Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Psychology 101

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
AuthorMessage
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:37 pm

The choice of words exposes the particular 'geography' of the mind.
Its essence.
Philosophy is a discipline that uses words to engage reality, or to express its reactions to it.
Words carry with them psychological attitudes in relation to reality.

Freud shows his own obsession with sexuality when he exposed a human fact. His own Oedipal desires became the framework for an insight that applied to many others...but not all others.
Nietzsche's choice of power must have been rooted in a personal sense of powerlessness, expressed as 'will to power'. This attracted all those with a similar psychology.
Schopenhauer's chose 'will to life'. His lifestyle shows us how much he willed life on his own terms.
Christianity is rooted in a desire to be loved unconditionally, and to remain protected by a parent.
Judaism exposes its need to convert a history of shame to a future pride, and be selected rather than rejected - their history becoming a psychosis.

Using yourself as a standard is risky.
If one does not extricate ego from the process it corrupts the outcome.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:51 am

At its best philosophy expresses existential angst as a desire to know and to understand.
At its worse it projects its existential angst as a need to find the absolute, feeling is as need, for which it suffers.
The 'absent absolute' is the sensation of (inter)activity - Flux.
The mind constructs absolutes in the form of vague noetic abstractions given a symbol/name - ideas.
It then seeks these idea(l)s beyond itself and cannot find them.

The absence of absolutes can take any form, depending on the particular psychology or organic hierarchies, of the organism - individual.
Organ hierarchies = psychology.
In Christianity it takes the form of unconditional love, or omnipotence, or omniscience, attracting all those who have connected their own particular needs to an existential absolute - absolute love, absolute awareness, absolute power.
Nietzsche protests, having been born and raised a Christian, against this slavish need to belong to the absolute, to surrender to it. He formulates an absolute as a personal objective. Man ought to strive to be the absolute - 'Will to Power'.
Absolute power, omniscience, is not to be surrendered to, power through association is shameful, but it ought to be acquired and/or created.
The possibility of its attainment is a secondary issue.
The primary issue is that the absolute is absent (immutability, completion, indivisibility, wholeness, singularity, eternity, perfection...etc.) and it can be imagined in any form, because it is absent.
The imagining comes from the individual organism awakening to this absence in itself.
Nihilists called this absence 'nil', when in fact this absence is a positive because it is existence.

Now philosophy becomes psychology. The reaction to this uncomfortable fact, and the searching for it.
Modern philosophy begins to project into the absence its own abstractions, mirroring their own internal condition externally.
God takes form as an idealized human, later to be secularized as Humanity.
The more abstract forms simply refer to the absent absolute as One, as Being, as supreme essence, spirit, Creator.
Human imagination can project any version of the absolute, because it is absent and no version can be contradicted.
Different versions compete over the hearts and minds of humans, because now it is realized that the absolute cannot be proven, but only believed, and to make a version believable it has to meet certain criteria, depending on what kind of minds you wish to attract.
Will you focus on quality, directing your version of the absolute to a specific demographic, or will it be quantity, directing your version to a universal audience, using the lowest-common-denominator?
The noetic description of the missing absolute will be shaped by this desire.
Making it more vague, more artistic, attracts more minds, each finding in the vagueness the satisfaction of his own particular needs.
Making it more stringent, precise, reduces universal appeal but demands a self-discipline that attracts another type of psychology.
The words/symbols chosen, and the form these symbols/words will give to the absent absolute will determine the type of psychology, the quality and quantities of mind you direct your version to.

What is the absent absolute and why is it absent?
It is the noetic interpretation of phenomena that are synthesized in ways that have no external references and are taken literally rather than as what they are: representations.
Taking them literally convinces the individual mind that his own abstractions exist outside his mind, and then begins the long search for them.
In its extreme, which I have described as Nihilism understood and defined properly, the mental abstractions are an inversion of the real.
Over time these projected absolutes fail to materialize.
The mind cannot abandon them, so it fabricates explanations as to why it has failed to find them.
Imagine a scene where you are looking for your glasses while wearing them - glasses being human fabrications.
The abstraction, is the absolute...and the mind is looking for it outside the mind that created it.
Some methods used are to construct an excuse - a beyond, an occult realm, or to project the absolute into another mind, making it external - idealization or idol worship.
Some blame themselves, explaining the absence as a product of their sinfulness. they have failed to find the absolute because they are unworthy - guilt.
The absolute is not abandoned.
The mind needs absolutes because it can only think using abstractions.
It needs to think of them as correct, as literal, and not as representations, because representations can be flawed, are uncertain.
To use one's own abstractions as they were meant to be, as approximations, as translations, as interpretations, requires a particular kind of psychology - an artistic mind but also an honest, and courageous mind, governed by integrity.
A mind that can ride the wave of existence, on its noetic board, shifting its mass to harmonize with the flow. A mind that knows there is no beach, no final solid destination to find peace and to rest.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:56 am

When an idea lacks substance and any relation to reality, it seeks refuge in flowery prose, and ambiguous language.
The creator fills in its emptiness with his own good intentions and passions, attracting to it those who are impoverished, in this respect, or have been traumatized by them, and have lost trust in themselves.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:57 am

Self-contradiction is how the imbecile implies his genius, and the fool escapes his misunderstanding.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Feb 02, 2018 2:18 pm

Every generation has its own cult exploiting the disenfranchised, the lost, and the desperate.
Every generation has its own method of dealing with society's 'losers', those unable, or unwilling, to submit to authority, Particularly a faceless, impersonal authority called natural order.
Every generation needs its own hipster/hippies, sex drugs and rock-n' roll alienated youth.
Nihilism produces it by the droves, when it offers an alternative to naturally selected exclusions, and a detachment from reality that all crave, especially in their immature adolescent rebellious stage of development.
With no fathers, or no good fathers, connecting them to the past; no anchoring in a family, a heritage, all the alienated are looking for solutions to their predicament.
They find them in gurus telling them what they want to hear; telling them what their fathers could not, and would not.

Mostly immature, having failed to go through the rituals of ascent, boys populate this segment of society in greater numbers than females.
Females may go through it, for a short time, and then integrate into the system smoothly, whereas boys cannot with such ease.....because they are the expendable sex, and the most towards all forms of external order.
They reject a father's authority, when they share blood with him, as part of their maturation process, so they cannot tolerate authority that comes with the face of a stranger, or is faceless, like an idea imposed upon them through institutional power.
They consider anything that imposes its will upon them, anything that hurts their pride, their feelings, presents itself as a limit, a boundary to their power, as being an attack upon their ego.
They prefer the promising positivism of pleasure, of chaotic possibilities, the feminine way of manipulating boys - they think of their resistance a rebelling against natural order - not called God, but nature, only they have to give it a face, and they find it in humanity.
God is converted to humanity and humanity is converted to world.
Upon it they project their resentment, their fears, and their hopes and dreams.
Having no experience with cruel love, a father's love, they consider all truth that threatens a cruelty they cannot endure.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:29 pm

With no realistic, 'realistic' not idealistic, positive father-figures role-models, children grow-fucked up.
They become stuck, retarded in their psychological development. Their bodies mature, but their minds remain child-like.

Girls, particularly European girls, grow-up believing in these movie idol, pop-culture idealized icons, which are usually caricaturing European males and portraying them as buffoons or sleeze-bags.
Men grow up looking-up to pop-idols, from rock'n'roll to Nietzsche, desperate for someone to look-up to and to be given direction from; praise, an example to emulate.
If not in movies then in books.
Women fall for the first bullshit artist who sort-of pretends to be one of those pop-culture idols they believe are real.
They think a 'good man' is someone who pretends, lies and never says anything bad, or never contradicts the popular norms. A douche-bag.
She's accepted an example that is so fantastic there is no chance she'll ever find anyone remotely like that, and when she does he'll turn-out to be a hypocrite who can maintain the performance only for so long before the image begins to shatter.  
Men have it worse.
The current feminization has returned mankind to primordial sexual practices where most of them will be excluded from any possibility of finding a mate, let alone passing on their genes, unless they have the 'misfortune' of being born with no pride and no integrity, making them prime candidates for becoming that douche-bag I mentioned earlier.
The rest have no real male figures to emulate, and to go through the natural stages of maturation.
Boys grow-up worshipping their fathers, then fearing them, then hating them, before they forgive them, and themselves, and realize how much they owe to them.
Boys become men by overcoming their father's imperfections.
But icons have no flaws and absent fathers can do no wrong, cannot be real, because they remain unreal.
Dead idols cannot contradict the image others have of them.
It's a necessary cycle every male has to go through before he can become a man.
But boys today only have imaginary icons, or idols they find in books, or in movie theatres, or on stages.
Ideals they cannot hope live-up to but can only imitate.
Icons they can never surpass, because they aren't real enough to be overcome.
So they are stuck in adolescence, looking for an alternate father figure - something tangible, someone real.
They can never become men because they can never become better than those unrealistic, exaggerated ideals.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:15 pm

What is the ego but the tip of an expanding, dark, pyramid, extending back in space/time until it makes contact with that mysterious moment when life first emerged on this planet?
Know Thyself is its timeless command.
An urging to make that tiny lucid tip larger, deeper, broader.
To know is not to understand but it is a necessary part of understanding, because without knowledge, stored in memory, how can we find the patterns and make the juxtapositions to find understanding?

Self does not begin at birth but it may find an end in death if it is not reaffirmed.
Self is a chain of causation, linking the individual's ego with a dark foreboding past, hiding within the pyramid.
Some will be pleasant, and flattering but most will be insulting and difficult to accept.
This makes the process a matter of great importance, and personal. Not many can accomplish it.
It requires stamina and the courage to look at what will make you uncomfortable enough to want to turn away.
It's easy to live life only selectively looking for the positive, the pleasing, the ego inflating.
Easy enough to be a common practice.
A philosopher must peer into those dark spaces nobody can endure looking into, and he begins by peering into himself as honestly as he can.
If this cannot be done, then everything he does and thinks afterwards is meaningless escapism.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:47 pm

The crybaby demands attention, but the crazy retard always receives it....no matter what.
Try to sit in a room with a retard in it without being mesmerized, along with veryone else, bu him/her.
You can't.

Crying babies can be ignored with some effort. In fact, it is recommended that we do so, otherwise they grow up to be communists cunts.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:49 pm

Through the depths of time the mediocre masses have been manipulated by charlatans using semiotics to exploit their ignorance and the anxiety, before the incomprehensible, this produced.
Superstition came easy to the inferior developed psyche.
All it knew was that the world was full of what it could not explain, and that the best explanation was one that felt good, was hopeful, positive, and fed into its base instincts.

The past is not gone.
The past is present, as it always has been and always will be.
In every age these masses thought of themselves in the highest terms, calling themselves moderns, and enlightened in comparison to those that had come before, and there were always those worms around to exploit them with mind-games and word-juggling.
A lie is preferable to the truth when the truth is so frightening and indifferent to the plight of the common man.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:53 pm

To the lost, the self, in its most shallow, trivial, form, is all that is left to hang onto.
They inflate it to make it seem more substantial; redefining it to make their state of being lost into a profound finding.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:05 am

From Jung's Aion...a description of the ego:

