectual discourse?

I think that just maybe this concern for wholeness is a modern invention/concern. I don't think it was a concern of hunter-gathers, of stone agers. Was it a concern during pre-written-language times?

Is it a sign of our age that we're suddenly concerned about wholeness? What has happened that has produce this need for wholeness?


If wholeness is achieved at all it is not achieved by a method but by a process of individuation. CG Jung did develop analytic psychology as a means of facilitating the process of individuation. But the process itself is natural.

Why do you think prehistoric humans were not concerned about wholeness? It's a natural human process. And they did produce mandala-like circular artworks which may have been symbols of wholeness.

People have a psychological need to establish order and unity out of chaos. The duality of order & chaos is seen in the symbol of the Tao which is itself a mandala and a symbol of wholeness. The symbol of the Tao is ancient not a sudden sign of our age.

Both the Tao and the Self are symbolized by a circle which, as I said, is a mandala meaning “magic circle” in Sanskrit. The ego or ordinary mind develops after we are born. In part it comes from inside but mostly from the outside through our interactions with our parents, significant others and our environment. We introject parts of them which becomes a false self that gets enmeshed with our true self.

Part of the task in Taoism and Jung’s psychology on the way to wholeness is to let go of ego and kill the false self so that our true self will emerge. This is symbolized by the hero myth including death and rebirth narratives. Wholeness entails balancing the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby tentative » Tue Apr 07, 2020 9:06 am

Is it possible that wholeness is releasing wholeness? Chuang Tzu lamented that he could find no one who had released words so that he might sit down and have a word with him. Irony? Perhaps Jungian philosophy isn't very clear because too many words met themselves coming and going. It might be that Jung is best understood in silence and understanding ourselves in even deeper silence.
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12430
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users