Wholeness

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:10 pm

By the way, Phyllo, welcome back. I haven't seen you post for a while. I missed you.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby phyllo » Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:14 pm

How is claiming that the origin of the cosmos was a miracle "science"?
It's a religious statement or a religious assertion and it's not a "physical impossibility". So Jung's claim is false.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12486
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:29 pm

phyllo wrote:
How is claiming that the origin of the cosmos was a miracle "science"?
It's a religious statement or a religious assertion and it's not a "physical impossibility". So Jung's claim is false.


Wouldn't your claim entail knowing that God is a physical entity whereas the Bible claims that God is Spirit? Jung is claiming that spiritual reality is apprehended through the psyche rather than a matter of physics. Do you disagree with that? I don't see physicists including God in their theories about the origin of the universe.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:38 pm

felix dakat wrote:
phyllo wrote:
How is claiming that the origin of the cosmos was a miracle "science"?
It's a religious statement or a religious assertion and it's not a "physical impossibility". So Jung's claim is false.


Wouldn't your claim entail knowing that God is a physical entity whereas the Bible claims that God is Spirit? Jung is claiming that spiritual reality is apprehended through the psyche rather than a matter of physics. Do you disagree with that? I don't see physicists including God in their theories about the origin of the universe.


For that matter, everything supernatural is a physical impossibility by definition. And the character of an event that makes it a miracle is that it is a physical impossibility.
Last edited by felix dakat on Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:51 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Bob wrote:I would have preferred:

"As truly as God is our Father, so truly is God our Mother, and that is revealed in everything, and especially in these sweet words: I am; that is to say: I am the power and goodness of fatherhood; I am the wisdom and the lovingness of motherhood; I am the light and the grace which is all blessed love: I am the Trinity; I am the unity; I am the great supreme goodness of every kind of thing; I am who makes you to love; I am who makes you to long; I am the endless fulfilling of all true desires.”


What I see there is that you redacted the masculine pronouns. For years I tended to use neither masculine or feminine pronouns when referring to God. I wanted to get away from anthropomorphic literalism when she's very strong among some Evangelical Christians.

That is to say, that the power and goodness of fatherhood; the wisdom and the lovingness of motherhood; the light and the grace which is all blessed love; the Trinity and the unity; the great supreme goodness of every kind of thing; who makes you to love; who makes you to long; the endless fulfilling of all true desires, is God.

“If you focus too narrowly on a single path to God, all you will ever find is the path.”
Meister Eckhardt
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:15 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Bob wrote:I would have preferred:

"As truly as God is our Father, so truly is God our Mother, and that is revealed in everything, and especially in these sweet words: I am; that is to say: I am the power and goodness of fatherhood; I am the wisdom and the lovingness of motherhood; I am the light and the grace which is all blessed love: I am the Trinity; I am the unity; I am the great supreme goodness of every kind of thing; I am who makes you to love; I am who makes you to long; I am the endless fulfilling of all true desires.”


What I see there is that you redacted the masculine pronouns. For years I tended to use neither masculine or feminine pronouns when referring to God. I wanted to get away from anthropomorphic literalism when she's very strong among some Evangelical Christians.

That is to say, that the power and goodness of fatherhood; the wisdom and the lovingness of motherhood; the light and the grace which is all blessed love; the Trinity and the unity; the great supreme goodness of every kind of thing; who makes you to love; who makes you to long; the endless fulfilling of all true desires, is God.

“If you focus too narrowly on a single path to God, all you will ever find is the path.”
Meister Eckhardt


Jung sought a Divine Quaternity. What should we make of a godhead that has a Father and Son but no Mother? Of course the holy Spirit could be thought of as feminine. But then it is said to have impregnated Mary.

Anyway Jung was very happy with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary by the Roman Catholics in which he saw greater balance and wholeness in the symbol of God.