Jung wrote:
Investigation of the psychology of the unconscious confronted me with facts which required the formulation of new concepts. One of these concepts is the self. The entity so denoted is not meant to take the place of the one that has always been known as the ego, but includes it in a supraordinate concept.
We understand the ego as the complex factor to which all conscious contents are related. It forms, as it were, the centre of the field of consciousness; and, in so far as this comprises the empirical personality, the ego is the subject of all personal acts of consciousness. The relation of a psychic content to the ego forms the criterion of its consciousness, for no content can be conscious unless it is represented to a subject.
With this definition we have described and delimited the scope of the subject. Theoretically, no limits can be set to the field of consciousness, since it is capable of indefinite extension.
Empirically, however, it always finds its limit when it comes up against the unknown. This consists of everything we do not know, which, therefore, is not related to the ego as the centre of the field of consciousness. The unknown falls into two groups of objects: those which are outside and can be experienced by the senses, and those which are inside and are experienced immediately.
The first group comprises the unknown in the outer world; the second the unknown in the inner world. We call this latter territory the unconscious.
The ego, as a specific content of consciousness, is not a simple or elementary factor but a complex one which, as such, cannot be described exhaustively. Experience shows that it rests on two seemingly different bases: the somatic and the psychic.
The somatic basis is inferred from the totality of endosomatic perceptions, which for their part are already of a psychic nature and are associated with the ego, and are therefore conscious.
They are produced by endosomatic stimuli, only some of which cross the threshold of consciousness. A considerable proportion of these stimuli occur unconsciously, that is, subliminally. The fact that they are subliminal does not necessarily mean that their status is merely physiological, any more than this would be true of a psychic content. Sometimes they are capable of crossing the threshold, that is, of becoming perceptions. But there is no doubt that a large proportion of these endosomatic stimuli are simply incapable of consciousness and are so elementary that there is no reason to assign them a psychic nature—unless of course one favours the philosophical view that all life-processes are psychic anyway. The chief objection to this hardly demonstrable hypothesis is that it enlarges the concept of the psyche
beyond all bounds and interprets the life-process in a way not absolutely warranted by the facts. Concepts that are too broad usually prove to be unsuitable instruments because they are too
vague and nebulous. I have therefore suggested that the term "psychic" be used only where there is evidence of a will capable of modifying reflex or instinctual processes. Here I must refer
the reader to my paper "On the Nature of the Psyche," * where I have discussed this definition of the "psychic" at somewhat greater length.
The somatic basis of the ego consists, then, of conscious and unconscious factors. The same is true of the psychic basis: on the one hand the ego rests on the total field of consciousness, and on the other, on the sum total of unconscious contents.
These fall into three groups: first, temporarily subliminal contents that can be reproduced voluntarily (memory); second, unconscious contents that cannot be reproduced voluntarily; third, contents that are not capable of becoming conscious at all.
Group two can be inferred from the spontaneous irruption of subliminal contents into consciousness. Group three is hypothetical; it is a logical inference from the facts underlying group two. It contains contents which have not yet irrupted into consciousness, or which never will.
When I said that the ego "rests" on the total field of consciousness I do not mean that it consists of this. Were that so, it would be indistinguishable from the field of consciousness as a whole. The ego is only the latter's point of reference, grounded on and limited by the somatic factor described above, Although its bases are in themselves relatively unknown and unconscious, the ego is a conscious factor par excellence. It is even acquired, empirically speaking, during the individual's lifetime. It seems to arise in the first place from the collision between the somatic factor and the environment, and, once established as a subject, it goes on developing from further collisions with the outer world and the inner.
Despite the unlimited extent of its bases, the ego is never more and never less than consciousness as a whole. As a conscious factor the ego could, theoretically at least, be described completely. But this would never amount to more than a picture of the conscious personality; all those features which are unknown or unconscious to the subject would be missing. A total picture would have to include these. But a total description of the personality is, even in theory, absolutely impossible, because the unconscious portion of it cannot be grasped cognitively.
This unconscious portion, as experience has abundantly shown, is by no means unimportant. On the contrary, the most decisive qualities in a person are often unconscious and can be perceived only by others, or have to be laboriously discovered with outside help.
Clearly, then, the personality as a total phenomenon does not coincide with the ego, that is, with the conscious personality, but forms an entity that has to be distinguished from the ego. Naturally the need to do this is incumbent only on a psychology that reckons with the fact of the unconscious, but for such a
psychology the distinction is of paramount importance. Even for jurisprudence it should be of some importance whether certain psychic facts are conscious or not—for instance, in adjudging the question of responsibility.
I have suggested calling the total personality which, though present, cannot be fully known, the self. The ego is, by definition, subordinate to the self and is related to it like a part to the whole. Inside the field of consciousness it has, as we say, free will. By this I do not mean anything philosophical, only the well-known psychological fact of "free choice," or rather the subjective feeling of freedom. But, just as our free will clashes with necessity in the outside world, so also it finds its limits outside the field of consciousness in the subjective inner world, where it comes into conflict with the facts of the self. And just as circumstances or outside events "happen" to us and limit our freedom, so the self acts upon the ego like an objective occurrence which free will can do very little to alter. It is, indeed, well
known that the ego not only can do nothing against the self, but is sometimes actually assimilated by unconscious components of the personality that are in the process of development and
is greatly altered by them.
It is, in the nature of the case, impossible to give any general description of the ego except a formal one. Any other mode of observation would have to take account of the individuality which attaches to the ego as one of its main characteristics. Although the numerous elements composing this complex factor are, in themselves, everywhere the same, they are infinitely varied as regards clarity, emotional colouring, and scope. The result of their combination—the ego—is therefore, so far as one can judge, individual and unique, and retains its identity up to a certain point. Its stability is relative, because far-reaching changes of personality can sometimes occur. Alterations of this kind need not always be pathological; they can also be developmental and hence fall within the scope of the normal.
Since it is the point of reference for the field of consciousness, the ego is the subject of all successful attempts at adaptation so far as these are achieved by the will. The ego therefore has a significant part to play in the psychic economy. Its position there is so important that there are good grounds for the prejudice that the ego is the centre of the personality, and that the field of consciousness is the psyche per se. If we discount certain suggestive ideas in Leibniz, Kant, Schelling, and Schopenhauer, and the philosophical excursions of Carus and von Hartmann, it is only since the end of the nineteenth century that modern psychology, with its inductive methods, has discovered the foundations of consciousness and proved empirically the existence of a psyche outside consciousness. With this discovery the position of the ego, till then absolute, became relativized; that is to say, though it retains its quality as the centre of the field of consciousness, it is questionable whether it is the centre of the personality. It is part of the personality but not the whole of it.
As I have said, it is simply impossible to estimate how large or how small its share is; how free or how dependent it is on the qualities of this "extra-conscious" psyche. We can only say that its freedom is limited and its dependence proved in ways that are often decisive. In my experience one would do well not to
underestimate its dependence on the unconscious. Naturally there is no need to say this to persons who already overestimate the latter's importance. Some criterion for the right measure is afforded by the psychic consequences of a wrong estimate, a point to which we shall return later on.
" We have seen that, from the standpoint of the psychology of consciousness, the unconscious can be divided into three groups of contents. But from the standpoint of the psychology of the personality a twofold division ensues: an "extra-conscious" psyche whose contents are personal, and an "extra conscious" psyche whose contents are impersonal and collective. The first group comprises contents which are integral components of the individual personality and could therefore just as well be conscious;
the second group forms, as it were, an omnipresent, unchanging, and everywhere identical quality or substrate of the psyche per se. This is, of course, no more than a hypothesis. But we are driven to it by the peculiar nature of the empirical material, not to mention the high probability that the general similarity of psychic processes in all individuals must be based on an equally general and impersonal principle that conforms to law, just as the instinct manifesting itself in the individual is only the partial manifestation of an instinctual substrate common to all men.

---Aion

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:43 pm

Superstition was always a way of offering to the masses the feeling that they knew something nobody knew, or that they understood something only a few could understand and those kept it a secret.
It attracted the lost, and the ignorant, who found in its narratives a source fo gratification and a means of placating anxieties.
For example those unable to follow the complexity of reasoning in psychology, resorted to astrology as a way of covering their inadequacy with a vague insinuation.
In alchemy we find the mineralogical equivalent to astrological insights and practices.
In Modern times the masses return to past, less sophisticated periods to find validation for what they then justify in the present by redefining and re-framing definitions of words to accommodate their ignorance.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:47 pm

Jung agrees with my positions.

Ego = awareness of self.
Self-Consciousnesses. It's the lucid part of what we call 'self'.

Consciousness = awareness of other.
Outwardly focused. Data coming from other outside world through the senses.
Subconscious =  data coming from the inside - body.
Body is a manifestation of the past. The past made present - presence.
Appearance = presence interpreted. The present, phenomenon, translated into noumenon - idea.
Self = synthesis of ego and subconscious. Subconscious is divided into the interactions (experiences) after birth, but also the collective unconscious or memories stored and passed in to the individual as DNA - genes.
Memes, in this context are the socioeconomic principles, or the environment.
Only the human species creates an artificial environment, sometimes contradicting the natural environment it usurps, or buries.
I've already provided a definition of artificial in relation to natural environments. As with all definitions in my philosophy it has to do with degree, not absolutes, since I deny the rejection of absolutes outside linguistic referring to abstractions in the mind.

Will = the focus of the aggregate energies upon an objective.
This is only possible in living emergent unities.
Everything else cannot be called a unity, but a congruity, so as to differentiate the intentional form the coincidental.
The mind perceives balanced congruities  and projects into them its own intent.
Congruities such as molecules or particles do not require intent, since natural processes suffice to explain them.
I've given a short theory on how this is possible in my thesis [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
 
Spirit or Soul are words referring to this ego/self/will dynamic.  

Jung's 'collective unconscious'  I call 'Self, differentiating it from self.
self = interactions, stored as experiences since the ambiguous of conception, starting the processes we call individual life, or organism.
Self = transmitted as DNA carrying the collective memories of every interactions that preceded this ambiguous event/moment.

Know Thyself is given a meaning.
To know is to become aware of the self/Self.
To know is the necessary requirement making understanding possible, but not guarantying it.
Knowing = collection and storage of data/memories.
Understanding = the perception of patterns, within the data/memories establishing a behaviour - meaning is found.

I use the word 'character' to refer to the memetic type an individual learns to act-out. Part of the relationship of self with socioeconomic environment. Only social species can acquire a character because only they are forces to adjust their self to the necessities of others participating in a cooperative collective.
Character is the social mask an individual wears. It becomes a second 'nature' in time.  

I've also provided a pragmatic definition for the word '[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'.
All words can be redefined, remaining loyal only to their dictionary, or their conventional definitions, but to give them meaning you must connect this conventional definition to a real world phenomenon, without using non-observable, occult references, while at the same time harmonizing the mental models with the observable world.
Not to follow this restriction would be to surrender to need, and justify definitions on the basis of emotion or a preconceived idea. An easy cop-out, only made challenging by the need to then make the final product convincing to a particular kind of mind.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:15 am

Man calls divine the incomprehensible; the unpredictable.
He believes it is all hidden order in complexity, and is partly correct, but to placate his fears he ignores the chaotic random, the forever incomprehensible and unpredictable.

He is so addicted to hidden order that even the comprehensible he intentionally misinterprets and reinterprets to project into it an element of the incomprehensible, to make the obvious more mysterious because it does not satisfy him.
With the divine he mystifies what is simple, to merge it with what is wonderfully complex, so as to deal with chaos.
If nothing is clear then even chaos hides a secret order, waiting to be discovered by the few, the worthy ones.
Such minds would rather exist in blissful ignorance than in a world where they are partially aware.
The ignorant, and partially aware, become the victims of those who claim absolute knowledge of the occult, secret order.
Their partial awareness is sacrificed to the promise of an absolute.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:34 am

Jung, Carl wrote:
THE SHADOW
Whereas the contents of the personal unconscious are acquired during the individual's lifetime, the contents of the collective unconscious are invariably archetypes that were present from the beginning. Their relation to the instincts has been discussed elsewhere.
The archetypes most clearly characterized from the empirical point of view are those which have the most
frequent and the most disturbing influence on the ego. These are the shadow, the anima, and the animus. The most accessible of these, and the easiest to experience, is the shadow, for its nature can in large measure be inferred from the contents of the personal unconscious. The only exceptions to this rule are those rather rare cases where the positive qualities of the personality are repressed, and the ego in consequence plays an essentially negative or unfavourable role.
H The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge, and it therefore, as a rule, meets with considerable resistance. Indeed, self-knowledge as a psychotherapeutic measure frequently requires much painstaking work extending over a long period.
* Closer examination of the dark characteristics—that is, the inferiorities constituting the shadow—reveals that they have an emotional nature, a kind of autonomy, and accordingly an obsessive or, better, possessive quality. Emotion, incidentally, is not an activity of the individual but something that happens to
him. Affects occur usually where adaptation is weakest, and at the same time they reveal the reason for its weakness, namely a certain degree of inferiority and the existence of a lower level of personality. On this lower level with its uncontrolled or scarcely controlled emotions one behaves more or less like a primitive, who is not only the passive victim of his affects but also singularly incapable of moral judgment.
Although, with insight and good will, the shadow can to some extent be assimilated into the conscious personality, experience shows that there are certain features which offer the most obstinate resistance to moral control and prove almost impossible to influence. These resistances are usually bound up with
projections, which are not recognized as such, and their recognition is a moral achievement beyond the ordinary. While some traits peculiar to the shadow can be recognized without too much difficulty as one's own personal qualities, in this case both insight and good will are unavailing because the cause of the
emotion appears to lie, beyond all possibility of doubt, in the other person. No matter how obvious it may be to the neutral observer that it is a matter of projections, there is little hope that the subject will perceive this himself. He must be convinced that he throws a very long shadow before he is willing to withdraw his emotionally-toned projections from their object.
*Let us suppose that a certain individual shows no inclination whatever to recognize his projections. The projection-making factor then has a free hand and can realize its object—if it has one—or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power. As we know, it is not the conscious subject but the unconscious which does the projecting. Hence one meets with projections, one does not make them. The effect of projection is to isolate the subject from his environment, since instead of a real relation to it there is now only an illusory one. Projections change the world into the replica of one's own unknown face. In the last analysis, therefore, they lead to an autoerotic or autistic condition in which one dreams a world whose reality remains forever unattainable. The resultant sentiment d'incompletude and the still worse feeling of sterility are in their turn explained by projection as the malevolence of the environment, and by means of this vicious circle the isolation is intensified. The more projections are thrust in between the subject and the environment, the harder it is for the ego to see through its illusions. A forty-five-year-old patient who had suffered from a compulsion neurosis since he was twenty and had become completely cut off from the world once said to me: "But I can never admit to myself that I've wasted the best twenty-five years of my life!"
It is often tragic to see how blatantly a man bungles his own life and the lives of others yet remains totally incapable of seeing how much the whole tragedy originates in himself, and how he continually feeds it and keeps it going. Not consciously, of course—for consciously he is engaged in bewailing and cursing a
faithless world that recedes further and further into the distance.
Rather, it is an unconscious factor which spins the illusions that veil his world. And what is being spun is a cocoon, which in the end will completely envelop him.
One might assume that projections like these, which are so very difficult if not impossible to dissolve, would belong to the realm of the shadow—that is, to the negative side of the personality.
This assumption becomes untenable after a certain point, because the symbols that then appear no longer refer to the same but to the opposite sex, in a man's case to a woman and vice versa. The source of projections is no longer the shadow—which is always of the same sex as the subject—but a contrasexual
figure. Here we meet the animus of a woman and the anima of a man, two corresponding archetypes whose autonomy and unconsciousness explain the stubbornness of their projections. Though the shadow is a motif as well known to mythology as anima and animus, it represents first and foremost the personal unconscious, and its content can therefore be made conscious without too much difficulty. In this it differs from anima and animus, for whereas the shadow can be seen through and recognized fairly easily, the anima and animus are much further away from consciousness and in normal circumstances are seldom if ever realized. With a little self-criticism one can see through the shadow—so far as its nature is personal. But when it appears as an archetype, one encounters the same difficulties as with anima and animus. In other words, it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature,
but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil.
---Aion

Self/self projects upon other what the ego then discovers reflected back.

"Personal Unconscious" = self
"Collective Unconscious" = Self

Ego discovers what the Self/self projected into the alien other.
It sees its-self reflected back.
It's own "shadow".

The concept of God is clarified as the projection of an idealized Self - Self/self synthesized into a singular concept, represented by the word.
It is a representation of the immutable determining past, representing God as absolute order, and integrating its contradiction 'chaos' as the unfathomable, deceiving 'evil'.
Evil comes to represent randomness, or the incomprehensible....and by it  being given a name/symbol it is made less distressing. Its counter-intuitive essence challenges intuition, which associates itself with absolute order, or 'good'.

