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 Aware-ness » Thu Apr 23, 2020 5:57 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Logos however is not words, but the primordial intelligence.
I see my own self-valuing logic (Id better call it simply, valuing-logic) as a representation of this Logos.

It is the love which creates.

Then sticking to the theme of this thread, perchance putting words in your mouth, the logos is the creating and sustaining of Wholeness ; perhaps many parts but one Whole???

But the devil may be in those details, so to speak. So far we can track 13.8 billion years of evolution. According to the logos conception the logos is behind it. And evolution is still going on. The logos is not done with whatever it's doing. So we, the human species, as well as planet earth, may one day be a mere blip on the historical tree of the evolving eternal logos.

Who can really know the logos? That's why it's just an image of something, in our imaginations. Then again, maybe Heraclitus and the logos is like Newton and gravity : they both "discovered" something that's always been already, going back into the fog of evolution.

But that gets beyond the theme of this thread -- I THINK -- as I think this thread is speaking of individual Wholeness.

Window to Eternity.jpg
Window to Eternity - Jung
Window to Eternity.jpg (73.24 KiB) Viewed 1738 times
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 » Thu Apr 23, 2020 6:16 pm

Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:What does it mean to say they are "just images"? That they are meaningless? That they come from nowhere? That they should be dismissed or ignored or repressed?

In The Essential Jung on p124 Jung speaks of the Sovereign power of primordial images.

Here's a more recent example of the power of images : A guy buys a Playboy, takes it home and opens up the centerfold. There he finds a image of a beautiful young nude woman -- a primordial archetype if there ever was one. His body responds, his member swells, and soon the pages of the Playboy become sticky. He soiled that beautiful primordial archetype. Glad it was just a image ... unless the Playboy model "wants a pearl necklace."

That's an example of how images affect the body, the nervous system, and psyche ... and well, the Playboy pages.

Images have power. But they'er still just images. We endow them with power ... it's a symbiosis powered by us, by some kind of identity with the image.

To answer your question, images can be "dismissed or ignored or repressed," but only until they are triggered by goings-on usually in the unconsciousness of our psychic being.

An example image you may be familiar with : my avatar. What sovereign power does that provoke in your psyche?


In my experience the images are more powerful and more “primordial” than words. In your example you describe an external image not a psychic one. Likewise your avatar. And when you say “an image of a beautiful young nude woman -- a primordial archetype if there ever was one” and “that beautiful primordial archetype” it seems to me that you’re confusing image with archetype. Archetypes produce archetypal images in the consciousness but the archetypes themselves remain unconscious.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:16 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Logos however is not words, but the primordial intelligence.
I see my own self-valuing logic (Id better call it simply, valuing-logic) as a representation of this Logos.

It is the love which creates.


Logos as an image is associated with consciousness and which is where the ego is. But, it's an expression of the total psyche, the archetypal Self. So yeah it's the transforming movement of the Self as manifested in consciousness, individuation, that is. Logos is the New Being that emerges from the unconsciousness and renews and transforms us. It's the vehicle that drives toward psychic wholeness. In the Kabbalah it is Hokhmah or Chochma which shines from the depths of Nothingness.


...Sophia, who already shares certain essential qualities with the Johannine Logos, is on the one hand closely associated with the Hebrew Chochma, but on the other hand goes so far beyond it that one can hardly fail to think of the Indian Shakti.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (p. 25). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.


Wisdom describes herself, in effect, as the Logos, the Word of God (“I came out of the mouth of the most High”). As Ruach, the spirit of God, she brooded over the waters of the beginning. Like God, she has her throne in heaven. As the cosmogonic Pneuma she pervades heaven and earth and all created things. She corresponds in almost every feature to the Logos of St. John.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (p. 26). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.


...John [the apocalyptist] experienced in his vision a second birth of a son from the mother Sophia, a divine birth which was characterized by a coniunctio oppositorum [conjunction of opposites] and which anticipated the filius sapientiae [son of wisdom], the essence of the individuation process.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (p. 93). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

And the goal of individuation?