The Meister Eckhart quote balances the saying of Jesus that the way is narrow by asserting that to make it too narrow misses the mark.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby phyllo » Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:16 pm

Wouldn't your claim entail knowing that God is a physical entity whereas the Bible claims that God is Spirit? Jung is claiming that spiritual reality is apprehended through the psyche rather than a matter of physics.
That seems like an artificial division that need not be made. When you make it, you're claiming to know more about God than you probably do know. So then saying that "religious assertions are physical impossibilities" becomes reasonable because you have removed God and religious statements out of the physical. It's true based on the definitions that you are using.
I don't see physicists including God in their theories about the origin of the universe.
That did not used to be the case. Newton thought that God had to adjust the motion of celestial bodies on a regular basis.

And let's face it, the universe ought not to exist. Physics doesn't have an explanation for why it does.

It's simpler to focus on the mechanics of what is observable, which is a small fraction of the whole.
For that matter, everything supernatural is a physical impossibility by definition. And the character of an event that makes it a miracle is that it is a physical impossibility.
If you shove God and creation into the supernatural category, then sure, "by definition" ...

What if God is natural?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12486
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:53 pm

Phyllo

I haven't checked it out, but I have read that Hobbes thought that God was a physical material entity. People that say God is a space alien or something like that seem to think that such God is a physical being as well. Biblical fundamentalists see God as literally walking around as a physical being in the garden of Eden and Jesus living on in heaven as a physical human. And no I don't claim to know.

But Jung and I didn't "shove" God into being essentially spirit. The Gospel of John chapter 4 verse 24 states that as well as many other passages of scripture. The preponderance of judeo-christian tradition and the experience of people like CG Jung and the mystics, most religious people and myself supports this.

Jung's point in the quotation was that God is apprehended psychically and that with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the assumption of Mary they had hit upon a psychic fact that protestantism missed.

I agree with you is that the fact that the universe exists at all is astonishing. From a phenomenological standpoint the picture that the universe has expanded too it's present unthinkable size from something infinitesimally small is absurd. Why is there anything and not nothing?

Furthermore the mystery is much closer to us than we usually think. Because we don't have an understanding of the consciousness by which we understand everything. Is it physical? Perhaps we should answer that question conclusively before we move on to the question of the nature of God. I don't see that answer forthcoming. It is the great mystery that is embedded in the mystery that is our own psyche.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:42 pm

"...There is always a tension and a dialectic-- a shifting back and forth-- between concrete life and mental work on it, between living our loves and understanding them, between the desire for intimacy and the wish for solitude, between the soul of attachment and the spirit of detachment."

Thomas Moore, Soul Mates, honoring the mysteries of love and relationship.

The above is a phenomenal description so true to my experience. What is at the center of the two poles of our experience? Who throws the switch that transitions us from one pole to another? Jung called it the Self. Hillman the daimon. To the mechanistic thinkers it's a psychological mechanism. Whatever--it isn't under our conscious control. Our interests choose us rather than vice versa. Our conscious self interacts with our unconscious self to determine our fate.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Jul 01, 2021 3:54 pm

The basic idea here is that there's an organizing spirit within the psyche that drives towards unity. Stated like that it seems self-evident. If it were not so how would we arrive at the organized integrated personality? And yet implied within that statement is the origin of religion and the quest for overarching transcendent wholeness of reality itself.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Thu Jul 01, 2021 6:10 pm

I am reading a book from a Dutchman Bernado Kastrup at present, who I found being quoted elsewhere and I followed an online discussion with him. He is interesting, coming from a computer science background, well grounded in science and AI, he has been looking at the materialist foundation of science, and come to the conclusion that basic assumptions the rule where scientific discovery go are flawed. Especially with regard to consciousness he argues that the material worldview is lacking. It is well written (especially for someone like me) and he explains how that, when working on AI, the question came whether the machine would at some time know that it was answering questions, let alone know that it knows, like we do. He came to the conclusion that the materials that he had to his disposal could not be reasonably expected to cause awareness of this kind. In the same way, the basic building blocks of the universe do not seem to be inherently intelligent or aware, so where does consciousness come from?