The synthesis of order/chaos, good/evil, tin/yang, is conceptualized as the mysterious.
Chaos is absorbed into order, and given meaning, purpose; it is justified in relation to order.
The believer is comforted by this sleight of mind trick.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:00 am

Religions begin as cults feeding into the insecurities and the hopes, to deal with them, of the lowest segments of society.
The desperate, the ignorant, the emotionally driven, the retarded, the ill, the needy.
Among them words acquire a special magical essence, because only by manipulating words can they hope to believe they are controlling an indifferent, harsh, cosmos.
Scientology is the most well-known example.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:45 am

Jung, Carl wrote:
Ill
THE SYZYGY: ANIMA AND ANIMUS
2° What, then, is this projection-making factor? The East calls it the "Spinning Woman" x—Maya, who creates illusion by her dancing. Had we not long since known it from the symbolism of dreams, this hint from the Orient would put us on the right track: the enveloping, embracing, and devouring element points unmistakably to the mother,2 that is, to the son's relation to the real mother, to her imago, and to the woman who is to become a mother for him. His Eros is passive like a child's; he hopes to be caught, sucked in, enveloped, and devoured. He seeks, as it were, the protecting, nourishing, charmed circle of the mother, the condition of the infant released from every care, in which the outside world bends over him and even forces happiness upon him. No wonder the real world vanishes from sight!
If this situation is dramatized, as the unconscious usually dramatizes it, then there appears before you on the psychological stage a man living regressively, seeking his childhood and his mother, fleeing from a cold cruel world which denies him understanding.
Often a mother appears beside him who apparently shows not the slightest concern that her little son should become a man, but who, with tireless and self-immolating effort, neglects nothing that might hinder him from growing up and marrying.
You behold the secret conspiracy between mother and son, and how each helps the other to betray life.
Where does the guilt lie? With the mother, or with the son?
Probably with both. The unsatisfied longing of the son for life and the world ought to be taken seriously. There is in him a desire to touch reality, to embrace the earth and fructify the field of the world. But he makes no more than a series of fitful starts, for his initiative as well as his staying power are crippled
by the secret memory that the world and happiness may be had as a gift—from the mother. The fragment of world which he, like every man, must encounter again and again is never quite the right one, since it does not'fall into his lap, does not meet him half way, but remains resistant, has to be conquered, and submits only to force. It makes demands on the masculinity of a man, on his ardour, above all on his courage and resolution when it comes to throwing his whole being into the scales. For this he would need a faithless Eros, one capable of forgetting his mother and undergoing the pain of relinquishing the first love
of his life. The mother, foreseeing this danger, has carefully inculcated into him the virtues of faithfulness, devotion, loyalty, so as to protect him from the moral disruption which is the risk of every life adventure. He has learnt these lessons only too well, and remains true to his mother. This naturally causes her the deepest anxiety (when, to her greater glory, he turns out to be a homosexual, for example) and at the same time affords her an unconscious satisfaction that is positively mythological. For, in the relationship now reigning between them, there is consummated the immemorial and most sacred archetype of the marriage of mother and son. What, after all, has commonplace reality to offer, with its registry offices, pay envelopes, and monthly rent, that could outweigh the mystic awe of the hieros gamos? Or the star-crowned woman whom the dragon pursues, or the pious obscurities veiling the marriage of the Lamb?
This myth, better than any other, illustrates the nature of the collective unconscious. At this level the mother is both old and young, Demeter and Persephone, and the son is spouse and sleeping suckling rolled into one. The imperfections of real life, with its laborious adaptations and manifold disappointments,
naturally cannot compete with such a state of indescribable fulfilment.
In the case of the son, the projection-making factor is identical with the mother-imago, and this is consequently taken to be the real mother. The projection can only be dissolved when the son sees that in the realm of his psyche there is an imago not only of the mother but of the daughter, the sister, the beloved,the heavenly goddess, and the chthonic Baubo. Every mother and every beloved is forced to become the carrier and embodiment of this omnipresent and ageless image, which corresponds
to the deepest reality in a man. It belongs to him, this perilous image of Woman; she stands for the loyalty which in the interests of life he must sometimes forgo; she is the much needed compensation for the risks, struggles, sacrifices that all end in disappointment; she is the solace for all the bitterness of life.
And, at the same time, she is the great illusionist, the seductress, who draws him into life with her Maya and not only into life's reasonable and useful aspects, but into its frightful paradoxes and ambivalences where good and evil, success and ruin, hope and despair, counterbalance one another. Because she is his
greatest danger she demands from a man his greatest, and if he has it in him she will receive it.
This image is "My Lady Soul," as Spitteler called her. I have suggested instead the term "anima," as indicating something specific, for which the expression "soul" is too general and too
vague. The empirical reality summed up under the concept of the anima forms an extremely dramatic content of the unconscious.
It is possible to describe this content in rational, scientific language, but in this way one entirely fails to express its living character. Therefore, in describing the living processes of the psyche, I deliberately and consciously give preference to a dramatic, mythological way of thinking and speaking, because this is not only more expressive but also more exact than an abstract scientific terminology, which is wont to toy with the notion that its theoretic formulations may one fine day be resolved into algebraic equations.
* The projection-making factor is the anima, or rather the unconscious as represented by the anima. Whenever she appears, in dreams, visions, and fantasies, she takes on personified form, thus demonstrating that the factor she embodies possesses all the outstanding characteristics of a feminine being.
She is not an invention of the conscious, but a spontaneous product of the unconscious. Nor is she a substitute figure for the mother. On the contrary, there is every likelihood that the numinous qualities
which make the mother-imago so dangerously powerful derive from the collective archetype of the anima, which is incarnated anew in every male child.
Since the anima is an archetype that is found in men, it is reasonable to suppose that an equivalent archetype must be present in women; for just as the man is compensated by a feminine element, so woman is compensated by a masculine one. I do not, however, wish this argument to give the impression that these compensatory relationships were arrived at by deduction. On the contrary, long and varied experience was needed in order to grasp the nature of anima and animus empirically.
Whatever we have to say about these archetypes, therefore, is either directly verifiable or at least rendered probable by the facts. At the same time, I am fully aware that we are discussing pioneer work which by its very nature can only be provisional.
Just as the mother seems to be the first carrier of the projection-making factor for the son, so is the father for the daughter.
Practical experience of these relationships is made up of many individual cases presenting all kinds of variations on the same basic theme. A concise description of them can, therefore, be no more than schematic.
Woman is compensated by a masculine element and therefore her unconscious has, so to speak, a masculine imprint. This results in a considerable psychological difference between men and women, and accordingly I have called the projection-making factor in women the animus, which means mind or spirit.
The animus corresponds to the paternal Logos just as the anima corresponds to the maternal Eros. But I do not wish or intend to give these two intuitive concepts too specific a definition.
I use Eros and Logos merely as conceptual aids to describe the fact that woman's consciousness is characterized more by the connective quality of Eros than by the discrimination and cognition associated with Logos. In men, Eros, the function of relationship, is usually less developed than Logos. In women, on the other hand, Eros is an expression of their true nature, while their Logos is often only a regrettable accident. It gives rise to misunderstandings and annoying interpretations in the family circle and among friends. This is because it consists of opinions instead of reflections, and by opinions I mean a priori assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth. Such assumptions, as everyone knows, can be extremely irritating. As the animus is partial to argument, he can best be seen at work in disputes where both parties know they are right. Men can argue in a very womanish way, too, when they are anima-possessed and have thus been transformed into the animus of their own anima.
With them the question becomes one of personal vanity and touchiness (as if they were females); with women it is a question of power, whether of truth or justice or some other "ism"—for the dressmaker and hairdresser have already taken care of their vanity. The "Father" (i.e., the sum of conventional opinions)
always plays a great role in female argumentation. No matter how friendly and obliging a woman's Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she is ridden by the animus. Often the man has the feeling—and he is not altogether wrong—that only seduction or a beating or rape would have the necessary power of persuasion. He is unaware that this highly dramatic situation would instantly come to a banal and unexciting end if he were to quit the field and let a second woman carry on the battle (his wife, for instance, if she herself is not the fiery war horse).
This sound idea seldom or never occurs to him, because no man can converse with an animus for five minutes without becoming the victim of his own anima. Anyone who still had enough sense of humour to listen objectively to the ensuing dialogue would be staggered by the vast number of commonplaces, misapplied truisms, cliches from newspapers and novels, shopsoiled platitudes of every description interspersed with vulgar abuse and brain-splitting lack of logic. It is a dialogue which, irrespective of its participants, is repeated millions and millions of times in all the languages of the world and always remains essentially the same.
3° This singular fact is due to the following circumstance: when animus and anima meet, the animus draws his sword of power and the anima ejects her poison of illusion and seduction.
The outcome need not always be negative, since the two are equally likely to fall in love (a special instance of love at first sight). The language of love is of astonishing uniformity, using the well-worn formulas with the utmost devotion and fidelity,so that once again the two partners find themselves in a banal collective situation. Yet they live in the illusion that they are related to one another in a most individual way.
In both its positive and its negative aspects the anima/animus relationship is always full of "animosity," i.e., it is emotional, and hence collective. Affects lower the level of the relationship and bring it closer to the common instinctual basis, which no longer has anything individual about it. Very often the relationship
runs its course heedless of its human performers, who afterwards do not know what happened to them.
Whereas the cloud of "animosity" surrounding the man is composed chiefly of sentimentality and resentment, in woman it expresses itself in the form of opinionated views, interpretations, insinuations, and misconstructions, which all have the purpose (sometimes attained) of severing the relation between
two human beings.
The woman, like the man, becomes wrapped in a veil of illusions by her demon-familiar, and, as the daughter who alone understands her father (that is, is eternally right in everything), she is translated to the land of sheep, where she is put to graze by the shepherd of her soul, the animus.
Like the anima, the animus too has a positive aspect.
Through the figure of the father he expresses not only conventional opinion but—equally—what we call "spirit," philosophical or religious ideas in particular, or rather the attitude resulting from them. Thus the animus is a psychopomp, a mediator between the conscious and the unconscious and a personification
of the latter. Just as the anima becomes, through integration, the Eros of consciousness, so the animus becomes a Logos; and in the same way that the anima gives relationship and relatedness to a man's consciousness, the animus gives to woman's consciousness a capacity for reflection, deliberation, and self knowledge.
The effect of anima and animus on the ego is in principle the same. This effect is extremely difficult to eliminate because, in the first place, it is uncommonly strong and immediately fills the ego-personality with an unshakable feeling of Tightness and righteousness. In the second place, the cause of the effect is projected and appears to lie in objects and objective situations.
Both these characteristics can, I believe, be traced back to the peculiarities of the archetype. For the archetype, of course, exists a priori. This may possibly explain the often totally irrational yet undisputed and indisputable existence of certain moods and opinions. Perhaps these are so notoriously difficult to influence because of the powerfully suggestive effect emanating from the archetype. Consciousness is fascinated by it, held captive, as if hypnotized. Very often the ego experiences a vague feeling of moral defeat and then behaves all the more defensively, defiantly, and self-righteously, thus setting up a vicious circle which only increases its feeling of inferiority. The bottom is then knocked out of the human relationship, for, like megalomania, a feeling of inferiority makes mutual recognition impossible, and without this there is no relationship.
As I said, it is easier to gain insight into the shadow than into the anima or animus. With the shadow, we have the advantage of being prepared in some sort by our education, which has always endeavoured to convince people that they are not one-hundred-per-cent pure gold. So everyone immediately understands
what is meant by "shadow," "inferior personality," etc. And if he has forgotten, his memory can easily be refreshed by a Sunday sermon, his wife, or the tax collector. With the anima and animus, however, things are by no means so simple.
Firstly, there is no moral education in this respect, and secondly, most people are content to be self-righteous and prefer mutual vilification (if nothing worse!) to the recognition of their projections.
Indeed, it seems a very natural state of affairs for men to have irrational moods and women irrational opinions. Presumably this situation is grounded on instinct and must remain as it is to ensure that the Empedoclean game of the hate and love of the elements shall continue for all eternity. Nature is conservative and does not easily allow her courses to be altered; she defends in the most stubborn way the inviolability of the preserves where anima and animus roam. Hence it is much more difficult to become conscious of one's anima/animus projections than to acknowledge one's shadow side. One has, of course, to overcome certain moral obstacles, such as vanity, ambition, conceit, resentment, etc., but in the case of projections all sorts of purely intellectual difficulties are added, quite apart from the contents of the projection which one simply doesn't know how to cope with. And on top of all this there arises a profound
doubt as to whether one is not meddling too much with nature's business by prodding into consciousness things which it would have been better to leave asleep.
Although there are, in my experience, a fair number of people who can understand without special intellectual or moral difficulties what is meant by anima and animus, one finds very many more who have the greatest trouble in visualizing these empirical concepts as anything concrete. This shows that they
fall a little outside the usual range of experience. They are unpopular precisely because they seem unfamiliar. The consequence is that they mobilize prejudice and become taboo likeeverything else that is unexpected. So if we set it up as a kind of requirement that projections should be dissolved, because it is wholesomer that way and in every respect more advantageous, we are entering upon new ground. Up till now everybody has been convinced that the idea "my father," "my mother," etc., is nothing but a faithful reflection of the real parent, corresponding in every detail to the original, so that when someone says "my father" he means no more and no less than what his father is in reality. This is actually
what he supposes he does mean, but a supposition of identity by no means brings that identity about. This is where the fallacy of the enkekalymmenos ('the veiled one') comes in.
If one includes in the psychological equation X's picture of his father, which he takes for the real father, the equation will not work out, because the unknown quantity he has introduced does not tally with reality. X has overlooked the fact that his idea of a person consists, in the first place, of the possibly very incomplete
picture he has received of the real person and, in the second place, of the subjective modifications he has imposed upon this picture. X's idea of his father is a complex quantity for which the real father is only in part responsible, an indefinitely larger share falling to the son. So true is this that every time he
criticizes or praises his father he is unconsciously hitting back at himself, thereby bringing about those psychic consequences that overtake people who habitually disparage or overpraise themselves. If, however, X carefully compares his reactions with reality, he stands a chance of noticing that he has miscalculated somewhere by not realizing long ago from his father's behaviour that the picture he has of him is a false one. But as a rule X is convinced that he is right, and if anybody is wrong it must be
the other fellow. Should X have a poorly developed Eros, he will be either indifferent to the inadequate relationship he has with his father or else annoyed by the inconsistency and general incomprehensibility of a father whose behaviour never really corresponds to the picture X has of him. Therefore X thinks he has every right to feel hurt, misunderstood, and even betrayed.
One can imagine how desirable it would be in such cases to dissolve the projection. And there are always optimists who believe that the golden age can be ushered in simply by telling people the right way to go. But just let them try to explain to these people that they are acting like a dog chasing its own tail. To make a person see the shortcomings of his attitude considerably more than mere "telling" is needed, for more is involved than ordinary common sense can allow. What one is up against here is the kind of fateful misunderstanding which, under ordinary conditions, remains forever inaccessible to insight. It is rather like expecting the average respectable citizen to recognize himself as a criminal.
I mention all this just to illustrate the order of magnitude to which the anima/animus projections belong, and the moral and intellectual exertions that are needed to dissolve them. Not all the contents of the anima and animus are projected, however.
Many of them appear spontaneously in dreams and so on, and many more can be made conscious through active imagination.
In this way we find that thoughts, feelings, and affects are alive in us which we would never have believed possible. Naturally, possibilities of this sort seem utterly fantastic to anyone who has not experienced them himself, for a normal person "knows what he thinks." Such a childish attitude on the part of the "normal person" is simply the rule, so that no one without experience in this field can be expected to understand
the real nature of anima and animus. With these reflections one gets into an entirely new world of psychological experience, provided of course that one succeeds in realizing it in practice.
Those who do succeed can hardly fail to be impressed by all that the ego does not know and never has known. This increase in self-knowledge is still very rare nowadays and is usually paid for in advance with a neurosis, if not with something worse.
4° The autonomy of the collective unconscious expresses itself in the figures of anima and animus. They personify those of its contents which, when withdrawn from projection, can be integrated into consciousness. To this extent, both figures represent functions which filter the contents of the collective unconscious through to the conscious mind. They appear or behave as such, however, only so long as the tendencies of the conscious and unconscious do not diverge too greatly. Should any tension arise, these functions, harmless till then, confront the conscious mind in personified form and behave rather like systems split off from the personality, or like part souls. This comparison is inadequate in so far as nothing previously belonging to the ego personality has split off from it; on the contrary, the two figures represent a disturbing accretion. The reason for their behaving in this way is that though the contents of anima and animus can be integrated they themselves cannot, since they are archetypes.
As such they are the foundation stones of the psychic structure, which in its totality exceeds the limits of consciousness and therefore can never become the object of direct cognition.
Though the effects of anima and animus can be made conscious, they themselves are factors transcending consciousness and beyond the reach of perception and volition. Hence they remain autonomous despite the integration of their contents, and for this reason they should be borne constantly in mind. This is extremely important from the therapeutic standpoint, because constant observation pays the unconscious a tribute that more or less guarantees its co-operation. The unconscious as we know can never be "done with" once and for all. It is, in fact, one of the most important tasks of psychic hygiene to pay continual
attention to the symptomatology of unconscious contents and processes, for the good reason that the conscious mind is always in danger of becoming one-sided, of keeping to well-worn paths and getting stuck in blind alleys. The complementary and compensating function of the unconscious ensures that these dangers, which are especially great in neurosis, can in some measure be avoided. It is only under ideal conditions, when life is still simple and unconscious enough to follow the serpentine path of instinct without hesitation or misgiving, that the compensation works with entire success. The more civilized, the more unconscious and complicated a man is, the less he is able to follow his instincts. His complicated living conditions and the influence of his environment are so strong that they drown the quiet voice of nature. Opinions, beliefs, theories, and collective tendencies appear in its stead and back up all the aberrations of the conscious mind. Deliberate attention should then be given to the unconscious so that the compensation can set to work. Hence it is especially important to picture the archetypes of the unconscious not as a rushing phantasmagoria of fugitive images but as constant, autonomous factors, which indeed they are.
Both these archetypes, as practical experience shows, possess a fatality that can on occasion produce tragic results. They are quite literally the father and mother of all the disastrous entanglements
of fate and have long been recognized as such by the whole world. Together they form a divine pair,5 one of whom, in accordance with his Logos nature, is characterized by pneuma and nous, rather like Hermes with his ever-shifting hues, while the other, in accordance with her Eros nature, wears the features
of Aphrodite, Helen (Selene), Persephone, and Hecate. Both of them are unconscious powers, "gods" in fact, as the ancient world quite rightly conceived them to be. To call them by this name is to give them that central position in the scale of psychological values which has always been theirs whether consciously
acknowledged or not; for their power grows in proportion to the degree that they remain unconscious. Those who do not see them are in their hands, just as a typhus epidemic flourishes best when its source is undiscovered. Even in Christianity the divine syzygy has not become obsolete, but occupies the highest place as Christ and his bride the Church. Parallels like these prove extremely helpful in our attempts to find the right criterion for gauging the significance of these two archetypes.
What we can discover about them from the conscious side is so slight as to be almost imperceptible. It is only when we throw light into the dark depths of the psyche and explore the strange and tortuous paths of human fate that it gradually becomes clear to us how immense is the influence wielded by these two factors that complement our conscious life.
Recapitulating, I should like to emphasize that the integration of the shadow, or the realization of the personal unconscious, marks the first stage in the analytic process, and that without it a recognition of anima and animus is impossible. The shadow can be realized only through a relation to a partner, and anima and animus only through a relation to a partner of the opposite sex, because only in such a relation do their projections become operative. The recognition of the anima gives rise, in a man, to a triad, one third of which is transcendent: the masculine subject, the opposing feminine subject, and the transcendent
anima. With a woman the situation is reversed. The missing fourth element that would make the triad a quaternity is, in a man, the archetype of the Wise Old Man, which I have not discussed here, and in a woman the Chthonic Mother.
These four constitute a half immanent and half transcendent quaternity, an archetype which I have called the marriage quaternio. The marriage quaternio provides a schema not only for the self but also for the structure of primitive society with its cross-cousin marriage, marriage classes, and division of settlements into quarters. The self, on the other hand, is a Godimage, or at least cannot be distinguished from one. Of this the early Christian spirit was not ignorant, otherwise Clement of Alexandria could never have said that he who knows himself knows God.
---Aion