It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious. We cannot tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities. Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents. But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this centre. Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype of wholeness occupies as such a central position which approximates it to the God-image. The similarity is further borne out by the peculiar fact that the archetype produces a symbolism which has always characterized and expressed the Deity. These facts make possible a certain qualification of our above thesis concerning the indistinguish-ableness of God and the unconscious. Strictly speaking, the God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the self. It is this archetype from which we can no longer distinguish the God-image empirically. We can arbitrarily postulate a difference between these two entities, but that does not help us at all. On the contrary, it only helps us to separate man from God, and prevents God from becoming man. Faith is certainly right when it impresses on man’s mind and heart how infinitely far away and inaccessible God is; but it also teaches his nearness, his immediate presence, and it is just this nearness which has to be empirically real if it is not to lose all significance. Only that which acts upon me do I recognize as real and actual. But that which has no effect upon me might as well not exist. The religious need longs for wholeness, and therefore lays hold of the images of wholeness offered by the unconscious, which, independently of the conscious mind, rise up from the depths of our psychic nature.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (pp. 106-107). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Apr 23, 2020 7:37 pm

Aware-ness wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Logos however is not words, but the primordial intelligence.
I see my own self-valuing logic (Id better call it simply, valuing-logic) as a representation of this Logos.

It is the love which creates.

Then sticking to the theme of this thread, perchance putting words in your mouth, the logos is the creating and sustaining of Wholeness ; perhaps many parts but one Whole???

But the devil may be in those details, so to speak. So far we can track 13.8 billion years of evolution. According to the logos conception the logos is behind it. And evolution is still going on. The logos is not done with whatever it's doing. So we, the human species, as well as planet earth, may one day be a mere blip on the historical tree of the evolving eternal logos.

For sure. The logos goes on indefinitely. Before the Big Bang there has been I assume a Big Crunch.

Who can really know the logos? That's why it's just an image of something, in our imaginations.

Here we hit on a profoundly meaningful difference in approaches. One that is archetypical.
You take a historical-forensic approach, where all data must be gathered to draw conclusions.
I take an inductive "essentialist" approach, where it is possible that a select set of data is enough to reveal the heart of truth.

Im sure that will have to be phrased better later on.

But, look; the Logos does not have to know where it is going, for it to be going there.
Thats my view. I don't think the logos strictly knows what it is doing. It just is too powerful not to be doing it.

Then again, maybe Heraclitus and the logos is like Newton and gravity : they both "discovered" something that's always been already, going back into the fog of evolution.

They too were logoic, products of the logos, carriers of it. The logos caused gravity, then used Newton and Newton "discovered" gravity and so gave man endless powers, so as for the logos to further unfold its workings on some new track, namely human science.

But that gets beyond the theme of this thread -- I THINK -- as I think this thread is speaking of individual Wholeness.

Window to Eternity.jpg

Nice.

For me personally it doesn't go beyond individual wholeness, as I do not believe it can be attained - in my case I know it cant - without an understanding of the cosmos.
Im not saying a perfect knowledge is required, naturally it would be impossible to have that. But a core-understanding of how "things work in this world" is, I think, required.

And does this not tie into the Shadow concept as well?
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Wholeness

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Apr 23, 2020 8:04 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Logos however is not words, but the primordial intelligence.
I see my own self-valuing logic (Id better call it simply, valuing-logic) as a representation of this Logos.

It is the love which creates.


Logos as an image is associated with consciousness and which is where the ego is. But, it's an expression of the total psyche, the archetypal Self. So yeah it's the transforming movement of the Self as manifested in consciousness, individuation, that is. Logos is the New Being that emerges from the unconsciousness and renews and transforms us. It's the vehicle that drives toward psychic wholeness. In the Kabbalah it is Hokhmah or Chochma which shines from the depths of Nothingness.

Well, what shines from the depths of nothingness is Kether. Chokmah is below that, but in a sense equal to it. Chokmah is the traditional "God the Father".
Ive covered these two early in my series.




Logos is indeed in Chokmah ("wisdom") but not strictly there. It pervades the formative world as well and arises in Hod again full force, as "magic".

...Sophia, who already shares certain essential qualities with the Johannine Logos, is on the one hand closely associated with the Hebrew Chochma, but on the other hand goes so far beyond it that one can hardly fail to think of the Indian Shakti.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (p. 25). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Shakti is he rising force, the kundalini, and belongs in Malkuth - Shiva pertains to Chohmah.
Shaktis aim is to merge with Shiva.
Kundalini-yoga aims for this merger.