He argues that we are always working with some model of reality, rather than with reality itself, because we just can’t grasp reality in its vast complexity. Our brains have the task to sort and reject those things that would overload us, and so it is with a reduced perception that we go to work on understanding our existence. He says that science is using precisely this reduced perception to explain the universe, suggesting, however, that it is getting the whole picture. He gives some examples of when this ordering task of the brain is impaired, in particular Jill Bolte Taylor, a neuroscientist who suffered a stroke and was able to recover and analyse what she had been through – especially the perceptions she had whilst suffering the stroke. She came to the same conclusion as he, that what she saw, in some ways very similar to what people on psychotropic drugs reported, was a result of the ordering process breaking down, and being overwhelmed by the aspects of reality that the brain otherwise blocked. Thus, they assume that hallucinogenic drugs don’t further our perceptions, but break down the brain's ability to block that which we can’t cope with. He also sees a similar effect when people report of near-death experiences.

I find this very inspiring, because he goes on to ask whether the somewhat depressing materialist view of a universe without purpose or meaning is lacking some input that primitive people were able to access in the past. In this way he connects with CG Jung, who has inspired him all the way, and the collective unconscious. What if consciousness is at the root of everything, and we are just receptive to a certain “wave-length” of consciousness? Just like when you turn the dial of an old radio and the internal parts lit up in various places as a new channel was selected, perhaps consciousness is a question of reception. He asks if material can’t produce consciousness, can consciousness produce material? However, you’d have to read his books to get the details. He speaks and writes convincingly and is quite modest. It may be someone worth a read. He is asking the questions that I feel need to be asked.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:13 pm

I just started watching Kastrup on YouTube after reading your post. He takes the leap into metaphysical idealism. This of course involves speculation. It's interesting. I usually hang out in the epoche of phenomenology suspending judgment on metaphysical speculation. But, I'll keep watching.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:16 am

felix dakat wrote:I just started watching Kastrup on YouTube after reading your post. He takes the leap into metaphysical idealism. This of course involves speculation. It's interesting. I usually hang out in the epoche of phenomenology suspending judgment on metaphysical speculation. But, I'll keep watching.

I agree, it is a leap, but I find that he does show the opinions of materialism and scientism to be an attempt to claim that they know reality (realism) whereas they live on ideas and hypotheses rather than a 1:1 depiction of reality. I think that this is quite obvious because, as he says, who can depict reality in that way? Reality is so huge that we can only look at bits of it at a time, which is why our brains have various functions that limit the input of our senses.

I find this applicable to the subject of wholeness because, as Kastrup says somewhere, our understanding of being apart from the world enables us to distinguish ourselves from others. But we find ourselves continually in exchange with our environment, whether it is breathing, drinking, eating, communication, or just presence. We hardly ever have an original idea, we orientate ourselves on consensual standards, learning permanently to cope with situations by interaction. Therefore, what do we need to be whole, if this exchange is a permanent occurrence that we can’t control?

The other aspect is his idea that consciousness is a hard problem because we can’t understand how it can arise in matter that for itself shows no evidence of consciousness. For him, consciousness, or mind, is universal, and we are like vortices in the river of consciousness, distinct only by the whirling of the water we are part of. The river is the unconscious mind, ever present but unconscious to the vortices, arising only in dreams and visions, or when the mind isn’t able to reduce its input because of illness or through psychotropic substances. Another analogy of the brain is that of a radio, which receives consciousness like a radio receives radio signals.

If this were true, what would wholeness look like?
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:07 pm

Bob

I agree with your first paragraph.

If I understand the question with which you end your second paragraph, I would answer that when reaching toward being whole we need our ego ideal which is embedded in the myth of the hero, as for example, in the gospels of Jesus as a Christ.

To your third paragraph, my response is first that I get the point about the mystery of emergence of consciousness. I'm not sure I understand why if consciousness is universal there's an unconscious. Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

Finally I would say that what we have are analogies and images of wholeness but not wholeness itself. It's like a horizon we are ever moving toward but never reaching.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sun Jul 04, 2021 6:55 am

felix dakat wrote:Bob

I agree with your first paragraph.

If I understand the question with which you end your second paragraph, I would answer that when reaching toward being whole we need our ego ideal which is embedded in the myth of the hero, as for example, in the gospels of Jesus as a Christ.