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:37 pm

Jung, Carl wrote:
IV
THE SELF
We shall now turn to the question of whether the increase in self-knowledge resulting from the withdrawal of impersonal projections—in other words, the integration of the contents of the collective unconscious—exerts a specific influence on the egopersonality.
To the extent that the integrated contents are parts of the self, we can expect this influence to be considerable.
Their assimilation augments not only the area of the field of consciousness but also the importance of the ego, especially when, as usually happens, the ego lacks any critical approach to the unconscious. In that case it is easily overpowered and becomes identical with the contents that have been assimilated.
In this way, for instance, a masculine consciousness comes under the influence of the anima and can even be possessed by her.
I have discussed the wider effects of the integration of unconscious contents elsewhere and can therefore omit going into details here. I should only like to mention that the more numerous and the more significant the unconscious contents which are assimilated to the ego, the closer the approximation of the ego
to the self, even though this approximation must be a never ending process. This inevitably produces an inflation of the ego, unless a critical line of demarcation is drawn between it and the unconscious figures. But this act of discrimination yields practical results only if it succeeds in fixing reasonable boundaries to the ego and in granting the figures of the unconscious—the self, anima, animus, and shadow—relative autonomy and reality (of a psychic nature). To psychologize this reality out of existence either is ineffectual, or else merely increases the inflation of the ego. One cannot dispose of facts by declaring them unreal.
The projection-making factor, for instance, has undeniable reality. Anyone who insists on denying it becomes identical with it, which is not only dubious in itself but a positive danger to the well-being of the individual. Everyone who has dealings with such cases knows how perilous an inflation can be. No more than a flight of steps or a smooth floor is needed to precipitate a fatal fall. Besides the "pride goeth before a fall" motif there are other factors of a no less disagreeable psychosomatic and psychic nature which serve to reduce "puffed-up-ness." This condition should not be interpreted as one of conscious self-aggrandizement.
Such is far from being the rule. In general we are not directly conscious of this condition at all, but can at best infer its existence indirectly from the symptoms. These include the reactions of our immediate environment. Inflation magnifies the blind spot in the eye, and the more we are assimilated by the projection-making factor, the greater becomes the tendency to identify with it. A clear symptom of this is our growing disinclination to take note of the reactions of the environment and pay heed to them.
It must be reckoned a psychic catastrophe when the ego is assimilated by the self. The image of wholeness then remains in the unconscious, so that on the one hand it shares the archaic nature of the unconscious and on the other finds itself in the psychically relative space-time continuum that is characteristic of the unconscious as such.Both these qualities are numinous and hence have an unlimited determining effect on ego-consciousness, which is differentiated, i.e., separated, from the unconscious and moreover exists in an absolute space and an absolute time. It is a vital necessity that this should be so. If, therefore, the ego falls for any length of time under the control of an unconscious factor, its adaptation is disturbed and the way opened for all sorts of possible accidents.
Hence it is of the greatest importance that the ego should be anchored in the world of consciousness and that consciousness should be reinforced by a very precise adaptation. For this, certain virtues like attention, conscientiousness, patience, etc.,are of great value on the moral side, just as accurate observation of the symptomatology of the unconscious and objective selfcriticism are valuable on the intellectual side.
However, accentuation of the ego personality and the world of consciousness may easily assume such proportions that the figures of the unconscious are psychologized and the self consequently becomes assimilated to the ego. Although this is the exact opposite of the process we have just described it is followed by the same result: inflation. The world of consciousness must now be levelled down in favour of the reality of the unconscious.
In the first case, reality had to be protected against an archaic, "eternal" and "ubiquitous" dream-state; in the second, room must be made for the dream at the expense of the world of consciousness. In the first case, mobilization of all the virtues is indicated; in the second, the presumption of the ego can only
be damped down by moral defeat. This is necessary, because otherwise one will never attain that median degree of modesty which is essential for the maintenance of a balanced state. It is not a question, as one might think, of relaxing morality itself but of making a moral effort in a different direction. For instance, a man who is not conscientious enough has to make a moral effort in order to come up to the mark; while for one who is sufficiently rooted in the world through his own efforts it is no small moral achievement to inflict defeat on his virtues by loosening his ties with the world and reducing his adaptive performance (One thinks in this connection of Brother Klaus, now canonized, who for the salvation of his soul left his wife to her own devices, along with numerous progeny.)
Since real moral problems all begin where the penal code leaves off, their solution can seldom or never depend on precedent, much less on precepts and commandments. The real moral problems spring from conflicts of duty. Anyone who is sufficiently humble, or easy-going, can always reach a decision with the help of some outside authority. But one who trusts others as little as himself can never reach a decision at all, unless it is brought about in the manner which Common Law calls an "Act of God." The Oxford Dictionary defines this concept as the "action of uncontrollable natural forces." In all such cases there is an unconscious authority which puts an end to doubt by creating a fait accompli. (In the last analysis this is true also ofthose who get their decision from a higher authority, only in more veiled form.) One can describe this authority either as the "will of God" or as an "action of uncontrollable natural forces," though psychologically it makes a good deal of difference how one thinks of it. The rationalistic interpretation of this inner authority as "natural forces" or the instincts satisfies the modern intellect but has the great disadvantage that the apparent victory of instinct offends our moral self-esteem; hence we like to persuade ourselves that the matter has been decided solely by the rational motions of the will. Civilized man has such a fear of the "crimen laesae maiestatis humanae" that whenever possible he indulges in a retrospective coloration of the facts in order to cover up the feeling of having suffered a moral defeat.
He prides himself on what he believes to be his self-control and the omnipotence of his will, and despises the man who lets himself be outwitted by mere nature.
If, on the other hand, the inner authority is conceived as the "will of God" (which implies that "natural forces" are divine forces), our self-esteem is benefited because the decision then appears to be an act of obedience and the result a divine intention.
This way of looking at it can, with some show of justice, be accused not only of being very convenient but of cloaking moral laxity in the mantle of virtue. The accusation, however, is justified only when one is in fact knowingly hiding one's own egoistic opinion behind a hypocritical facade of words. But this is by no means the rule, for in most cases instinctive tendencies assert themselves for or against one's subjective interests no matter whether an outside authority approves or not. The inner authority does not need to be consulted first, as it is present at the outset in the intensity of the tendencies struggling for decision.
In this struggle the individual is never a spectator only; he takes part in it more or less "voluntarily" and tries to throw the weight of his feeling of moral freedom into the scales of decision. Nevertheless, it remains a matter of doubt how much his seemingly free decision has a causal, and possibly unconscious,
motivation. This may be quite as much an "act of God" as any natural cataclysm. The problem seems to me unanswerable, because we do not know where the roots of the feeling of moral freedom lie; and yet they exist no less surely than the instincts, which are felt as compelling forces.All in all, it is not only more beneficial but more "correct" psychologically to explain as the "will of God" the natural forces that appear in us as instincts. In this way we find ourselves living in harmony with the habitus of our ancestral psychic life; that is, we function as man has functioned at all times and in all places. The existence of this habitus is proof of its viability, for, if it were not viable, all those who obeyed it would long since have perished of maladaptation. On the other hand, by conforming to it one has a reasonable life expectancy. When
an habitual way of thinking guarantees as much as this there is not only no ground for declaring it incorrect but, on the contrary, every reason to take it as "true" or "correct" in the psychological sense. Psychological truths are not metaphysical insights; they are habitual modes of thinking, feeling, and behaving which experience has proved appropriate and useful.
So when I say that the impulses which we find in ourselves should be understood as the "will of God," I wish to emphasize that they ought not to be regarded as an arbitrary wishing and willing, but as absolutes which one must learn how to handle correctly. The will can control them only in part. It may be able to suppress them, but it cannot alter their nature, and what is suppressed comes up again in another place in altered form, but this time loaded with a resentment that makes the otherwise harmless natural impulse our enemy. I should also like the term "God" in the phrase "the will of God" to be understood not so much in the Christian sense as in the sense intended by Diotima, when she said: "Eros, dear Socrates, is a mighty daemon." The Greek words daimon and daimonion express a determining power which comes upon man from outside, like providence or fate, though the ethical decision is left to man. He must know, however, what he is deciding about and what he is doing. Then, if he obeys he is following not just his own opinion, and if he rejects he is destroying not just his own invention.
The purely biological or scientific standpoint falls short in psychology because it is, in the main, intellectual only. That this should be so is not a disadvantage, since the methods of natural science have proved of great heuristic value in psychological research. But the psychic phenomenon cannot be grasped in its totality by the intellect, for it consists not only of meaning but also of value, and this depends on the intensity of the accompanying feeling-tones. Hence at least the two "rational" functions B are needed in order to map out anything like a complete diagram of a given psychic content.
If, therefore, in dealing with psychic contents one makes allowance not only for intellectual judgments but for value judgments as well, not only is the result a more complete picture of the content in question, but one also gets a better idea of the particular position it holds in the hierarchy of psychic contents in general. The feeling-value is a very important criterion which psychology cannot do without, because it determines in large measure the role which the content will play in the psychic economy. That is to say, the affective value gives the measure of the intensity of an idea, and the intensity in its turn expresses that idea's energic tension, its effective potential. The shadow, for instance, usually has a decidedly negative feeling-value, while the anima, like the animus, has more of a positive one.
Whereas the shadow is accompanied by more or less definite and describable feeling-tones, the anima and animus exhibit feeling qualities that are harder to define. Mostly they are felt to be fascinating or numinous. Often they are surrounded by an atmosphere of sensitivity, touchy reserve, secretiveness, painful intimacy, and even absoluteness.
The relative autonomy of the anima- and animus-figures expresses itself in these qualities. In order of affective rank they stand to the shadow very much as the shadow stands in relation to ego-consciousness. The main affective emphasis seems to lie on the latter; at any rate it is able, by means of a considerable expenditure of energy, to repress the shadow, at least temporarily. But if for any reason the unconscious gains the upper hand, then the valency of the shadow and of the other figures increases proportionately, so that the scale of values is reversed. What lay furthest away from waking consciousness and seemed unconscious assumes, as it were, a threatening shape, and the affective value increases the higher up the scale you go: ego-consciousness, shadow, anima, self. This reversal of the conscious waking state occurs regularly during the transition from waking to sleeping, and what then emerge most vividly are the very things that were unconscious by day. Every abaissement du niveau mental brings about a relative reversal of values.I am speaking here of the subjective feeling-value, which is subject to the more or less periodic changes described above.
But there are also objective values which are founded on a consensus omnium—moral, aesthetic, and religious values, for instance, and these are universally recognized ideals or feeling toned collective ideas (Levy-Bruhl's "representations collectives").
The subjective feeling-tones or "value quanta" are easily recognized by the kind and number of constellations, or symptoms of disturbance, they produce. Collective ideals often have no subjective feeling-tone, but nevertheless retain their feeling-value. This value, therefore, cannot be demonstrated by subjective symptoms, though it may be by the attributes attaching to these collective ideas and by their characteristic symbolism, quite apart from their suggestive effect.
The problem has a practical aspect, since it may easily happen that a collective idea, though significant in itself, is—because of its lack of subjective feeling-tone—represented in a dream only by a subsidiary attribute, as when a god is represented by his theriomorphic attribute, etc.
Conversely, the idea may appear in consciousness lacking the affective emphasis that properly belongs to it, and must then be transposed back into its archetypal context—a task that is usually discharged by poets and prophets. Thus Holderlin, in his "Hymn to Liberty," lets this concept, worn stale by frequent use and misuse, rise up again in its pristine splendour:
Since her arm out of the dust has raised me,
Beats my heart so boldly and serene;
And my cheek still tingles with her kisses,
Flushed and glowing where her lips have been.
Every word she utters, by her magic
Rises new-created, without flaw;
Hearken to the tidings of my goddess,
Hearken to the Sovereign, and adore!