Wisdom describes herself, in effect, as the Logos, the Word of God (“I came out of the mouth of the most High”). As Ruach, the spirit of God, she brooded over the waters of the beginning. Like God, she has her throne in heaven. As the cosmogonic Pneuma she pervades heaven and earth and all created things. She corresponds in almost every feature to the Logos of St. John.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (p. 26). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Im not sure this is very accurate but I wont straight out challenge it.
But the void from which the first emanation (Kether, the Crown) comes is Ain Soph, the limitless.



...John [the apocalyptist] experienced in his vision a second birth of a son from the mother Sophia, a divine birth which was characterized by a coniunctio oppositorum [conjunction of opposites] and which anticipated the filius sapientiae [son of wisdom], the essence of the individuation process.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (p. 93). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Indeed, Tipharet, the seat of Christ, represents the Son, the sacrificed king and the throned King.
I spent 2 years figuring out how to approach TIpharet intellectually after Id completed Geburah.
I then decided finally I had to move down to Netzach because I need to understand precisely all 6 Sephirot that surround Tipharet before I can speak to it.

And the goal of individuation?

It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious. We cannot tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities.

Note that the Tree of Life holds 10 Gods!
We translate them all into "God" but in Hebrew there are 10 names.
The Freudian subconscious is mostly attributed to Malkuth, Yesod and Netzach; our individual subconscious.
Freud did not believe in revelation, in dreams given by anything other than our own wishes.
Jung believes, it appears, only in revelation - where dreams for Freud are always egoic, for Jung they are always of the Higher Self.
This absolute distinction is interesting and puzzling enough for me to have to brood on.

Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents. But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this centre. Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype of wholeness occupies as such a central position which approximates it to the God-image. The similarity is further borne out by the peculiar fact that the archetype produces a symbolism which has always characterized and expressed the Deity. These facts make possible a certain qualification of our above thesis concerning the indistinguish-ableness of God and the unconscious. Strictly speaking, the God-image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the self. It is this archetype from which we can no longer distinguish the God-image empirically. We can arbitrarily postulate a difference between these two entities, but that does not help us at all. On the contrary, it only helps us to separate man from God, and prevents God from becoming man. Faith is certainly right when it impresses on man’s mind and heart how infinitely far away and inaccessible God is; but it also teaches his nearness, his immediate presence, and it is just this nearness which has to be empirically real if it is not to lose all significance. Only that which acts upon me do I recognize as real and actual. But that which has no effect upon me might as well not exist. The religious need longs for wholeness, and therefore lays hold of the images of wholeness offered by the unconscious, which, independently of the conscious mind, rise up from the depths of our psychic nature.

Jung, C. G.. Answer to Job: (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung): (From Vol. 11 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung) (Jung Extracts) (pp. 106-107). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

I find that Jung takes a pragmatic approach here and not a truly inquisitive one; he is ready to dismiss as nonexistent what he can not discern. This reminds a bit of James S Saints "affectance". Existence is defined by its having an effect.
I do not share this view.
To my mind, human wholeness is not the final criterion for cosmic truth, nor is direct apprehension a criterion for ontology. I believe the ways of the Logos work more mysteriously than that.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Wholeness

Postby Fixed Cross » Thu Apr 23, 2020 10:28 pm

Ha. I did figure it out. Jungs dreams are always also of wishes, but in him all wishes are become one; the wish to be whole.

Of course on a basic reading of Freud this seems laughable. Hm. I might read the Dream Interpretation with that in mind and see if Freud missed something.

Not unfair, because just today I read over a passage where he was actually outright saying that he left out half of the dream because it wasn't relevant - laugh out loud - especially hard because the second segment of the dream was, he did say, structured in the precise same way as the former. How is that in itself not meaningful?

Okay so Freud discerned the mechanics. The true grime of hard, hard fucking work. He's the hero here, let there be no doubt.
But Jung had the pleasure of raising the vibration, making music out of it, an ideal.

How much truth is there in an ideal?
- or - significant here; is the ideal required for us to apprehend the truth whole?

And there can be only one "Truth" as we know from Faust all the things it can not be.
Truth is the Archetype, which is Briah, still below the sublime and well hidden Logos "whose face one cannot behold and live", the unfathomable glory of Atziluth.