To your third paragraph, my response is first that I get the point about the mystery of emergence of consciousness. I'm not sure I understand why if consciousness is universal there's an unconscious. Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

Finally I would say that what we have are analogies and images of wholeness but not wholeness itself. It's like a horizon we are ever moving toward but never reaching.

Thanks for your reply, I think I am still somewhat befuddled by these ideas.

What I meant with the second paragraph was, what do we need to be physically whole, if our exchange with our environment is a permanent occurrence? Surely, we are therefore part of that environment, taking and giving back as we live. If we were to live purely natural lives, this would perhaps be a balanced giving and taking, but wholeness in a physical sense would then also mean being in harmonious union with our natural environment. As it is, we are estranged from nature in many ways and can’t see the spiritual aspect of nature.

With regard to the third paragraph, I picked up the analogy with the river back when I read Siddhartha from Hermann Hesse, which Kastrup has used in his book. I understand it to say that mind or consciousness (or God?) is the ground of being and flows like a river. We are individually like vortices in that river, aware of our own whirl (ego?), circling ourselves if you like, but the greater mind is unconscious to us, except under certain circumstances. Those who experience this greater mind are the mystics, visionaries, dreamers, who somehow are able to escape the monologue of our egos, the continuing circling around ourselves, and suddenly experience an ineffable vastness.

Of course, analogies only work to a certain degree, but, as you say, they are what we have to work with. The way I understand what you wrote is that wholeness is something we yearn for, and perhaps it is only accessible through joining the greater mind, towards which we are journeying but never quite reaching in this life. Nirvana or heaven, it is the goal of this life to be free of suffering and finally re-joined with God/the great mind.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby Dan~ » Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:22 am

Those who experience this greater mind are the mystics, visionaries, dreamers, who somehow are able to escape the monologue of our egos, the continuing circling around ourselves, and suddenly experience an ineffable vastness.

I've experienced all kinds of ineffable things.
Peace seems to be the best thing,
because it requires nothing but free space in order to exist.
Vastness upon vastness.
Worlds upon worlds.
etc.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10722
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sun Jul 04, 2021 9:20 am

Dan~ wrote:
Those who experience this greater mind are the mystics, visionaries, dreamers, who somehow are able to escape the monologue of our egos, the continuing circling around ourselves, and suddenly experience an ineffable vastness.

I've experienced all kinds of ineffable things.
Peace seems to be the best thing,
because it requires nothing but free space in order to exist.
Vastness upon vastness.
Worlds upon worlds.
etc.

That sounds a lot like quiescence ...
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby Dan~ » Sun Jul 04, 2021 10:22 am

That sounds a lot like quiescence

I call it proficiency through minimalistic austerity.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10722
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Jul 04, 2021 2:34 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Bob

I agree with your first paragraph.

If I understand the question with which you end your second paragraph, I would answer that when reaching toward being whole we need our ego ideal which is embedded in the myth of the hero, as for example, in the gospels of Jesus as a Christ.

To your third paragraph, my response is first that I get the point about the mystery of emergence of consciousness. I'm not sure I understand why if consciousness is universal there's an unconscious. Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

Finally I would say that what we have are analogies and images of wholeness but not wholeness itself. It's like a horizon we are ever moving toward but never reaching.

Thanks for your reply, I think I am still somewhat befuddled by these ideas.

What I meant with the second paragraph was, what do we need to be physically whole, if our exchange with our environment is a permanent occurrence? Surely, we are therefore part of that environment, taking and giving back as we live. If we were to live purely natural lives, this would perhaps be a balanced giving and taking, but wholeness in a physical sense would then also mean being in harmonious union with our natural environment. As it is, we are estranged from nature in many ways and can’t see the spiritual aspect of nature.

With regard to the third paragraph, I picked up the analogy with the river back when I read Siddhartha from Hermann Hesse, which Kastrup has used in his book. I understand it to say that mind or consciousness (or God?) is the ground of being and flows like a river. We are individually like vortices in that river, aware of our own whirl (ego?), circling ourselves if you like, but the greater mind is unconscious to us, except under certain circumstances. Those who experience this greater mind are the mystics, visionaries, dreamers, who somehow are able to escape the monologue of our egos, the continuing circling around ourselves, and suddenly experience an ineffable vastness.