It is not difficult to see here that the idea of liberty has been changed back to its original dramatic state—into the shiningfigure of the anima, freed from the weight of the earth and the tyranny of the senses, the psychopomp who leads the way to the Elysian fields.
The first case we mentioned, where the collective idea is represented in a dream by a lowly aspect of itself, is certainly the more frequent: the "goddess" appears as a black cat, and the Deity as the lapis exilis (stone of no worth). Interpretation then demands a knowledge of certain things which have less to do with zoology and mineralogy than with the existence of an historical consensus omnium in regard to the object in question.
These "mythological" aspects are always present, even though in a given case they may be unconscious. If for instance one doesn't happen to recall, when considering whether to paint the garden gate green or white, that green is the colour of life and hope, the symbolic aspect of "green" is nevertheless present as an unconscious sous-entendu. So we find something which has the highest significance for the life of the unconscious standing lowest on the scale of conscious values, and vice versa. The figure of the shadow already belongs to the realm of bodiless phantoms—not to speak of anima and animus, which do not seem to appear at all except as projections upon our fellow human beings.
As for the self, it is completely outside the personal sphere, and appears, if at all, only as a religious mythologem, and its symbols range from the highest to the lowest. Anyone who identifies with the daylight half of his psychic life will therefore declare the dreams of the night to be null and void, notwithstanding that the night is as long as the day and that all consciousness is manifestly founded on unconsciousness, is rooted in it and every night is extinguished in it. What is more, psychopathology knows with tolerable certainty what the unconscious can do to the conscious, and for this reason devotes to the unconscious an attention that often seems incomprehensible to the layman. We know, for instance, that what is small by day is big at night, and the other way round; thus we also know that besides the small by day there always looms the big by night, even when it is invisible.
This knowledge is an essential prerequisite for any integration—that is to say a content can only be integrated when its double aspect has become conscious and when it is grasped not merely intellectually but understood according to its feeling-value. Intellect and feeling, however, are difficult to put into one harness—they conflict with one another by definition. Whoever identifies with an intellectual standpoint will occasionally find his feeling confronting him like an enemy in the guise of the anima; conversely, an intellectual animus will make violent attacks on the feeling standpoint. Therefore, anyone who wants to achieve the difficult feat of realizing something not only intellectually, but also according to its feeling-value, must for better or worse come to grips with the anima /animus problem in order to open the way for a higher union, a coniunctio oppositorum.
This is an indispensable prerequisite for wholeness.
Although "wholeness" seems at first sight to be nothing but an abstract idea (like anima and animus), it is nevertheless empirical in so far as it is anticipated by the psyche in the form of spontaneous or autonomous symbols. These are the quaternity or mandala symbols, which occur not only in the dreams of modern people who have never heard of them, but are widely disseminated in the historical records of many peoples and many epochs. Their significance as symbols of unity and totality is amply confirmed by history as well as by empirical psychology.
What at first looks like an abstract idea stands in reality for something that exists and can be experienced, that demonstrates its a priori presence spontaneously. Wholeness is thus an objective factor that confronts the subject independently of him, like anima or animus; and just as the latter have a higher position in the hierarchy than the shadow, so wholeness lays claim to a position and a value superior to those of the syzygy. The syzygy seems to represent at least a substantial portion of it, if not actually two halves of the totality formed by the royal brothersister pair, and hence the tension of opposites from which the divine child is born as the symbol of unity.
Unity and totality stand at the highest point on the scale of objective values because their symbols can no longer be distinguished from the imago Dei. Hence all statements about the God-image apply also to the empirical symbols of totality. Experience shows that individual mandalas are symbols of order, and that they occur in patients principally during times of psychic disorientation or re-orientation. As magic circles they bind and subdue the lawless powers belonging to the world of darkness, and depict or create an order that transforms the chaos into a cosmos. The mandala at first comes into the conscious mind as an unimpressive point or dot, and a great deal of hard and painstaking work as well as the integration of many projections are generally required before the full range of the symbol can be anything like completely understood. If this insight were purely intellectual it could be achieved without much difficulty, for the world-wide pronouncements about the God within us and above us, about Christ and the corpus mysticum, the personal and suprapersonal atman, etc., are all formulations that can easily be mastered by the philosophic intellect. This is the common source of the illusion that one is then in possession of the thing itself. But actually one has acquired nothing more than its name, despite the age-old prejudice that the name magically represents the thing, and that it is sufficient to pronounce the name in order to posit the thing's existence. In the course of the millennia the reasoning mind has been given every opportunity to see through the futility of this conceit, though that has done nothing to prevent the intellectual mastery of a thing from being accepted at its face value. It is precisely our experiences in psychology which demonstrate as plainly as could be wished that the intellectual "grasp" of a psychological fact produces no more than a concept of it, and that a concept is no more than a name, a flatus vocis. These intellectual counters can be bandied about easily enough. They pass lightly from hand to hand, for they have no weight or substance. They sound full but are hollow; and though purporting to designate a heavy task and obligation, they commit us to nothing. The intellect is undeniably useful in its own field, but is a great cheat and illusionist outside of it whenever it tries to manipulate values.
It would seem that one can pursue any science with the intellect alone except psychology, whose subject—the psyche—has more than the two aspects mediated by sense-perception and thinking. The function of value—feeling—is an integral part of our conscious orientation and ought not to be missing in a psychological judgment of any scope, otherwise the model we are trying to build of the real process will be incomplete. Every psychic process has a value quality attached to it, namely its feeling-tone. This indicates the degree to which the subject is affected by the process or how much it means to him (in so far as the process reaches consciousness at all). It is through the "affect" that the subject becomes involved and so comes to feel the whole weight of reality. The difference amounts roughly to that between a severe illness which one reads about in a textbook and the real illness which one has. In psychology one possesses nothing unless one has experienced it in reality. Hence a purely intellectual insight is not enough, because one knows only the words and not the substance of the thing from inside.
There are far more people who are afraid of the unconscious than one would expect. They are even afraid of their own shadow. And when it comes to the anima and animus, this fear turns to panic. For the syzygy does indeed represent the psychic contents that irrupt into consciousness in a psychosis (most clearly of all in the paranoid forms of schizophrenia). The overcoming of this fear is often a moral achievement of unusual magnitude, and yet it is not the only condition that must be fulfilled on the way to a real experience of the self.
The shadow, the syzygy, and the self are psychic factors of which an adequate picture can be formed only on the basis of a fairly thorough experience of them. Just as these concepts arose out of an experience of reality, so they can be elucidated only by further experience. Philosophical criticism will find everything to object to in them unless it begins by recognizing that they are concerned with facts, and that the "concept" is simply an abbreviated description or definition of these facts.
Such criticism has as little effect on the object as zoological criticism on a duck-billed platypus. It is not the concept that matters; the concept is only a word, a counter, and it has meaning and use only because it stands for a certain sum of experience.
Unfortunately I cannot pass on this experience to my public.
I have tried in a number of publications, with the help of case material, to present the nature of these experiences and also the method of obtaining them. Wherever my methods were really applied the facts I give have been confirmed. One could see the moons of Jupiter even in Galileo's day if one took the trouble to use his telescope.
Outside the narrower field of professional psychology these figures meet with understanding from all who have any knowledge of comparative mythology. They have no difficulty in recognizing the shadow as the adverse representative of the dark chthonic world, a figure whose characteristics are universal. The syzygy is immediately comprehensible as the psychic prototype of all divine couples. Finally the self, on account of its empirical peculiarities, proves to be the eidos behind the supreme ideas of unity and totality that are inherent in all monotheistic and monistic systems.
I regard these parallels as important because it is possible, through them, to relate so-called metaphysical concepts, which have lost their root connection with natural experience, to living, universal psychic processes, so that they can recover their true and original meaning. In this way the connection is reestablished between the ego and projected contents now formulated as "metaphysical" ideas. Unfortunately, as already said, the fact that metaphysical ideas exist and are believed in does nothing to prove the actual existence of their content or of the object they refer to, although the coincidence of idea and reality in the form of a special psychic state, a state of grace, should not be deemed impossible, even if the subject cannot bring it about by an act of will. Once metaphysical ideas have lost their capacity
to recall and evoke the original experience they have not only become useless but prove to be actual impediments on the road to wider development. One clings to possessions that have once meant wealth; and the more ineffective, incomprehensible, and lifeless they become the more obstinately people cling to
them. (Naturally it is only sterile ideas that they cling to; living ideas have content and riches enough, so there is no need to cling to them.) Thus in the course of time the meaningful turns into the meaningless. This is unfortunately the fate of metaphysical ideas.
Today it is a real problem what on earth such ideas can mean. The world—so far as it has not completely turned its back on tradition—has long ago stopped wanting to hear a "message"; it would rather be told what the message means. The words that resound from the pulpit are incomprehensible and cry for an explanation. How has the death of Christ brought us redemption when no one feels redeemed? In what way is Jesus a Godman and what is such a being? What is the Trinity about, and the parthenogenesis, the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood, and all the rest of it? What connection can there be between the world of such concepts and the everyday world, whose material reality is the concern of natural science on the widest possible scale?
At least sixteen hours out of twenty-four we live exclusively in this everyday world, and the remaining eight we spend preferably in an unconscious condition. Where and when does anything take place to remind us even remotely of phenomena like angels, miraculous feedings, beatitudes, the resurrection of the dead, etc.?
It was therefore something of a discovery to find that during the unconscious state of sleep intervals occur, called "dreams," which occasionally contain scenes having a not inconsiderable resemblance to the motifs of mythology. For myths are miracle tales and treat of all those things which, very often, are also objects of belief.
In the everyday world of consciousness such things hardly exist; that is to say, until 1933 only lunatics would have been found in possession of living fragments of mythology. After this date the world of heroes and monsters spread like a devastating fire over whole nations, proving that the strange world of myth
had suffered no loss of vitality during the centuries of reason and enlightenment. If metaphysical ideas no longer have such a fascinating effect as before, this is certainly not due to any lack of primitivity in the European psyche, but simply and solely to the fact that the erstwhile symbols no longer express what is
now welling up from the unconscious as the end-result of the development of Christian consciousness through the centuries.
This end-result is a true antimimon pneuma, a false spirit of arrogance, hysteria, woolly-mindedness, criminal amorality, and doctrinaire fanaticism, a purveyor of shoddy spiritual goods, spurious art, philosophical stutterings, and Utopian humbug, fit only to be fed wholesale to the mass man of today. That is what the post-Christian spirit looks like.
---Aion

After reading this we should keep in mind Jung's Christian upbringing.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Abrahamism has been the dominant mythology, in the west, for over 2,000 years.
Christianity absorbed Pagan myths, and adopted them to its Nihilism.
Modern man has lost all mythos, and so is floating in cognitive limbo - lostness.
The average man needs a religious myth to simplify complex philosophical insights.
With no Abrahamism the average Modern seeks alternatives in other mythologies, making himself vulnerable to all kinds of charlatans selling delusions.  
Marxism was once such a refuge, and currently it is post-modernity with its own narratives.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:58 am

Every cult, before it becomes a religion, is faced with the moment when its self-referential 'logic' confronts the real, from which it samples and inverts.
Christianity deals with it with an emotional appeal to the believer's needs.
A 'leap of faith' to prove how dedicated to the lie he is. A testing of his faith.
Jesus must be accepted in your heart before the 'logic' of the testament begins to make sense to the desperate believer.
In Scientology it comes in the form of a secret reserved only for the worthy few. After a period of testing and priming, the initiate is taken into a room, with the utmost seriousness and formality and is given documents revealing the cult's secret 'wisdom', its underlying special knowledge.
Then, after being milked and invested it is confronted with something irrational, yet, at the same time completely plausible.
A 'truth' so extraordinary, so fantastic that it has to remain a secret.
It's the moment when the believer proves his or her commitment. How much is he/her willing to sacrifice, in reason, to be saved by a lie?
In Modern dialectics the big lie is that the mind constructs reality using symbols/words... that all is subjective... that man or the organism that can use language (logos) is a god.
A seductive lie appealing to emasculated males, for the most part, and promoted by the tribes that benefit from such lies – parasites that feed on mind and its zombification.
Insecurity is replaced by an undeserved faith-based arrogance, but the believer has all the emotional reasons not to care. Returning to its natural state is a damnation, a suicide.
Through the cult's twist of reasoning, its hyperbole the lie takes on a magical aura, transform the believer to a magical being that transcends the world.
In times of decay, like our own, such needy manimals are everywhere – lost, desperate, needing, desiring, awaiting a positive lie, good tidings, a saviour.
Saul took Jesus' emotionally triggering positivity and twisted it into a seductive lie, appealing to the slaves, the ill, the, lost, the desperate across tribal lines, across time and space.
But the lie cannot fool the world, but only a segment of it. It can only seduce the organism that, through logos, needs the lie to cope with the world.
They become their own 'world' – an echo chamber, constructing a logistic womb, to procreate, within its boundaries an alternate world populated by alternate being.