I reckon that it is terefore that the Logos "speaks out" and casts its lofty parts upon the void and conjures the cast of time, truth is path and path is life.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Wholeness

Postby Aware-ness » Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:13 am

felix dakat wrote:
Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:What does it mean to say they are "just images"? That they are meaningless? That they come from nowhere? That they should be dismissed or ignored or repressed?

In The Essential Jung on p124 Jung speaks of the Sovereign power of primordial images.

Here's a more recent example of the power of images : A guy buys a Playboy, takes it home and opens up the centerfold. There he finds a image of a beautiful young nude woman -- a primordial archetype if there ever was one. His body responds, his member swells, and soon the pages of the Playboy become sticky. He soiled that beautiful primordial archetype. Glad it was just a image ... unless the Playboy model "wants a pearl necklace."

That's an example of how images affect the body, the nervous system, and psyche ... and well, the Playboy pages.

Images have power. But they'er still just images. We endow them with power ... it's a symbiosis powered by us, by some kind of identity with the image.

To answer your question, images can be "dismissed or ignored or repressed," but only until they are triggered by goings-on usually in the unconsciousness of our psychic being.

An example image you may be familiar with : my avatar. What sovereign power does that provoke in your psyche?


In my experience the images are more powerful and more “primordial” than words. In your example you describe an external image not a psychic one. Likewise your avatar. And when you say “an image of a beautiful young nude woman -- a primordial archetype if there ever was one” and “that beautiful primordial archetype” it seems to me that you’re confusing image with archetype. Archetypes produce archetypal images in the consciousness but the archetypes themselves remain unconscious.

I've received training's out the ying-yang (sic), over the years. I learn fast with hands, eyes, and direct brain interface, but I learn for crap during the theory and function processes, of the trainings, without knowing to what they actually refer to.

And that's the same with archetypes. Unless I can get my hands on them, or at least my eyeballs, so I can see them in action, I'm at a loss. In fact, I've lived many decades without knowing anything about them, without serious consequences.

I may be dense, but you'd think if they played a serious roll in determining my life I would have picked up on them ... even if they're slippery and tricky at hiding. Puberty produces inner drivings, supposedly like archetypes. If archetypes are behind then you might as well tell me that God, the devil, or both, are behind them. They're that distant from me.

Maybe I just don't get it.
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 Fixed Cross » Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:04 pm

Not able to be decisive of whether this is Archetype in the theoretical sense, I will say the Image Aware-ness speaks of is included in the Kabbalah as the magickal image of Netzach; a beautiful naked woman.

Phoenix Lodge wrote:Netzach: Victory

Symbols: The Lamp, The Girdle, The Rose
Body: Loins, hips, and legs
Virtue: Unselfishness Vice: Unchastity, Lust
Spiritual Experience: Vision of Beauty Triumphant
Magical Image: A beautiful naked woman
Gods: Hathor, Aphrodite, Pan, Venus, Idun, Freja, Rhinnanon, Oengus, Kama, Krishna, Tanith, Ishtar, Ninsig, Tlazolteutl, Hsi Wang Mu


Netzach Attributes.png
Netzach Attributes.png (153 KiB) Viewed 1659 times
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:35 pm

Aware-ness wrote:

I've received training's out the ying-yang (sic), over the years. I learn fast with hands, eyes, and direct brain interface, but I learn for crap during the theory and function processes, of the trainings, without knowing to what they actually refer to.

And that's the same with archetypes. Unless I can get my hands on them, or at least my eyeballs, so I can see them in action, I'm at a loss. In fact, I've lived many decades without knowing anything about them, without serious consequences.

I may be dense, but you'd think if they played a serious roll in determining my life I would have picked up on them ... even if they're slippery and tricky at hiding. Puberty produces inner drivings, supposedly like archetypes. If archetypes are behind then you might as well tell me that God, the devil, or both, are behind them. They're that distant from me.

Maybe I just don't get it.


The strange thing about the unconscious is that we're not conscious of it. What we can become conscious of is the imagery of our own minds.

Unless you suppose that such imagery is created ex nihilo, it must come from somewhere. Jung attributed at least some of this imagery to the existence of something he called the collective unconscious, which would be the deep structure of the mind that is shared by every human being.

Because we’re all human and because we all share the same biological platform, a platform that we share even with animals to a large degree, and these structures are the archetypes.

You can see them reflected in world mythology and religions. You've read Campbell, you know this. My interest is in the imagery as it appears in dreams and the waking imagination. It's a way of understanding oneself more deeply than just thinking about it in words.