Of course, analogies only work to a certain degree, but, as you say, they are what we have to work with. The way I understand what you wrote is that wholeness is something we yearn for, and perhaps it is only accessible through joining the greater mind, towards which we are journeying but never quite reaching in this life. Nirvana or heaven, it is the goal of this life to be free of suffering and finally re-joined with God/the great mind.


When I think about what we humans doing to the environment I despair. It seems that Martin Heidegger was right when he said only a god can save us.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:21 am

...yet and so, let us follow Jung's wise and Taoistic example:

Jung preferred to let things develop in their own way. 'Don't interfere!' was one of his guiding axioms, which he observed so long as a waiting-and-watching attitude could be adopted without danger.
This attitude of Jung's was the very reverse of indolence; it sprang from a curiosity about life and events that is characteristic of the researcher.
They happened and he let them happen, not turning his back on them but following their development with keen attention, waiting expectantly to see what would result.
Jung never ruled out the possibility that life knew better than the correcting mind, and his attention was directed not so much to the things themselves as to that unknowable agent which organizes the event beyond the will and knowledge of man.
Jung's aim was to understand the hidden intentions of the organizer, and, to penetrate its secrets, no happening was too trivial and no moment too short-lived.
~ Aniela Jaffé, Jungian analyst, From the Life & Work of C.G. Jung
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Jul 13, 2021 4:45 pm

felix dakat wrote:To paraphrase CG Jung, wholeness is a gift which can't be fabricated by art or science. You have to grow into it.


Hi Felix,

How many Buddhist monks and Deepak Chopra's are there out there? :evilfun:

That's a long journey. Do you also see that there are Moments where one can experience wholeness in the blink of an eye? It just comes to us through some catalysts or other. Well, perhaps there was something brewing within which we were not aware of. We just experience that perfect harmony as in "all is right with the world and with us". Maybe we eventually grow into Wholeness at a more steady pace the more often we experience PH.

I think wholeness is like grief in a sense. It comes to us in the moment and leaves us until the next time.

But just remember ---

"He who binds to himself a joy Does the winged life destroy; But he who kisses the joy as it flies Lives in eternity's sun rise."
William Blake
BE MELTING SNOW. WASH YOURSELF OF YOURSELF.

YOU WANDER FROM ROOM TO ROOM
HUNTING FOR THE DIAMOND NECKLACE
THAT IS ALREADY AROUND YOUR NECK!

DANCE UNTIL YOU SHATTER YOURSELF!

THERE IS A VOICE THAT DOESN'T USE WORDS. LISTEN!

LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING ON AND LETTING GO!

LET SILENCE TAKE YOU TO THE CORE OF LIFE!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15726
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 13, 2021 5:07 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:
felix dakat wrote:To paraphrase CG Jung, wholeness is a gift which can't be fabricated by art or science. You have to grow into it.


Hi Felix,

How many Buddhist monks and Deepak Chopra's are there out there? :evilfun:

That's a long journey. Do you also see that there are Moments where one can experience wholeness in the blink of an eye? It just comes to us through some catalysts or other. Well, perhaps there was something brewing within which we were not aware of. We just experience that perfect harmony as in "all is right with the world and with us". Maybe we eventually grow into Wholeness at a more steady pace the more often we experience PH.

I think wholeness is like grief in a sense. It comes to us in the moment and leaves us until the next time.

But just remember ---

"He who binds to himself a joy Does the winged life destroy; But he who kisses the joy as it flies Lives in eternity's sun rise."
William Blake


I memorized that rhyme of Blake when I was in adolescent, and I remind myself of it when the bonds of my attachments are broken.

We have visions of wholeness--glimpses as it were. To see it is to feel it. But, the totality of wholeness--the expression is a paradoxical absurdity in itself--the ultimate monist ideal of self and reality-- is beyond our ken. Thank you for evoking the vision for me in this present moment.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jul 13, 2021 9:27 pm

Here Charles Taylor discourses on how Schiller saw aesthetic experience can afford a means of experiencing wholeness:

...Schiller sees the stage of aesthetic unity as a higher stage, beyond moralism. It is an integral fulfillment, in which all sides of our nature come together harmoniously, in which we achieve full freedom, since one side of us is no longer forced to submit to the demands of the other, and in which we experience the fullness of joy. This is the fulfillment, going beyond morality, which is really the point of our existence.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age (p. 358). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.


