Ha. I did figure it out. Jungs dreams are always also of wishes, but in him all wishes are become one; the wish to be whole.
Of course on a basic reading of Freud this seems laughable. Hm. I might read the Dream Interpretation with that in mind and see if Freud missed something.
Not unfair, because just today I read over a passage where he was actually outright saying that he left out half of the dream because it wasn’t relevant - laugh out loud - especially hard because the second segment of the dream was, he did say, structured in the precise same way as the former. How is that in itself not meaningful?
Okay so Freud discerned the mechanics. The true grime of hard, hard fucking work. He’s the hero here, let there be no doubt.
But Jung had the pleasure of raising the vibration, making music out of it, an ideal.
How much truth is there in an ideal?
or - significant here; is the ideal required for us to apprehend the truth whole?
And there can be only one “Truth” as we know from Faust all the things it can not be.
Truth is the Archetype, which is Briah, still below the sublime and well hidden Logos “whose face one cannot behold and live”, the unfathomable glory of Atziluth.
I reckon that it is terefore that the Logos “speaks out” and casts its lofty parts upon the void and conjures the cast of time, truth is path and path is life.
I’ve received training’s out the ying-yang (sic), over the years. I learn fast with hands, eyes, and direct brain interface, but I learn for crap during the theory and function processes, of the trainings, without knowing to what they actually refer to.
And that’s the same with archetypes. Unless I can get my hands on them, or at least my eyeballs, so I can see them in action, I’m at a loss. In fact, I’ve lived many decades without knowing anything about them, without serious consequences.
I may be dense, but you’d think if they played a serious roll in determining my life I would have picked up on them … even if they’re slippery and tricky at hiding. Puberty produces inner drivings, supposedly like archetypes. If archetypes are behind then you might as well tell me that God, the devil, or both, are behind them. They’re that distant from me.
Not able to be decisive of whether this is Archetype in the theoretical sense, I will say the Image Aware-ness speaks of is included in the Kabbalah as the magickal image of Netzach; a beautiful naked woman.
The strange thing about the unconscious is that we’re not conscious of it. What we can become conscious of is the imagery of our own minds.
Unless you suppose that such imagery is created ex nihilo, it must come from somewhere. Jung attributed at least some of this imagery to the existence of something he called the collective unconscious, which would be the deep structure of the mind that is shared by every human being.
Because we’re all human and because we all share the same biological platform, a platform that we share even with animals to a large degree, and these structures are the archetypes.
You can see them reflected in world mythology and religions. You’ve read Campbell, you know this. My interest is in the imagery as it appears in dreams and the waking imagination. It’s a way of understanding oneself more deeply than just thinking about it in words.
And yeah, God and the Devil are among them significantly. Not that long ago I dreamed of a red devil with horns and a tail dragging me down to the basement under the high school I was attending. It was almost comical in it’s literality.
I’ve received training’s out the ying-yang (sic), over the years. I learn fast with hands, eyes, and direct brain interface, but I learn for crap during the theory and function processes, of the trainings, without knowing to what they actually refer to.
And that’s the same with archetypes. Unless I can get my hands on them, or at least my eyeballs, so I can see them in action, I’m at a loss. In fact, I’ve lived many decades without knowing anything about them, without serious consequences.
I may be dense, but you’d think if they played a serious roll in determining my life I would have picked up on them … even if they’re slippery and tricky at hiding. Puberty produces inner drivings, supposedly like archetypes. If archetypes are behind then you might as well tell me that God, the devil, or both, are behind them. They’re that distant from me.
It is more than likely that Jung derived his concepts from the tree of life, but they are, as they are human product and not of God directly, a reduction. Self-understanding is not what Im in the game for, I want to know the process of Creation employed by God himself. But this is not to demean the effort for wholeness as obviously I love to be whole. For now I think Ive overloaded this thread with my Kabbalistic onslaught, let me step back and let it get back on track.
However if you would go there this would make Yesod the Animus, as the image is “a naked man, very strong”.
To paraphrase Jung, the spirit of the depths of the psyche is at the same time the ruler of the depths of world affairs and as he was ultimately to realize, the spirit and ruler of the cosmos itself in synchronicity.