In the place of a wilful authority natural order is given a will that can be overcome.
Modern Transhumanism is this rebellion against nature, or natural order. Man using un-reason to defeat reason.
Where, other than in the mind can natural order be re-synthesized, and over-turned (inverted).
'Laws of logic' were created to discipline the mind to this order, because the temptation to rebel is to great when desperation is overpowering; overturning time/space is easy when it occurs in the mind, and the desire to feel powerful too dominating in the powerless and those disturbed and insulted by nature.
In the mind (subjectivity) can a mind accomplish such a feat.
In the mind (noetically) can it ignore natural forces that prevent it from actualizing the desirable.
Nihilism remains effective only in theory - spreading from mind to mind as a method (way), partially and selectively sampling from reality, but trying to evade it because any contact with it would shatter its effect.
It begins with the lie, the absolute, or some mental construct and then emotes backward, selecting where and when to integrate reality by redefining it, noetically processing it until it no longer contradicts the pre-made idea(l).
The artistry of the hypocrite. You have to be born with it. An innate ability to lie to one's own self, before you can transfer this to another, selling your lie as his truth; a reduced sense of integrity and shame, to not be embarrassed by self-deceit.
The other, desperate enough, and talent-less with the material of lies (language), adopts the lie as his/her own truth. Whatever misgivings and doubts linger are quickly dispelled by appeals to vanity, to authority, to desire, to need.
Husbandry's psychology's tools of exploiting the herds.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:03 am

Science as extension of philosophy is the mind engaging world directly - consciousness.
The self relating to otherness.

Psychology is an extension of metaphysics. The mind engaging its own conscious and unconscious reactions to the world - self-consciousness.
Because consciousness precedes self-consciousness, and because the self is mostly unknown and automated reactivity, metaphysics draws heavily from physics, the rational, conscious, relationship of mind with world.

Phenomena is the objective of the former, and noumena, of the latter.
Self is the subjective relating to world and to itself reacting to world.
Self is the causal continuum, stored as memory, relating to the ongoing interaction with other and with subconscious processes/memories reacting to the ongoing interaction with other - exoteric/esoteric.  
Going through the self to engage reality exposes the self to itself, in the reflected form of imagery gathered from its conscious interpretation of otherness.
Its selection of imagery, symbols, language, metaphors, icons are a psychological testimonial.

Science = conscious relation of self to world - physics.
Philosophy acquires empirical, objective criteria.Mind engages world directly, through sensual data.
Psychology = subconscious relation of self with world - metaphysics.
Philosophy acquires subjective criteria. Mind engages world indirectly, through subconscious data borrowing from the sensual its imagery, symbols icons.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:20 am

On the ontology of Abrahamism...

Jung, Carl wrote:
It is equally impious to say that evil has its origin from God, because the contrary cannot proceed from the contrary. Life does not engender death, darkness is not the origin of light, sickness is not the maker of health. . . . Now if evil is neither uncreated nor created by God, whence comes its nature? That evil exists no one living in the world will deny. What shall we say, then? That evil is not a living and animated entity, but a condition [Sia&o-is] of the soul opposed to virtue, proceeding from light-minded [paOvfiots] persons on account of their falling away from good. . . . Each of us should acknowledge that he is the first author of the wickedness in him.
The perfectly natural fact that when you say "high" you immediately postulate "low" is here twisted into a causal relationship and reduced to absurdity, since it is sufficiently obvious that darkness produces no light and light produces no darkness.
The idea of good and evil, however, is the premise for any moral judgment. They are a logically equivalent pair of opposites and, as such, the sine qua non of all acts of cognition. From the empirical standpoint we cannot say more than this. And from this standpoint we would have to assert that good and evil, being
coexistent halves of a moral judgment, do not derive from one another but are always there together. Evil, like good, belongs to the category of human values, and we are the authors of moral value judgments, but only to a limited degree are we authors of the facts submitted to our moral judgment. These facts are
called by one person good and by another evil. Only in capital cases is there anything like a consensus generalis. If we hold with Basil that man is the author of evil, we are saying in the same breath that he is also the author of good. But man is first and foremost the author merely of judgments; in relation to the facts judged, his responsibility is not so easy to determine. In order to do this, we would have to give a clear definition of the extent of his free will. The psychiatrist knows what a desperately difficult task this is.
For these reasons the psychologist shrinks from metaphysical assertions but must criticize the admittedly human foundations of the privatio boni. When therefore Basil asserts on the one hand that evil has no substance of its own but arises from a "mutilation of the soul," and if on the other hand he is convinced
that evil really exists, then the relative reality of evil is grounded on a real "mutilation" of the soul which must have an equally real cause. If the soul was originally created good, then it has really been corrupted and by something that is real, even if this is nothing more than carelessness, indifference, and frivolity,
which are the meaning of the word paBvjda. When something—I must stress this with all possible emphasis—is traced back to a psychic condition or fact, it is very definitely not reduced t nothing and thereby nullified, but is shifted on to the plane of psychic reality, which is very much easier to establish empirically than, say, the reality of the devil in dogma, who according to the authentic sources was not invented by man at all but existed long before he did. If the devil fell away from God of his own free will, this proves firstly that evil was in the world before man, and therefore that man cannot be the sole author of it, and secondly that the devil already had a "mutilated" soul for which we must hold a real cause responsible. The basic flaw in Basil's argument is the petitio principii that lands him in insoluble contradictions: it is laid down from the start that the independent existence of evil must be denied even in face of the eternity of the devil as asserted by dogma. The historical reason for this was the threat presented by Manichaean dualism. This is especially clear in the treatise of Titus of Bostra (d. c. 370), entitled Adversus Manichaeos^ where he states in refutation of the Manichaeans that, so far as substance is concerned, there is no such thing as evil.
John Chrysostom (c. 344-407) uses, instead of o-rep^ats (privatio), the expression Iktpott^ tov ko.\ov (deviation, or turning away, from good). He says: "Evil is nothing other than a turning away from good, and therefore evil is secondary in relation to good."
Dionysius the Areopagite gives a detailed explanation of evil in the fourth chapter of De divinis nominibus. Evil, he says, cannot come from good, because if it came from good it would not be evil. But since everything that exists comes from good, everything is in some way good, but "evil does not exist at all" (to 8c KCLKOV OVTC OV IcTTlV)
Evil in its nature is neither a thing nor does it bring anything forth.
Evil does not exist at all and is neither good nor productive of good \ovk ecrrt Ka66\ov to kclkov ovt€ ayadbv ovre dya0o7roi6vj .
All things which are, by the very fact that they are, are good and come from good; but in so far as they are deprived of good, they are neither good nor do they exist.
That which has no existence is not altogether evil, for the absolutely non-existent will be nothing, unless it be thought of as subsisting in the good superessentially [Kara to wrcpovmov]. Good, then, as absolutely existing and as absolutely non-existing, will stand in the foremost and highest place [ttoWw npoTepov wrepi8pvp.£vov], while evil is neither in that which exists nor in that which does not exist [to 8c kclkov ovtc iv Tois ovctlv, ovtc iv tois p,yj ovctlv]-
These quotations show with what emphasis the reality of evil was denied by the Church Fathers. As already mentioned, this hangs together with the Church's attitude to Manichaean dualism, as can plainly be seen in St. Augustine. In his polemic against the Manichaeans and Marcionites he makes the following
declaration: For this reason all things are good, since some things are better than others and the goodness of the less good adds to the glory of the better. . . . Those things we call evil, then, are defects in good things, and quite incapable of existing in their own right outside good things. . . . But those very defects testify to the natural goodness of things. For what is evil by reason of a defect must obviously be good of its own nature. For a defect is something contrary to nature, something which damages the nature of a thing—and it can from good). He says: "Evil is nothing other than a turning away from good, and therefore evil is secondary in relation to good."  Dionysius the Areopagite gives a detailed explanation of evil in the fourth chapter of De divinis nominibus. Evil, he says, cannot come from good, because if it came from good it would not be evil. But since everything that exists comes from good, everything is in some way good, but "evil does not exist at all" (to 8c KCLKOV OVTC OV IcTTlV)
Evil in its nature is neither a thing nor does it bring anything
forth.
Evil does not exist at all and is neither good nor productive of good \ovk ecrrt Ka66\ov to kclkov ovt€ ayadbv ovre dya0o7roi6vj .
All things which are, by the very fact that they are, are good an come from good; but in so far as they are deprived of good, they are neither good nor do they exist.
That which has no existence is not altogether evil, for the absolutely non-existent will be nothing, unless it be thought of as subsisting in the good superessentially [Kara to wrcpovmov]. Good, then, as absolutely existing and as absolutely non-existing, will stand in the foremost and highest place [ttoWw npoTepov wrepi8pvp.£vov], while
evil is neither in that which exists nor in that which does not exist [to 8c kclkov ovtc iv Tois ovctlv, ovtc iv tois p,yj ovctlv]-

These quotations show with what emphasis the reality of evil was denied by the Church Fathers. As already mentioned, this hangs together with the Church's attitude to Manichaean dualism, as can plainly be seen in St. Augustine. In his polemic against the Manichaeans and Marcionites he makes the following declaration:
For this reason all things are good, since some things are better than others and the goodness of the less good adds to the glory of the better. . . . Those things we call evil, then, are defects in good things, and quite incapable of existing in their own right outside good things. . . . But those very defects testify to the natural goodness of things. For what is evil by reason of a defect must obviously be good of its own nature. For a defect is something contrary to nature, something which damages the nature of a thing—and it can do so only by diminishing that thing's goodness. Evil therefore is nothing but the privation of good. And thus it can have no existence anywhere except in some good thing. ... So there can be things which are good without any evil in them, such as God himself, and the higher celestial beings; but there can be no evil things without good. For if evils cause no damage to anything, they are not evils; if they do damage something, they diminish its goodness; and if they
damage it still more, it is because it still has some goodness which they diminish; and if they swallow it up altogether, nothing of its nature is left to be damaged. And so there will be no evil by which it can be damaged, since there is then no nature left whose goodness any damage can diminish.
9° The Liber Sententiarum ex Augustino says (CLXXVI):
"Evil is not a substance, for as it has not God for its author, it does not exist; and so the defect of corruption is nothing else than the desire or act of a misdirected will." Augustine agrees with this when he says: "The steel is not evil; but the man who uses the steel for a criminal purpose, he is evil."
These quotations clearly exemplify the standpoint of Dionysius and Augustine: evil has no substance or existence in itself, since it is merely a diminution of good, which alone has substance.
Evil is a vitium, a bad use of things as a result of erroneous decisions of the will (blindness due to evil desire, etc.). Thomas Aquinas, the great theoretician of the Church, says with reference to the above quotation from Dionysius:
One opposite is known through the other, as darkness is known through light. Hence also what evil is must be known from the nature of good. Now we have said above that good is everything appetible; and thus, since every nature desires its own being and its own perfection, it must necessarily be said that the being and perfection of every created thing is essentially good. Hence it cannot be that evil signifies a being, or any form or nature. Therefore it must be that by the name of evil is signified the absence of good.
Evil is not a being, whereas good is a being.
That every agent works for an end clearly follows from the fact that every agent tends to something definite. Now that to which an agent tends definitely must needs be befitting to that agent, since the latter would not tend to it save on account of some fittingness thereto. But that which is befitting to a thing is good for it. Therefore every agent works for a good.
St. Thomas himself recalls the saying of Aristotle that "the thing is the whiter, the less it is mixed with black," without mentioning, however, that the reverse proposition: "the thing is the blacker, the less it is mixed with white," not only has the same validity as the first but is also its logical equivalent. He might also have mentioned that not only darkness is known through light, but that, conversely, light is known through darkness.
As only that which works is real, so, according to St. Thomas, only good is real in the sense of "existing." His argument, however, introduces a good that is tantamount to "convenient, sufficient, appropriate, suitable." One ought therefore to translate "omne agens agit propter bonum" as: "Every agent works for the sake of what suits it." That's what the devil does too, as we all know. He too has an "appetite" and strives after perfection—not in good but in evil. Even so, one could hardly conclude from this that his striving is "essentially good."
Obviously evil can be represented as a diminution of good, but with this kind of logic one could just as well say: The temperature of the Arctic winter, which freezes our noses and ears, is relatively speaking only a little below the heat prevailing at the equator. For the Arctic temperature seldom falls much lower than 230 C. above absolute zero. All things on earth are "warm" in the sense that nowhere is absolute zero even approximately reached. Similarly, all things are more or less "good," and just as cold is nothing but a diminution of warmth, so evil is nothing but a diminution of good. The privatio boni argument remains a euphemistic petitio principii no matter whether evil is regarded as a lesser good or as an effect of the finiteness and limitedness of created things. The false conclusion necessarily follows from the premise "Deus = Summum Bonum," since it is unthinkable that the perfect good could ever have created evil. It merely created the good and the less good (which
last is simply called "worse" by laymen).Just as we freeze miserably despite a temperature of 230 above absolute zero, so there are people and things that, although created by God, are good only to the minimal and bad to the maximal degree.
It is probably from this tendency to deny any reality to evil that we get the axiom "Omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine." This is a contradiction of the truth that he who created the heat is also responsible for the cold ("the goodness of the less good"). We can certainly hand it to Augustine that all natures are good, yet just not good enough to prevent their badness from being equally obvious.