This reminds me of Schiller's Ode to Joy which is set to music by Beethoven in the last movement of his 9th symphony. If you've ever been moved by it as I have you may accept it as evidence that Schiller's proposition about the unifying power of the aesthetic is true.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Parodites » Fri Jul 16, 2021 11:51 am

felix dakat wrote:To paraphrase CG Jung, wholeness is a gift which can't be fabricated by art or science. You have to grow into it.



GTP wrote:One has only to look at a tree, and it is immediately apparent that it is not a tree as it is imagined to be in geometry class. It is, in fact, a living being. It has organs, muscles, nerves, and a brain. The tree is whole. A tree grows out of the ground, it produces buds and seeds, it lives and dies. The tree is whole.

The tree is not an assemblage of bits and pieces. Not even parts of a tree.

The tree is a whole being, living, growing, and dying.

And so it is with us humans. We are not a collection of organs and muscles, we are a whole. We are not a collection of thoughts and memories, we are a whole. We are not a group of eyes, nose, mouth, skin, and hair.

And if there is such a thing as a “soul”, it too is a whole being.

We are not a product of our environment. We are a whole being, and we are a product of our environment.

We are not a group of molecules we have no other purpose than the maintenance of our molecules.

We are a whole being, an assemblage of many molecules.

We are not simply a set of ideas. We are a whole being.

An organism as a whole, as a being, is a unity, an oneness, and this is in spite of its many different parts.

We are a whole.
Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat.

BTHYS TOU ANAHAT KHYA-PANDEMAI.
-- Hermaedion, in: the Liber Endumiaskia.

ΑΝΤΗΡΟΠΑΡΙΟΝ,
in formis perisseia mutilata in omnia perisarkos mutilatum;
omniformis protosseia immutilatum in protosarkos immutilata.

Measure the breaking of the Flesh in the flesh that is broken.
[ The Ecstasies of Zosimos, Tablet
the First.]
User avatar
Parodites
Thinker
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:03 pm

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Jul 18, 2021 9:13 pm

Parodites wrote:
felix dakat wrote:To paraphrase CG Jung, wholeness is a gift which can't be fabricated by art or science. You have to grow into it.



GTP wrote:One has only to look at a tree, and it is immediately apparent that it is not a tree as it is imagined to be in geometry class. It is, in fact, a living being. It has organs, muscles, nerves, and a brain. The tree is whole. A tree grows out of the ground, it produces buds and seeds, it lives and dies. The tree is whole.

The tree is not an assemblage of bits and pieces. Not even parts of a tree.

The tree is a whole being, living, growing, and dying.

And so it is with us humans. We are not a collection of organs and muscles, we are a whole. We are not a collection of thoughts and memories, we are a whole. We are not a group of eyes, nose, mouth, skin, and hair.

And if there is such a thing as a “soul”, it too is a whole being.

We are not a product of our environment. We are a whole being, and we are a product of our environment.

We are not a group of molecules we have no other purpose than the maintenance of our molecules.

We are a whole being, an assemblage of many molecules.

We are not simply a set of ideas. We are a whole being.

An organism as a whole, as a being, is a unity, an oneness, and this is in spite of its many different parts.

We are a whole.


A tree has "muscles nerves and a brain"

It seems GTP has a sense of humor.

"We are not a group of molecules we have no other purpose than the maintenance of our molecules."

And GTP is also a nihilist. Just what the world needs!

"We are a whole."

A simplistic whole according to GTP but one that is living and growing perhaps like a virus and watched over by an unspecified X who's only job is to maintain its molecules.

GTP seems to reduce the phenomenal world to a flat world by missing the existential qualities of which experience consists.

What does GTP know of experiences like love, joy, hope, or despair?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 9444
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: phenomenal_graffiti