And yeah, God and the Devil are among them significantly. Not that long ago I dreamed of a red devil with horns and a tail dragging me down to the basement under the high school I was attending. It was almost comical in it's literality.
Last edited by felix dakat on Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:40 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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Apr 24, 2020 3:39 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Not able to be decisive of whether this is Archetype in the theoretical sense, I will say the Image Aware-ness speaks of is included in the Kabbalah as the magickal image of Netzach; a beautiful naked woman.

Phoenix Lodge wrote:Netzach: Victory

Symbols: The Lamp, The Girdle, The Rose
Body: Loins, hips, and legs
Virtue: Unselfishness Vice: Unchastity, Lust
Spiritual Experience: Vision of Beauty Triumphant
Magical Image: A beautiful naked woman
Gods: Hathor, Aphrodite, Pan, Venus, Idun, Freja, Rhinnanon, Oengus, Kama, Krishna, Tanith, Ishtar, Ninsig, Tlazolteutl, Hsi Wang Mu


Netzach Attributes.png


For sure. An image of the anima from the human male point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Aware-ness » Fri Apr 24, 2020 4:43 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:What does it mean to say they are "just images"? That they are meaningless? That they come from nowhere? That they should be dismissed or ignored or repressed?

In The Essential Jung on p124 Jung speaks of the Sovereign power of primordial images.

Here's a more recent example of the power of images : A guy buys a Playboy, takes it home and opens up the centerfold. There he finds a image of a beautiful young nude woman -- a primordial archetype if there ever was one. His body responds, his member swells, and soon the pages of the Playboy become sticky. He soiled that beautiful primordial archetype. Glad it was just a image ... unless the Playboy model "wants a pearl necklace."

That's an example of how images affect the body, the nervous system, and psyche ... and well, the Playboy pages.

Images have power. But they'er still just images. We endow them with power ... it's a symbiosis powered by us, by some kind of identity with the image.

To answer your question, images can be "dismissed or ignored or repressed," but only until they are triggered by goings-on usually in the unconsciousness of our psychic being.

An example image you may be familiar with : my avatar. What sovereign power does that provoke in your psyche?


In my experience the images are more powerful and more “primordial” than words. In your example you describe an external image not a psychic one. Likewise your avatar. And when you say “an image of a beautiful young nude woman -- a primordial archetype if there ever was one” and “that beautiful primordial archetype” it seems to me that you’re confusing image with archetype. Archetypes produce archetypal images in the consciousness but the archetypes themselves remain unconscious.

I've received training's out the ying-yang (sic), over the years. I learn fast with hands, eyes, and direct brain interface, but I learn for crap during the theory and function processes, of the trainings, without knowing to what they actually refer to.

And that's the same with archetypes. Unless I can get my hands on them, or at least my eyeballs, so I can see them in action, I'm at a loss. In fact, I've lived many decades without knowing anything about them, without serious consequences.

I may be dense, but you'd think if they played a serious roll in determining my life I would have picked up on them ... even if they're slippery and tricky at hiding. Puberty produces inner drivings, supposedly like archetypes. If archetypes are behind then you might as well tell me that God, the devil, or both, are behind them. They're that distant from me.

Maybe I just don't get it.
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 Fixed Cross » Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:19 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Not able to be decisive of whether this is Archetype in the theoretical sense, I will say the Image Aware-ness speaks of is included in the Kabbalah as the magickal image of Netzach; a beautiful naked woman.

Phoenix Lodge wrote:Netzach: Victory

Symbols: The Lamp, The Girdle, The Rose
Body: Loins, hips, and legs
Virtue: Unselfishness Vice: Unchastity, Lust
Spiritual Experience: Vision of Beauty Triumphant
Magical Image: A beautiful naked woman
Gods: Hathor, Aphrodite, Pan, Venus, Idun, Freja, Rhinnanon, Oengus, Kama, Krishna, Tanith, Ishtar, Ninsig, Tlazolteutl, Hsi Wang Mu


Netzach Attributes.png


For sure. An image of the anima from the human male point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus

It is more than likely that Jung derived his concepts from the tree of life, but they are, as they are human product and not of God directly, a reduction. Self-understanding is not what Im in the game for, I want to know the process of Creation employed by God himself. But this is not to demean the effort for wholeness as obviously I love to be whole. For now I think Ive overloaded this thread with my Kabbalistic onslaught, let me step back and let it get back on track.
However if you would go there this would make Yesod the Animus, as the image is "a naked man, very strong".
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:43 pm

To paraphrase Jung, the spirit of the depths of the psyche is at the same time the ruler of the depths of world affairs and as he was ultimately to realize, the spirit and ruler of the cosmos itself in synchronicity.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Apr 24, 2020 11:18 pm

To be sure when one anchors in the depths of ones psyche, ones influence in worldly affairs increases.
Yogis do indeed claim to also be able to control material laws, and recent philosophies state that after mastery of the psyche is complete we get to be world-creators, in the literal sense; creating universes with beings in them like for example, this physical universe of flowers and thorns which supposedly is admired among world creators for its audacity and danger, for being always on the brink.

I find it easy to stay on the side of my own experience and not get carried away, but if we follow Jungs philosophy as you paraphrase it, it is possible. The depths of the psyche would be the same as the Logos itself, and the Logos is conditional to nothing but its own nature. The psyche would be omnipotent except for having to be that particular psyche, which is not Universal because otherwise it could not have changed by attaining enlightenment.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10980
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Wholeness

Postby Aware-ness » Sat Apr 25, 2020 4:22 am

felix dakat wrote:
Aware-ness wrote:

I've received training's out the ying-yang (sic), over the years. I learn fast with hands, eyes, and direct brain interface, but I learn for crap during the theory and function processes, of the trainings, without knowing to what they actually refer to.

And that's the same with archetypes. Unless I can get my hands on them, or at least my eyeballs, so I can see them in action, I'm at a loss. In fact, I've lived many decades without knowing anything about them, without serious consequences.

I may be dense, but you'd think if they played a serious roll in determining my life I would have picked up on them ... even if they're slippery and tricky at hiding. Puberty produces inner drivings, supposedly like archetypes. If archetypes are behind then you might as well tell me that God, the devil, or both, are behind them. They're that distant from me.

Maybe I just don't get it.


The strange thing about the unconscious is that we're not conscious of it. What we can become conscious of is the imagery of our own minds.

Unless you suppose that such imagery is created ex nihilo, it must come from somewhere. Jung attributed at least some of this imagery to the existence of something he called the collective unconscious, which would be the deep structure of the mind that is shared by every human being.

Because we’re all human and because we all share the same biological platform, a platform that we share even with animals to a large degree, and these structures are the archetypes.

You can see them reflected in world mythology and religions. You've read Campbell, you know this. My interest is in the imagery as it appears in dreams and the waking imagination. It's a way of understanding oneself more deeply than just thinking about it in words.

And yeah, God and the Devil are among them significantly. Not that long ago I dreamed of a red devil with horns and a tail dragging me down to the basement under the high school I was attending. It was almost comical in it's literality.

Great response. Thanks. A few thoughts :

All quotes = Felix

The strange thing about the unconscious is that we're not conscious of it.

Buy their very definitions. Of course.

What we can become conscious of is the imagery of our own minds.

Consciousness and unconsciousness happen all the time. For example I'm here is this room and am way more unconscious of my surroundings. By comparison, while at this computer, I'm conscious of very little.

Of course I can scan the room and become conscious of that which has been outside my field of consciousness. But then the computer enters in my unconscious field. I guess I could attempt to scramble it all together ; consciousness of it all at the same time, room, computer, and all. But contrary to the ubiquitous meme of multitasking, we really just end up time-slicing our focus of consciousness.

Consciousness and unconsciousness happen all the time. Thank God. Otherwise the unconsciousness would overload our entire system.

I'd like to comment on more of your post, but think bite sizes are better.

Thanks again for your thoughtful post. Am I out in left field?
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 Aware-ness » Sat Apr 25, 2020 5:36 pm

felix dakat wrote:To paraphrase Jung, the spirit of the depths of the psyche is at the same time the ruler of the depths of world affairs and as he was ultimately to realize, the spirit and ruler of the cosmos itself in synchronicity.

Yes, synchronicity happens. But not all the time. And my synchronicity is not your synchronicity. Mine may not synchronize with yours in the least.