....It seems as if, without God's intending it (and possibly without his knowing it) the mixture of the four elements took a wrong turning, though this is rather hard to square with Clement's idea of the opposite hands of God "doing violence to one another." Obviously Peter, the leader of the dialogue, finds it rather difficult to attribute the cause of evil to the Creator in so many words.
">3 The author of the Homilies espouses a Petrine Christianity distinctly "High Church" or ritualistic in flavour. This, taken together with his doctrine of the dual aspect of God, brings him into close relationship with the early Jewish-Christian Church, where, according to the testimony of Epiphanius, we find the Ebionite notion that God had two sons, an elder one, Satan, and a younger one, Christ.Michaias, one of the speakers in the dialogue, suggests as much when he remarks that if good and evil were begotten in the same way they must be brothers. In the (Jewish-Christian?) apocalypse, the "Ascension of Isaiah," we find, in the middle section, Isaiah's vision of the seven heavens through which he was rapt. First he saw Sammael and his hosts, against whom a "great battle" was raging in the firmament. The angel then wafted him beyond this into the first heaven and led him before a throne. On the right of the throne stood angels who were more beautiful than the angels on the left. Those on the right "all sang praises with one voice," but the ones on the left sang after them, and their singing was not like the singing of the first. In the second heaven all the angels were more beautiful than in the first heaven, and there was no difference between them, either here or in any of the higher heavens. Evidently Sammael still has a noticeable influence on the first heaven, since the angels on the left are not so beautiful there. Also, the lower heavens are not so splendid as the upper ones, though each surpasses the other in splendour.
The devil, like the Gnostic archons, dwells in the firmament, and he and his angels presumably correspond to astrological gods and influences. The gradation of splendour, going all the way up to the topmost heaven, shows that his sphere interpenetrates with the divine sphere of the Trinity, whose light in turn filters down as far as the lowest heaven. This paints a picture of complementary opposites balancing one another like right and left hands. Significantly enough, this vision, like the Clementine Homilies, belongs to the pre-Manichaean period (second century), when there was as yet no need for Christianity to fight against its Manichaean competitors. It might easily be a description of a genuine yang-yin relationship, a picture that comes closer to the actual truth than the privatio boni. Moreover, it does not damage monotheism in any way, since it unites the opposites just as yang and yin are united in Tao (which the Jesuits quite logically translated as "God"). It is as if Manichaean
dualism first made the Fathers conscious of the fact that until then, without clearly realizing it, they had always believed firmly in the substantiality of evil. This sudden realization might well have led them to the dangerously anthropomorphic assumption that what man cannot unite, God cannot unite either. The early Christians, thanks to their greater unconsciousness, were able to avoid this mistake.
Perhaps we may risk the conjecture that the problem of the Yahwistic God-image, which had been constellated in men's minds ever since the Book of Job, continued to be discussed in Gnostic circles and in syncretistic Judaism generally, all the more eagerly as the Christian answer to this question—namely the unanimous decision in favour of God's goodness 56—did not satisfy the conservative Jews. In this respect, therefore, it is significant that the doctrine of the two antithetical sons of God originated with the Jewish Christians living in Palestine. Inside Christianity itself the doctrine spread to the Bogomils and Cathars; in Judaism it influenced religious speculation and found lasting expression in the two sides of the cabalistic Tree of the Sephiroth, which were named hesed (love) and din (justice).
A rabbinical scholar, Zwi Werblowsky, has been kind enough to put together for me a number of passages from Hebrew literature which have bearing on this problem.
Joseph taught: "What is the meaning of the verse, 'And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning?' (Exodus 12 : 22.) Once permission has been granted to the destroyer, he does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. Indeed, he even begins with the righteous."
Commenting on Exodus 33 : 5 ("If for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you"), the midrash says:
"Yahweh means he could wax wroth with you for a moment—for that is the length of his wrath, as is said in Isaiah 26 : 20,
'Hide yourselves for a little moment until the wrath is past'—and destroy you." Yahweh gives warning here of his unbridled irascibility. If in this moment of divine wrath a curse is uttered, it will indubitably be effective. That is why Balaam, "who knows the thoughts of the Most High,"  when called upon by Balak to curse Israel, was so dangerous an enemy, because he knew the moment of Yahweh's wrath.
God's love and mercy are named his right hand, but his justice and his administration of it are named his left hand.
Thus we read in I Kings 22 : 19: "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left." The midrash comments: "Is there right and left on high? This means that the intercessors stand on the right and the accusers on the left." 61 The comment on Exodus 15:6 ("Thy right hand, O Lord, glorious in power, thy right hand, O Lord, shatters the enemy") runs: "When the children of Israel perform God's will, they make the left hand his right hand. When they do not do his will, they make even the right hand his left hand."  "God's left hand dashes to pieces; his right hand is glorious to save."
The dangerous aspect of Yahweh's justice comes out in the following passage: "Even so said the Holy One, blessed be He:
If I create the world on the basis of mercy alone, its sins will be great; but on the basis of justice alone the world cannot exist.
Hence I will create it on the basis of justice and mercy, and may it then stand!"  The midrash on Genesis 18 : 23 (Abraham's plea for Sodom) says (Abraham speaking): "If thou desirest the world to endure, there can be no absolute justice, while if thou desirest absolute justice, the world cannot endure. Yet thou wouldst hold the cord by both ends, desiring both the world and absolute justice. Unless thou forgoest a little, the world cannot Yahweh prefers the repentant sinners even to the righteous, and protects them from his justice by covering them with his hand or by hiding them under his throne. no With reference to Habakkuk 2 : 3 ("For still the vision awaits its time. ... If it seem slow, wait for it"), R. Jonathan says:
"Should you say, We wait [for his coming] but He does not, it stands written (Isaiah 30 : 18), 'Therefore will the Lord wait, that he may be gracious unto you.' . . . But since we wait and he waits too. what delays his coming? Divine justice delays it." It is in this sense that we have to understand the prayer of R. Jochanan: "May it be thy will, O Lord our God, to look upon our shame and behold our evil plight. Clothe thyself in thy mercies, cover thyself in thy strength, wrap thyself in thy loving- kindness, and gird thyself with thy graciousness, and may thy goodness and gentleness come before thee." God is properly exhorted to remember his good qualities. There is even a tradition that God prays to himself: "May it be My will that My mercy may suppress My anger, and that My compassion may prevail over My other attributes." 69 This tradition is borne out by the following story: R. Ishmael the son of Elisha said: I once entered the innermost sanctuary to offer incense, and there I saw Akathriel 70 Jah Jahweh Zebaoth  seated upon a high and exalted throne. He said to me, Ishmael, my son, bless me! And I answered him: May it be Thy will that Thy mercy may suppress Thy anger, and that Thy compassion may prevail over Thy other attributes, so that Thou mayest deal with Thy children according to the attribute of mercy and
stop short of the limit of strict justice! And He nodded to me with His head.?
It is not difficult to see from these quotations what was the effect of Job's contradictory God-image. It became a subject for religious speculation inside Judaism and, through the medium of the Cabala, it evidently had an influence on Jakob Bohme. In his writings we find a similar ambivalence, namely the love and the "wrath-fire" of God, in which Lucifer burns for ever.
Since psychology is not metaphysics, no metaphysical dualism can be derived from, or imputed to, its statements concerning the equivalence of opposites. 74 It knows that equivalent opposites are necessary conditions inherent in the act of cognition, and that without them no discrimination would be possible.
It is not exactly probable that anything so intrinsically bound up with the act of cognition should be at the same time a property of the object. It is far easier to suppose that it is primarily our consciousness which names and evaluates the differences between things, and perhaps even creates distinctions where no differences are discernible.
I have gone into the doctrine of the privatio boni at such length because it is in a sense responsible for a too optimistic conception of the evil in human nature and for a too pessimistic view of the human soul. To offset this, early Christianity, with unerring logic, balanced Christ against an Antichrist. For how can you speak of "high" if there is no "low," or "right" if there is no "left," of "good" if there is no "bad," and the one is as real as the other? Only with Christ did a devil enter the world as the real counterpart of God, and in early Jewish-Christian circles Satan, as already mentioned, was regarded as Christ's elder brother.
But there is still another reason why I must lay such critical stress on the privatio boni. As early as Basil wre meet with the tendency to attribute evil to the disposition (SmfleoW) of the soul, and at the same time to give it a "non-existent" character. Since, according to this author, evil originates in human frivolity and therefore owes its existence to mere negligence, it exists, so to speak, only as a by-product of psychological oversight, and this is such a quantite negligeable that evil vanishes altogether in smoke. Frivolity as a cause of evil is certainly a factor to be taken seriously, but it is a factor that can be got rid of by a change of attitude. We can act differently, if we want to. Psychological causation is something so elusive and seemingly unreal that everything which is reduced to it inevitably takes on the character of futility or of a purely accidental mistake and is thereby minimized to the utmost. It is an open question how much of our modern undervaluation of the psyche stems from this prejudice. This prejudice is all the more serious in that it causes the psyche to be suspected of being the birthplace of all evil. The Church Fathers can hardly have considered what a fatal power they were ascribing to the soul. One must be positively blind not to see the colossal role that evil plays in the world. Indeed, it took the intervention of God himself to deliver humanity from the curse of evil, for without his intervention man would have been lost. If this paramount power of evil is imputed to the soul, the result can only be a negative inflation —i.e., a daemonic claim to power on the part of the unconscious which makes it all the more formidable. This unavoidable consequence is anticipated in the figure of the Antichrist and is reflected in the course of contemporary events, whose nature is in accord with the Christian aeon of the Fishes, now running to its end.

...It was known, and stated, very early that the man Jesus, the son of Mary, was the principium individuationis. Thus Basilides is reported by Hippolytus as saying: ''Now Jesus became the first sacrifice in the discrimination of the natures [v\oicpivriof composite things. For in this manner, he says, the sonship that had been left behind in a formless state [anopsia] . . , needed separating into its components [ It is in the sphere of the dark, heavy body that we must look for the a/xoPLa, the "formlessness" wherein the third sonship lies hidden. As suggested above, this formlessness seems to be practically the equivalent of "unconsciousness." G. Quispel has drawn attention to the concepts of ayvuala in Epiphanius  and
kvbr\rov in Hippolytus,90 which are best translated by "unconscious."
'AfjLop4>ia, ayvuvia, and b.v6r)rov all refer to the initial state of things, to the potentiality of unconscious contents, aptly formulated by Basilides as ovk bv cnrkpua tov kogixov iro\vtJiopseed of the world).
This picture of the third sonship has certain analogies with the medieval filius philosophorum and the filius macrocosmi, who also symbolize the world-soul slumbering in matter. Even with Basilides the body acquires a special and unexpected significance, since in it and its materiality is lodged a third of the revealed Godhead. This means nothing less than that matter is predicated as having considerable numinosity in itself, and I see this as an anticipation of the "mystic" significance which matter subsequently assumed in alchemy and—later on—in natural science. From a psychological point of view it is particularly important that Jesus corresponds to the third sonship and is the prototype of the "awakener" because the opposites were separated in him through the Passion and so became conscious, whereas in the third sonship itself they remain unconscious so long as the latter is formless and undifferentiated. This amounts to saying that in unconscious humanity there is a latent seed that corresponds to the prototype Jesus. Just as the man Jesus became conscious only through the light that emanated from the higher Christ and separated the natures in him, so the seed in unconscious humanity is awakened by the light emanating from Jesus, and is thereby impelled to a similar discrimination of opposites. This view is entirely in accord with the psychological fact that the archetypal image of the self has been shown to occur in dreams even when no such conceptions exist in the conscious mind of the dreamer.
I would not like to end this chapter without a few final remarks that are forced on me by the importance of the material we have been discussing. The standpoint of a psychology whose subject is the phenomenology of the psyche is evidently something that is not easy to grasp and is very often misunderstood.
If, therefore, at the risk of repeating myself, I come back to fundamentals, I do so only in order to forestall certain wrong impressions which might be occasioned by what I have said, and to spare my reader unnecessary difficulties.
The parallel I have drawn here between Christ and the self is not to be taken as anything more than a psychological one, just as the parallel with the fish is mythological. There is no question of any intrusion into the sphere of metaphysics, i.e., of faith. The images of God and Christ which man's religious fantasy projects cannot avoid being anthropomorphic and are admitted to be so; hence they are capable of psychological elucidation like any other symbols. Just as the ancients believed that they had said something important about Christ with their fish symbol, so it seemed to the alchemists that their parallel with the stone served to illuminate and deepen the meaning of the Christ-image. In the course of time, the fish symbolism disappeared completely, and so likewise did the lapis philosophorum.
Concerning this latter symbol, however, there are plenty of statements to be found which show it in a special light—views and ideas which attach such importance to the stone that one begins to wonder whether, in the end, it was Christ who was taken as a symbol of the stone rather than the other wayround. This marks a development which—with the help of certain ideas in the epistles of John and Paul—includes Christ in the realm of immediate inner experience and makes him appear as the figure of the total man. It also links up directly with the psychological evidence for the existence of an archetypal content possessing all those qualities which are characteristic of the Christ-image in its archaic and medieval forms. Modern psychology is therefore confronted with a question very like the one that faced the alchemists: Is the self a symbol of Christ, or is Christ a symbol of the self?
In the present study I have affirmed the latter alternative.
I have tried to show how the traditional Christ-image concentrates upon itself the characteristics of an archetype—the archetype of the self. My aim and method do not purport to be anything more in principle than, shall we say, the efforts of an art historian to trace the various influences which have contributed towards the formation of a particular Christ-image. Thus we find the concept of the archetype in the history of art as well as in philology and textual criticism. The psychological archetype differs from its parallels in other fields only in one respect: it refers to a living and ubiquitous psychic fact, and this naturally shows the whole situation in a rather different light. One is then tempted to attach greater importance to the immediate and living presence of the archetype than to the idea of the historical Christ. As I have said, there is among certain of the alchemists, too, a tendency to give the lapis priority over Christ. Since I am far from cherishing any missionary intentions, I must expressly
emphasize that I am not concerned here with confessions of faith but with proven scientific facts. If one inclines to regard the archetype of the self as the real agent and hence takes Christ as a symbol of the self, one must bear in mind that there is a considerable difference between perfection and completeness.
The Christ-image is as good as perfect (at least it is meant to be so), while the archetype (so far as known) denotes completeness but is far from being perfect. It is a paradox, a statement about something indescribable and transcendental. Accordingly the realization of the self, which would logically follow from a recognition
of its supremacy, leads to a fundamental conflict, to a real suspension between opposites (reminiscent of the crucified Christ hanging between two thieves), and to an approximate state of wholeness that lacks perfection. To strive after teleiosis in the sense of perfection is not only legitimate but is inborn in man as a peculiarity which provides civilization with one of its strongest roots. This striving is so powerful, even, that it can turn into a passion that draws everything into its service. Natural as it is to seek perfection in one way or another, the archetype fulfils itself in completeness, and this is a TeAetWi? of quite another kind. Where the archetype predominates, completeness is forced upon us against all our conscious strivings, in accordance with the archaic nature of the archetype. The individual may strive after perfection ("Be you therefore perfect—riAddas also your heavenly Father is perfect." but must suffer from the opposite of his intentions for the sake of his completeness.
"I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." » The Christ-image fully corresponds to this situation: Christ is the perfect man who is crucified. One could hardly think of a truer picture of the goal of ethical endeavour. At any rate the transcendental idea of the self that serves psychology as a working hypothesis can never match that image because, although it is a symbol, it lacks the character of a revelatory historical event.
Like the related ideas of atman and tao in the East, the idea of the self is at least in part a product of cognition, grounded neither on faith nor on metaphysical speculation but on the experience that under certain conditions the unconscious spontaneously brings forth an archetypal symbol of wholeness. From this we must conclude that some such archetype occurs universally and is endowed with a certain numinosity. And there is in fact any amount of historical evidence as well as modern case material to prove this. 90 These naive and completely uninfluenced pictorial representations of the symbol show that it is given central and supreme importance precisely because it stands for the conjunction of opposites. Naturally the conjunction can only be understood as a paradox, since a union of opposites can be thought of only as their annihilation. Paradox is a characteristic of all transcendental situations because it alone gives adequate expression to their indescribable nature.
Whenever the archetype of the self predominates, the inevitable psychological consequence is a state of conflict vividly exemplified by the Christian symbol of crucifixion—that acute state of unredeemedness which comes to an end only with the words "consummatum est." Recognition of the archetype, therefore, does not in any way circumvent the Christian mystery; rather, it forcibly creates the psychological preconditions without which "redemption" would appear meaningless. "Redemption"
does not mean that a burden is taken from one's shoulders which one was never meant to bear. Only the "complete" person knows how unbearable man is to himself. So far as I can see, no relevant objection could be raised from the Christian point of view against anyone accepting the task of individuation imposed on us by nature, and the recognition of our wholeness or completeness, as a binding personal commitment. If he does this consciously and intentionally, he avoids all the unhappy
consequences of repressed individuation. In other words, if he voluntarily takes the burden of completeness on himself, he need not find it "happening" to him against his will in a negative form. This is as much as to say that anyone who is destined to descend into a deep pit had better set about it with all the necessary precautions rather than risk falling into the hole backwards.
The irreconcilable nature of the opposites in Christian psychology is due to their moral accentuation. This accentuation seems natural to us, although, looked at historically, it is a legacy from the Old Testament with its emphasis on righteousness in the eyes of the law. Such an influence is notably lacking in the East, in the philosophical religions of India and China. Without stopping to discuss the question of whether this exacerbation of the opposites, much as it increases suffering, may not after all correspond to a higher degree of truth, I should like merely to express the hope that the present world situation may be looked upon in the light of the psychological rule alluded to above. Today humanity, as never before, is split into two apparently irreconcilable halves. The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate.
That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.