To be sure when one anchors in the depths of ones psyche, ones influence in worldly affairs increases.
Yogis do indeed claim to also be able to control material laws, and recent philosophies state that after mastery of the psyche is complete we get to be world-creators, in the literal sense; creating universes with beings in them like for example, this physical universe of flowers and thorns which supposedly is admired among world creators for its audacity and danger, for being always on the brink.
I find it easy to stay on the side of my own experience and not get carried away, but if we follow Jungs philosophy as you paraphrase it, it is possible. The depths of the psyche would be the same as the Logos itself, and the Logos is conditional to nothing but its own nature. The psyche would be omnipotent except for having to be that particular psyche, which is not Universal because otherwise it could not have changed by attaining enlightenment.
Consciousness and unconsciousness happen all the time. For example I’m here is this room and am way more unconscious of my surroundings. By comparison, while at this computer, I’m conscious of very little.
Of course I can scan the room and become conscious of that which has been outside my field of consciousness. But then the computer enters in my unconscious field. I guess I could attempt to scramble it all together ; consciousness of it all at the same time, room, computer, and all. But contrary to the ubiquitous meme of multitasking, we really just end up time-slicing our focus of consciousness.
Consciousness and unconsciousness happen all the time. Thank God. Otherwise the unconsciousness would overload our entire system.
I’d like to comment on more of your post, but think bite sizes are better.
Thanks again for your thoughtful post. Am I out in left field?
The opposite proposition is that synchronicity happens all the time, we’re just not aware of it. That makes more sense to me. The other way, the human psyche is a random anomaly in a meaningless universe. The mind projects meaning on the cosmos where there is none.
I’m proposing that we are embedded in a meaningful world if we have eyes to see it. Jesus in The Gospel of Thomas said “the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the Earth but men do not see it.” If that was true in the first century it’s exponentially more true in the 21st.
I love the GoT, and that’s one of my favorite verses in it.
But let’s not lose sight of the fact that it’s a publication that was produced during the flat earth days. During this present age we have the Hubble telescope, and soon to be the most powerful space telescope ever : the James Webb Space Telescope. Which means there’s way more to see, or not see, of the Fathers Kingdom … and the laws therein, that operate whether we see them or not.
So if Jesus was saying that today, in the 21st c., he would update it and say something like : “the kingdom of the father is spread out in the universe, but humans do not see it.”
Anyone looking up at night back then could see that synchronicity was going on in heaven, but to the jaundiced eye the situation on Earth looked chaotic even then.
I don’t see how what I said implies those questions.
However, on second thought, I suppose that according to the Gospel of Thomas it wouldn’t be the jaundiced eye that couldn’t see the kingdom of the father on earth but rather any eye that is not enlightened by gnosis.
The following is from the pre-edited post by The Kat :
I’m clearly not understanding. When you offered : “The opposite proposition is that synchronicity happens all the time, we’re just not aware of it,” I was thinking synchronicity happening all the time means even a sunrise in the morning can be an unnoticed synchronicity. I was just wondering.
The jaundiced eye could be taken a couple of ways :
That those with good seeing eyes could see synchronicity in the sky at night, while those with jaundiced eyes could only see chaos.
or,
2) Those with jaundiced eyes don’t even look at the sky at night, but see only the chaos down here on earth.
I went with #1. Did you mean #2? Anyway, do jaundiced eyes come from Wholelessness?
Maybe we need to define with is meant by synchronicity. And since this thread is about Jung’s Wholeness, I’m for now going with this :
“In the theory of synchronicity Jung has given depth psychology the means to potentially unite all of humanity in a common
purpose: the creation of consciousness. In particular, synchronicity as a spiritual path can draw attention to the value of depth psychology for offering a resolution to the spiritual vacuum in the West.”
~~Revelations of Spirit: Synchronicity as a Spiritual Path in a Secular Age https://search.proquest.com/openview/6a927515b8631e9e31dd864f1850bd60/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Why are you still asking about the jaundiced eye metaphor after I revised my interpretation to suppose that the saying means any eye that is not enlightened by gnosis cannot see the kingdom of the father spread on the earth?