And I doubt very much that Jung's theory of synchronicity as ruler of the cosmos is true at all. Maybe I need to be schooled on the matter.
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 » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:01 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:To be sure when one anchors in the depths of ones psyche, ones influence in worldly affairs increases.
Yogis do indeed claim to also be able to control material laws, and recent philosophies state that after mastery of the psyche is complete we get to be world-creators, in the literal sense; creating universes with beings in them like for example, this physical universe of flowers and thorns which supposedly is admired among world creators for its audacity and danger, for being always on the brink.

I find it easy to stay on the side of my own experience and not get carried away, but if we follow Jungs philosophy as you paraphrase it, it is possible. The depths of the psyche would be the same as the Logos itself, and the Logos is conditional to nothing but its own nature. The psyche would be omnipotent except for having to be that particular psyche, which is not Universal because otherwise it could not have changed by attaining enlightenment.


At a low resolution, it's the proposition that everything is interconnected.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:04 pm

Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Aware-ness wrote:

I've received training's out the ying-yang (sic), over the years. I learn fast with hands, eyes, and direct brain interface, but I learn for crap during the theory and function processes, of the trainings, without knowing to what they actually refer to.

And that's the same with archetypes. Unless I can get my hands on them, or at least my eyeballs, so I can see them in action, I'm at a loss. In fact, I've lived many decades without knowing anything about them, without serious consequences.

I may be dense, but you'd think if they played a serious roll in determining my life I would have picked up on them ... even if they're slippery and tricky at hiding. Puberty produces inner drivings, supposedly like archetypes. If archetypes are behind then you might as well tell me that God, the devil, or both, are behind them. They're that distant from me.

Maybe I just don't get it.


The strange thing about the unconscious is that we're not conscious of it. What we can become conscious of is the imagery of our own minds.

Unless you suppose that such imagery is created ex nihilo, it must come from somewhere. Jung attributed at least some of this imagery to the existence of something he called the collective unconscious, which would be the deep structure of the mind that is shared by every human being.

Because we’re all human and because we all share the same biological platform, a platform that we share even with animals to a large degree, and these structures are the archetypes.

You can see them reflected in world mythology and religions. You've read Campbell, you know this. My interest is in the imagery as it appears in dreams and the waking imagination. It's a way of understanding oneself more deeply than just thinking about it in words.

And yeah, God and the Devil are among them significantly. Not that long ago I dreamed of a red devil with horns and a tail dragging me down to the basement under the high school I was attending. It was almost comical in it's literality.

Great response. Thanks. A few thoughts :

All quotes = Felix

The strange thing about the unconscious is that we're not conscious of it.

Buy their very definitions. Of course.

What we can become conscious of is the imagery of our own minds.

Consciousness and unconsciousness happen all the time. For example I'm here is this room and am way more unconscious of my surroundings. By comparison, while at this computer, I'm conscious of very little.

Of course I can scan the room and become conscious of that which has been outside my field of consciousness. But then the computer enters in my unconscious field. I guess I could attempt to scramble it all together ; consciousness of it all at the same time, room, computer, and all. But contrary to the ubiquitous meme of multitasking, we really just end up time-slicing our focus of consciousness.

Consciousness and unconsciousness happen all the time. Thank God. Otherwise the unconsciousness would overload our entire system.

I'd like to comment on more of your post, but think bite sizes are better.

Thanks again for your thoughtful post. Am I out in left field?


I think of what you described as a gestalt between consciousness and unconsciousness. I don't think that's out in left field at all.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:19 pm

Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:To paraphrase Jung, the spirit of the depths of the psyche is at the same time the ruler of the depths of world affairs and as he was ultimately to realize, the spirit and ruler of the cosmos itself in synchronicity.

Yes, synchronicity happens. But not all the time. And my synchronicity is not your synchronicity. Mine may not synchronize with yours in the least.

And I doubt very much that Jung's theory of synchronicity as ruler of the cosmos is true at all. Maybe I need to be schooled on the matter.


The opposite proposition is that synchronicity happens all the time, we're just not aware of it. That makes more sense to me. The other way, the human psyche is a random anomaly in a meaningless universe. The mind projects meaning on the cosmos where there is none.

I'm proposing that we are embedded in a meaningful world if we have eyes to see it. Jesus in The Gospel of Thomas said "the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the Earth but men do not see it." If that was true in the first century it's exponentially more true in the 21st.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Aware-ness » Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:12 am

felix dakat wrote:
Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:To paraphrase Jung, the spirit of the depths of the psyche is at the same time the ruler of the depths of world affairs and as he was ultimately to realize, the spirit and ruler of the cosmos itself in synchronicity.

Yes, synchronicity happens. But not all the time. And my synchronicity is not your synchronicity. Mine may not synchronize with yours in the least.

And I doubt very much that Jung's theory of synchronicity as ruler of the cosmos is true at all. Maybe I need to be schooled on the matter.

Jesus in The Gospel of Thomas said "the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the Earth but men do not see it." If that was true in the first century it's exponentially more true in the 21st.

I love the GoT, and that's one of my favorite verses in it.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that it's a publication that was produced during the flat earth days. During this present age we have the Hubble telescope, and soon to be the most powerful space telescope ever : the James Webb Space Telescope. Which means there's way more to see, or not see, of the Fathers Kingdom ... and the laws therein, that operate whether we see them or not.

So if Jesus was saying that today, in the 21st c., he would update it and say something like : "the kingdom of the father is spread out in the universe, but humans do not see it."
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 » Sun Apr 26, 2020 6:59 pm

Anyone looking up at night back then could see that synchronicity was going on in heaven, but to the jaundiced eye the situation on Earth looked chaotic even then.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Aware-ness » Mon Apr 27, 2020 7:44 pm

felix dakat wrote:Anyone looking up at night back then could see that synchronicity was going on in heaven, but to the jaundiced eye the situation on Earth looked chaotic even then.

So now that we can see that the Andromeda Galaxy is coming to collide with the Milky Way, that means, we have a jaundiced eye?

And are you saying that the sun coming up in the morning is a synchronicity?
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 27, 2020 8:33 pm

Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Anyone looking up at night back then could see that synchronicity was going on in heaven, but to the jaundiced eye the situation on Earth looked chaotic even then.

So now that we can see that the Andromeda Galaxy is coming to collide with the Milky Way, that means, we have a jaundiced eye?

And are you saying that the sun coming up in the morning is a synchronicity?
I don't see how what I said implies those questions.

However, on second thought, I suppose that according to the Gospel of Thomas it wouldn't be the jaundiced eye that couldn't see the kingdom of the father on earth but rather any eye that is not enlightened by gnosis.
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Aware-ness » Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:47 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Anyone looking up at night back then could see that synchronicity was going on in heaven, but to the jaundiced eye the situation on Earth looked chaotic even then.

So now that we can see that the Andromeda Galaxy is coming to collide with the Milky Way, that means, we have a jaundiced eye?

And are you saying that the sun coming up in the morning is a synchronicity?
I don't see how what I said implies those questions.

However, on second thought, I suppose that according to the Gospel of Thomas it wouldn't be the jaundiced eye that couldn't see the kingdom of the father on earth but rather the eye that is not enlightened by gnosis.


The following is from the pre-edited post by The Kat :

I'm clearly not understanding. When you offered : "The opposite proposition is that synchronicity happens all the time, we're just not aware of it," I was thinking synchronicity happening all the time means even a sunrise in the morning can be an unnoticed synchronicity. I was just wondering.

The jaundiced eye could be taken a couple of ways :

    1) That those with good seeing eyes could see synchronicity in the sky at night, while those with jaundiced eyes could only see chaos.

    or,
    2) Those with jaundiced eyes don't even look at the sky at night, but see only the chaos down here on earth.

I went with #1. Did you mean #2? Anyway, do jaundiced eyes come from Wholelessness?

Maybe we need to define with is meant by synchronicity. And since this thread is about Jung's Wholeness, I'm for now going with this :

"In the theory of synchronicity Jung has given depth psychology the means to potentially unite all of humanity in a common
purpose: the creation of consciousness. In particular, synchronicity as a spiritual path can draw attention to the value of depth psychology for offering a resolution to the spiritual vacuum in the West."
~~Revelations of Spirit: Synchronicity as a Spiritual Path in a Secular Age
https://search.proquest.com/openview/6a927515b8631e9e31dd864f1850bd60/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Last edited by Aware-ness on Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Tue Apr 28, 2020 6:22 pm

Aware-ness

Why are you still asking about the jaundiced eye metaphor after I revised my interpretation to suppose that the saying means any eye that is not enlightened by gnosis cannot see the kingdom of the father spread on the earth?
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: 9001
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users