---Aion

Abrahamic ontology starts with the subjective evaluation of existence as 'good' and 'evil' that which corrupts it.
The metaphor can be sued to describe that which challenges our own self-interests, our 'completion' and to represent, by name, chaos.
Absolute is the starting point because the mind cannot think without fabricating abstractions of the fluid - by converting the process into a simplified/generalized noumenon...a thought given a name, a symbol.
Judgment must juxtapose to evaluate, and this requires abstractions.

The utility of the metaphors that refer to nothing but noetic abstractions is that they can be replaced by other metaphors.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:57 am

Like there are physical 'tells', the body speaking, sometimes contrary to what the mind is saying, there are linguistic 'tells'.
The language has a underlying psychological foundation.
Its choice of words, its placement and rhythms in a sentence, its insinuations...all expose the relationship of the mind with the subject it is speaking about.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:07 am

The relationship of organism with its own mortality undercuts its relationship with sex as an unsatisfactory solution.
We see this more clearly in how the mind relates to the unknown.
A reluctance to accept it as unknown reveals a deep anxiety.  An insistence to name it, so as to pretend it has solved the issue, pretends confidence to hide insecurity.
Words can be used to create circular self-referential 'emoting' appearing as 'reasoning'. The individual seems like he is saying something important, is revealing something profound and powerful, but he is saying nothing at all....but only alluding.
This is pat of 'political' practice, and since Nihilism is a linguistic virus that must assimilate minds into a collective, it is idealism expressed as politics.    
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The art of speaking with a subtext, contradicting the body's honesty, or speaking without saying anything.

The body cannot lie....the mind can.
The body can only be controlled, covered, repressed....the physical reveals, the mind, using language, can refer to it, or can attempt to conceal it.
The real, for example, of race and sex differences is present in appearance....but the mind invents linguistic games to contradict (lie) and to conceal, repress this physical obviousness.
You do not need a PhD....a simple amoeba, an animal, can immediately see a difference in essence. It may not be able to explain it but it knows it, and it does not doubt its own senses.
Only manimals can reject what is sensually obvious. Postponing judgments; demanding authorities to support or validate what their senses are revealing to them; outright rejecting what is sensually obvious, claiming there is not enough data available to make a judgment call.
The art of self-deceit.
fArtists give this service to those who want to deceive themselves but lack the creativity.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:20 am

Naming the unknown, the incomprehensible, or being given a name, from an authority reduces the anxiety we feel in relation to it.
Sometimes the obvious is too difficult to accept, and a linguistic method is desired to present an alternative, to usurp the sensually perceived, to replace it with a new, contrary, better interpretation of 'reality'.

Language presents the mind with an excuse to deceive itself, and to contradict its own body.
Chemical aids can be sued to quiet the body's expressions so as to allow the mind to fabricate lies.

Naming the incomprehensible is Top<>Down emoting/thinking.
The idea(l) covers the real, permitting only a selected, sampled, part of it through.
The world is enclosed by the idea(l)....not open to it.....because openness leaves one exposed to the unknown and incomprehensible.
Bottom<>Up thinking is this openness, building probabilities through constant interaction, engagement, with the unknown, and the incomprehensible.
It does not posit an absolute truth, but a more probable one, founded on data, precedent, experiences, empiricism.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:39 am

From the vantage point of an organism awakening to its condition nihilism offers an easy solution to its predicament, in regards to the indifferent, unknown, and incomprehensible.....to the possibility of its own mortality.
It offers a name...a word.
The word becomes the comprehension of the incomprehensible.....self-contradicting self-deceit - the lie.
Symbol comforts and implies what the mind cannot fathom.
It insinuates because the real is not clear.....vagueness covers this confusion, sometimes also contradictions that cannot e resolved but only covered with a term.
The incomprehensible becomes part of the mind's understanding - mystification.

The divine is the idealization of abstractions, of thoughts and concepts.
In its innuendos, its symbols, names, the unknown is named, so it feels more intimate, it almost feels known; the incomprehensible is given a name for a vague concept, covering the incomprehensible with a sense of comprehension.
Linguistics serves to accentuate the self-deceit....it speaks in circular, self-referential matrices, replacing terms as if it is exposing something deep and not merely replacing names.  
God, the concept, is vague...it is a simplification/generalization, that can also be the inversion of the experienced - nihilistic.
God, the vague concept, because it is vague can be given a multitude of names, each alluding to the same non-existent concept, but presenting the process of renaming as an exploration, an honest seeking.
Unconventional usage of words can imply an unconventional conception of a god.....when it is is saying nothing at all.
A psychologically manipulative game of words.
Sentences so convoluted as to require faith, by implying complexity, an insight so intricate, so sophisticated and profound as to be elusive to the layman.  

The same method used in modern fArt....in painting.
The buyer is placed become a piece of fArt....and peer pressure makes the incomprehensible garbage a work that requires specialized knowledge or a certain 'genius'.  
The buyer does not understand it, but he cannot say so....so he pretends to buy into the pretense - the lie is now a shared project.
Gradually he is told that the fArt is whatever he wants it to be, and he is comforted by this because he, the buyer, can never be wrong. The fArt is valuable because ti implies nothing, but demands that the observer project into it his own psychology.

This is fArt...[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The fArtists does not require talent....anyone can be a fArtist.
All you need is marketing skills.
Selling garbage to needy superficial imbeciles.

It's all 'subjective' means it is whatever you think it is. you cannot be wrong, and because you cannot be wrong you cannot be right.....you are indifferent.
No need to feel vulnerable.
Vagueness, insinuation, provides this service.
The incomprehensible becomes whatever you want it to be. A place to project your deepest anxieties and to resolve the tensions; the incomprehensibly vague is an psychological unloading garbage bin.
You project the positive to see it reflected back (self-referential positivity) and you project the negative to unload it on it its mass (other becomes the negative - you are purified, made divine).
The Modern charlatan manipulates this process, providing fArt, or an idea(l) to be used for psychological self-flattery and self-purifying.
Definitions of the incomprehensible include incomprehensible vague alternate words, giving the impression that one is explaining.
The more convoluted the explanation, the more satisfied the impressionable imbecile will be.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:08 am

Before fArt the average mind stands perplexed....but he cannot expose this confusion.
The Marketer, or the fArtist, steps in to give him words to hide his confusion, using vagueness, alternate strings on insinuation...a method of feigning depth to hide this perplexity.
Gradually he is let-in on the secret.....the fArt before him is meaningless. It has no meaning but is insinuating....it can accept any meaning given to it....if it is adequately supported with convoluted language.
It's a piece of crap, that acts as a sounding board for each and every victim's psychological baggage.

A talented artist leaves no room for misinterpretation and vagueness.  
He presents reality, which can be appreciated by all. The art piece is juxtaposed against the real world and the artist's talent is evaluated.
Some personal style gives an emotional depth.
But in fArt there is no such shared reference point. Its all projected by the observer.
The fartist's 'talent' is in how well he can trigger the audience, or how many contacts he has to find a gifted marketing agent that can sell any piece of crap to an audience of imbeciles.
The fArtist then rides on the wave of his popularity. He created 'amazing fArt' based on its juxtaposition to his earlier, successful, work.
Success means popularity...how well it sold.

Whoever dares to question his talent, or the value of his fArt, has this to contend with.
Those who bought into the fArt become defenders of the fAtist, otherwise they must admit that they were duped.
They must justify the amount of money they were manipulated into spending on the fArt.

Philosophy is word-art.....so replace philosophy with painting, sculpture etc.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:17 am

Compare.....Art...


....with fArt...


A child can create the latter. A manchild.
The former requires some obvious talent. Natural order imposes upon the artist a rule; it disciplines him.
In the fart there is no standard....emotion is all it takes....feelings, private sensations, personal motives....
fArt is a communal project of self-deceit.
Nihilism needs minds to infect.....otherwise it is nonsense: words, symbols, with no external references....all internal psychological reflections, projections, self-flattering, self-unloading.

Art exposes a relationship of man with world - noumenon with phenomenon.
fArt exposes a reaction of man to world - noumenon projecting noetically its psychology upon world. This would be a interesting subject if not for the corrupting potential of this method.
Using this method the profound can be corrupted by need, desire.
The artist not trying to say something about the world, or man's relationship to it, but fArt used to unload personal psychosis: self-flattery, self-deceiving, self-sanctifying.
fArt depicting the secret of the self, relating to world, and finding in others a shared need and desire.
This is why fArt is a shared project....deceiver and self-deceiver.
Herd-psychology.
fArtist and audience are locked in a shared lie.
One pretends to be saying something, the other pretends to be understanding, both deceiving self and other.
Both invested and therefore defensive.
The seller is selling garbage. the buyer is converting it to gold by buying it.
The buyer is not invested in the sellers deceit.
The seller wants to sell more garbage, and the buyer does not want to appear as if he was duped into exchanging gold for garbage.
The seller can now up the ante....His garbage can become more vulgar, and the buyer may be tempted to buy into it to validate his first purchase.
The seller has created a demand for garbage.
fAtist can now push the matter, trying to find the limit of his garbage appeal. He becomes arrogant, knowing that he's successfully sold garbage for gold.
Money = time, effort.

Talent is no longer about mind relating to world, but mind relating to the audience. It has become psychological manipulation.
fArt requires marketing and an audience. the fArtist's "talent" is determined by the number (quantity) of his following and the number of the conversion of garbage into gold.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν


Last edited by Satyr on Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:57 am

In the mind laws of Nature do not apply.
Man invented logical laws to discipline the mind to natural laws.

But these laws need not be followed by the desperate.
In fact, they will rebel, internally, because they cannot externally.
Because they are forced to abide by natural order they will construct internal alternate worlds to escape into.
These worlds will be build on symbols/words and need not make sense. The more nonsensical they are, the more freedom they insinuate.....like Christian faith: the more absurd it is the more faith it demands.

It's like the sport-car.....when the prices go down the sales follow. Seems counter-intuitive, but the higher the price the larger the sales.
It's the psychology of exclusivity.  
The more common you are, or feel that you are, the more unique, extraordinary the lengths you will go to stand-out.
The more unexceptional, mediocre you are, in the world, the more you will strive to stand-out within the herd, the group.
The less extraordinary you are in physis, the more you will seek the extraordinary in metaphysics, or you will compensate through idealism.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:09 pm

Nihilism inverts everything.
It internalizes the world.
Philosophy ceases to be about world but is about the agency that engages the world...the human.
In Nihilistic times, in modern environments, philosophy is psychology....humanity is world.....metaphysics is an exploration of self, relating to other, an exploration of the subconscious.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 16033
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 52
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101 Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:33 pm

Lifeless being is always presence, because it carries no past but is always interacting as pattern relating to other patterns - it has no memeory of previuos interactinos but is only the consequence - always the present, always openly and completely present.
Life always has past made present - ti has baggage.
Memory is always part of the present, and is presence awaiting to be interpreted into appearance.
Appearance is the translation of presence as sum of its past, and this only applies to living organisms - soul/spirit.
Life is never free from past - not all past, not the entirely of past comic interactivity, but the past that is responsible for its presence - DNA, genes.
The individual is the one who is called upon to accept this responsibility, and to accept it openly and completely - Know Thyself.
By accepting the responsibility he makes of himself a ward its determinations.
He directs the sum total of this past, whether he accepts responsibility, or rejects it, and whether he knows or wants to know of the past that resulted in his presence.
To be true to his past means to be in harmony with its totality, adjusting, directing it within the ongoing present - adding to it a past that honours it and does not shame it by contradicting it.
The individual's choice, its free-will, is in direction this inherited past in a way that leads to its enhancement, growth, and not towards its diminishing and withering.

Memes, in relation to gene is defined as the intervention upon interactions to the degree that the consequences affect the organism more than the interactions intervened upon.
Only the human, as far as we know, has the ability to intervene to such a degree.
Here we place the divide between artificial and natural.
The human fabricates the conditions by which memories will be accumulated and stored - man influences his own destiny.
If the intervention is contrary to its past, is in disharmony with it, then the consequences demand further interventions - accumulating his interventions.
He has become responsible for his own presence, but the world of interactivity cares not.
Man's interventions only have an effect on him and those that share the environment, and only those with memory to store the consequences.
The cosmos cares not. It carries on as it always has, interacting and expanding with no recollection.
If it repeats it does so with out intent. Patterns interacting as only patterns of a particular rhythm have, or can ever interact.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Psychology 101

Back to top Go down
 
Psychology 101
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 7 of 9Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Buddhism and modern psychology
» Psychology and palm reading
» The Palm Reader who became Professor in Psychology!
» Introduction to Psychology
» DOWN SYNDROME - The language of the hands!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: