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 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:41 pm

felix dakat wrote:This rediscovery of existentialism has a great significance for theology. It has seen the dark elements in man as over against a philosophy of consciousness which lays all the stress on man's conscious decisions and his good will. The existentialists allied themselves with Freud's analysis of the unconscious in protest against a psychology of consciousness which had previously existed. Existentialism and psychotherapeutic psychology are natural allies and have always worked together. This rediscovery of the unconscious in man is of the highest importance for theology. It has changed the moralistic and idealistic types which we have discussed; it has placed the question of the human condition at the center of all theological thinking, and for this reason it has made the answers meaningful again. In this light we can say that existentialism and Freud, together with his followers and friends (especially Jung and the archetypal psychologists*), have become the providential allies of Christian theology in the twentieth century. This is similar to the way in which the Marxist analysis of the structure of society became a tremendous factor in arousing the churches to a sense of responsibility for the social conditions in which men live.

PAUL TILLICH A History of Christian Thought From Its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins to Existentialism

* Felix


Reading Tillich's systematic theology helped me transition from a Christian cult to an agnosticism in which I recognize that faith itself implies doubt. See how that is consistent with the polarities of Chinese philosophy and Carl Jung? Spiritual growth is the process whereby the polarities of the psyche become unified.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:21 pm

"From the Universe Next Door: christian existentialism (neo-orthodoxy) is a reaction against depersonalized orthodoxy. Sin to orthodox is breaking rules, to existentialist betraying a relationship, repentance is sorrow over breaking relationship vs admitting guilt, forgiveness is renewing fellowship vs cancelled penalty, faith is communicating vs belief in propositions and the Christian life is pleasing the personal Lord vs obeying rules. "

I suppose that the relationship with Christ (the personal Lord described above) is an imaginal phenomena.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:03 pm

"The interplay of opposites is the engine that runs the universe" Tom Robbins

"As above, so below"

Image

Diagram illustrating the unification of the Light King and the Shadow King archetypes into the fully actualized King. This is a symbolic representation of the process of masculine individuation and integration toward Wholeness in one archetypal dimension. Other key archetypes of the male psyche include the warrior. the magician and the lover. Each are polarized when immature, and can be unified through growth and development and insight. Together they can be diagrammed as a four sided pyramid whose center is also the peak --the ideal of wholeness. This conceptualization of individuation is based on the work of Jungian psychoanalyst Robert Moore and mythologist Douglas Gillette.

The degree to which this approach becomes a meaningful mode of spiritual progress will depend on the degree symbols are experienced in one's own internal imagery. What depth psychology since before Freud has shown is that our sense that we are a simply unified ego is an illusion. Jung's concept of the persona--the character that the psyche uses to interface with others is itself an oversimplification. One has multiple personae which are used in different situations and in different moods. Perhaps the difference between someone who seeks treatment for multiple personality disorder and the rest of us is that they experience distress by the multiple archetypes that occupy their consciousness and we are either not aware of the different personalities or if we are, it doesn't bother us.

Image

Here's another diagram based on the work of Moore and Gillette. Much research and analysis of the hero archetype including the works of Rank, Jung and Campbell. Moore and Gillette see the hero as an archetype of boy psychology. Initiation in traditional cultures involves the ritual death of the boy as a necessary step toward the birth of the man. The death and resurrection of Christ has been proffered by mythologists as an instance of the the initiation motif in the hero myth.

Here is Rank as his work pertains to comparisons of the birth of Christ with other hero myths:

Another attempt at a reversal to a more original type consists in the following theme: The return to the lowly father, which has been brought about through the separation of the father's rôle from that of the king, is again nullified through the lowly father's secondary elevation to the rank of a god, as in Perseus and the other sons of virgin mothers (Karna, Ion, Romulus, Jesus) . The secondary character of this godly paternity is especially evident in those myths where the virgin who has been impregnated by divine conception later on marries a mortal (Jesus, Karna, Ion), who then appears as the real father, while the god as the father represents merely the most exalted childish idea of the magnitude, power, and perfection of the father. 1 At the same time, these myths strictly insist upon the motif of the virginity of the mother, which elsewhere is merely hinted at. The first impetus is perhaps supplied by the transcendental tendency, necessitated through the introduction of the god. At the same time, the birth from the virgin is the most abrupt repudiation of the father, the consummation of the entire myth, as illustrated by the Sargon legend, which does not admit any father besides the vestal mother. The last stage of this progressive attenuation of the hostile relation to the father is represented by that form of the myth in which the person of the royal persecutor not only appears entirely detached from that of the father, but has even lost the remotest kinship with the hero's family, which he opposes in the most hostile manner, as its enemy (in Feridun, Abraham, King Herod against Jesus, and others) .

Rank, Otto. The Myth of the Birth of the Hero: A Psychological Interpretation of Mythology (pp. 74-75). Mariana de Lacerda Oliveira. Kindle Edition.


Rank saw the Jesus birth story as fitting clearly into Freudian Oedipal theory. Jung had a very different interpretation in which incest taboo has a genetic basis.

Jung drew special attention to the myth of the hero, interpreting the recurrent theme of his fight with a dragon-monster as the struggle of the adolescent ego for deliverance from the mother. This led him to interpretations of the Oedipus complex and the incest taboo which were very different from those proposed by Freud. In Jung’s view, a child became attached to his mother not because she was the object of incestuous passion, as Freud maintained, but because she was the provider of love and care – a view which anticipated the theoretical revolution revolution wrought some forty years later by the British analyst and psychiatrist John Bowlby. Furthermore, Jung maintained that the incest taboo was primary: it existed a priori, and was not derived from the father’s prohibition of the boy’s lust for his mother, as Freud insisted. Oedipal longings, when they occurred, were the consequence of incest prohibition rather than its cause. Jung also argued that the Oedipus complex was not the universal phenomenon that Freud declared it to be.

Stevens, Anthony. Jung: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (p. 23). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.


In either theory, Freud's or Jung's the rivalry with the Father is central to a pattern of the developing male ego. In Jung's theory the ego itself is itself an archetype of the psyche.

It should be remembered that it was Jung who proposed the Electra complex as "a girl's psychosexual competition with her mother for possession of her father. In the course of her psychosexual development, the complex is the girl's phallic stage; a boy's analogous experience is the Oedipus complex." [Wikipedia]

As a psychoanalytic term for daughter–mother psychosexual conflict, the Electra complex derives from the Greek mythologic character Electra, who plotted matricidal revenge with Orestes, her brother, against Clytemnestra, their mother, and Aegisthus, their stepfather, for their murder of Agamemnon, their father (cf. Electra, by Sophocles). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electra_complex
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:22 pm

Jungian theory aside, the point of departure for this thread is the value of attending to one's mental imagery as a means of becoming conscious of one's own psychic depth.

Psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan noted that in the course of his research he observed that the mind once freed from all critical pressures and school-bound habits offered images and not logical propositions. He noticed that the meanings patients attached to words are often fluid and seem to be attached to images. In the first phase of his work Lacon stressed the role of images and the imaginary in the workings of the human mind. His observations at this stage and similar to that of the archetypal psychology of James Hillman.

Imaginal exploration has lead me to entertain the possibility of an imaginal realm accessible by the human mind that has been the province of esoteric and perennial wisdom throughout the ages.

The hard-core materialist will dismiss such a proposition as pure fantasy. I'm okay with that. It's not like I claim to "know" in the objective sense of the word. Let them consider it to be my personal religious predilection.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:38 am

Four hypnagogic experiences from my childhood and one recent one:
1) recurring dreams of nuclear Holocaust and panic attacks when the air raid sirens went off
2) a dream of swallowing a bottle cap that led to a trip to the emergency room
3) waking up in the middle of the night and being unable to find my parents anywhere which led to years of suspicion that my parents and other adults were deceiving me about what was really going on in the world
4) walking up the stairs from the basement of the church building alone and reaching the sanctuary to find it empty and full of light like I had never seen before or after

5) coming home to find my cat Widget dead after a vision of him filled my mind and made my heart heavy with grief as I lay in bed trying to sleep.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:50 am

A warning to philosophers from Jung's Red Book:

A thinker should fear Salome, since she wants his head, especially if he is a holy man. A thinker cannot be a holy person, otherwise he loses his head. It does not help to hide oneself in thought. There the solidification overtakes you. You must turn back to motherly forethought to obtain renewal. But forethought leads to Salome.

C. G. Jung. The Red Book: A Reader's Edition (Philemon) (Kindle Locations 3337-3339). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.


And a means of moving past disgust toward wholeness:

What a thinker does not think he believes does not exist, and what one who feels does not feel he believes does not exist. You begin to have a presentiment of the whole when you embrace your opposite principle, since the whole belongs to both principles, which grow from one root.

C. G. Jung. The Red Book: A Reader's Edition (Philemon) (Kindle Locations 3352-3354). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.


My experience confirms this. When I only see one side of an issue my cognitive dissonance is great. When I become aware of the other side of the polarity, I transcend myself and consciousness becomes fuller. Growth in consciousness is dialectical. Dialogue can be a means of growth when one is open to the truth of the other.



Jung's Red Book is an extended hypnagogic journey as is Kafka's The Trial .
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:19 pm

Gratitude/Thankfulness--it can change your perspective from darkness to light!

Gratitude is the expression of appreciation for what one has. It is a recognition of value independent of monetary worth. Spontaneously generated from within, it is an affirmation of goodness and warmth. This social emotion strengthens relationships, and its roots run deep in evolutionary history—emanating from the survival value of helping others and being helped in return. Studies show that specific areas of the brain are involved in experiencing and expressing gratitude. Brain scans of people assigned a task that stimulates expression of gratitude show lasting changes in the prefrontal cortex that heighten sensitivity to future experiences of gratitude.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gratitude


Gratitude also increases consciousness. When you take a person or thing for granted you are not conscious of them or it.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:57 pm

...for any composite thing, death brings dread. However, though I cannot escape the dread of death, I can feel something of the eternal satisfaction of the Witness.

I am a Witness. Being a Witness doesn’t bring with it any fame or admiration, but it carries its own timeless pleasure, a sense of immortality that in some inexplicable way transcends the inevitable death that lies ahead. It engenders the instinctive feeling of fellowship with eternal wisdom, since the Witness knows it is already ensconced in a realm beyond change and dread.

The fact is that every conscious thing is such a Witness, and every conscious thing senses that this is the case. But not every conscious thing actually becomes aware of its true nature. For that reason, many conscious things have an exaggerated fear of death, and, in their fear, they mock those who can acknowledge the real situation. They see them as arrogant.

Crabtree, Adam. The Land of Hypnagogia (pp. 77-78). Kindle Edition.


Crabtree's hypnogagic insight above is akin to Kierkegaard's understanding of the single individual's existential relation to the Infinite in his eponymous writings.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:15 pm

'For the historian of religions, every manifestation of the sacred is important: every rite, every myth, every belief or divine figure reflects the experience of the sacred and hence implies the notions of being, of meaning, and of truth. As I observed on another occasion, “it is difficult to imagine how the human mind could function without the conviction that there is something irreducibly real in the world; and it is impossible to imagine how consciousness could appear without conferring a meaning on man’s impulses and experiences. Consciousness of a real and meaningful world is intimately connected with the discovery of the sacred. Through experience of the sacred, the human mind has perceived the difference between what reveals itself as being real, powerful, rich, and meaningful and what lacks these qualities, that is, the chaotic and dangerous flux of things, their fortuitous and senseless appearances and disappearances” (preface to The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion [1969]). In short, the “sacred” is an element in the structure of consciousness and not a stage in the history of consciousness. On the most archaic levels of culture, living, considered as being human, is in itself a religious act, for food-getting, sexual life, and work have a sacramental value. In other words, to be—or, rather, to become—a man signifies being “religious” (ibid.).'
Eliade, Mircea. A History of Religious Ideas Volume 1: From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries . The University of Chicago Press. Preface.


Challenger:
I would challenge this quote on the basis that Eliade appears to be assuming his own biases and then using that as the starting point for his observations. In particular, I have problems with this section: "...it is difficult to imagine how the human mind could function without the conviction that there is something irreducibly real in the world; and it is impossible to imagine how consciousness could appear without conferring a meaning on man’s impulses and experiences. Consciousness of a real and meaningful world is intimately connected with the discovery of the sacred." I have a couple of points of contention with this statement. First, I have no idea what he means by "something irreducibly real". Religious language frequently is guilty of this kind of opaqueness. Pushing the world of quantum theory aside, in terms of everyday experience, of course the human brain makes assumptions minute by minute of the irreducible reality that it is interpreting. That is a statement of the obvious. He then moves on to imply that the discovery of "meaning" and "the sacred" is a necessary element of "consciousness". I would offer that this seems to be true only to the person who has already assumed the existence of the sacred. It is just as possible that consciousness would lead to concluding that all is devoid of meaning and ultimate value. This, of course, is the nihilist position and the existentialist dilemma. Finally, the ascribing of sacredness is just as possibly one stage in the evolution of human consciousness, rather than a necessary element, and certainly rather than its goal.


Me:
Thank you for your challenge, because it opened the dialect of meaning for me with respect to the above quote. I think Eliade is right because intention always precedes and conditions consciousness.


Challenger
really? It seems much more reasonable to me to say that consciousness always precedes intention. After all, how could there be such a thing as "intention" without a preexisting consciousness?


Me
consciousness is not free floating. It always has an object. It is always focused by intention. Right now as you read these words your consciousness is focused on them and there are an infinite number of other things in the universe of which you are not conscious. When is this ever not the case?


Challenger:
I would agree that the application of consciousness is, by definition, intentional. But "consciousness", as a state of being, I would define as the awareness that "we are" - i.e. the awareness of our own selves and our own minds. That awareness is not necessarily intentional. When I awake in the morning and am suddenly aware that I am awake, that I have the need to relieve myself, that I feel rested or not, etc. - those are not focused, intentional thoughts. They are simply the product of evolution in the human brain. I don't "choose", or "intend" to be conscious. I simply am.


Me
"Forgetfulness of being" occurs whenever we attend to something else. When you awake in the morning, the state of awakeness may or may not be the object of your consciousness. When you are conscious of needing to relieve yourself, you aren't thinking about being awake, etc. There is always a figure and ground in consciousness. When intention brings one to the fore, the rest sinks into the background. What is in the background is momentarily unconscious. "Pre-conscious" the psychoanalysts call it. Intentionality in the sense I am using it is a philosophical concept defined as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs". I agree that consciousness is theoretically a product of evolution. How far down does consciousness go in the phylogenetic chain? Alfred North Whitehead thought that feeling was the subjective concomitant of energy and that even atoms could feel. But that would not be consciousness such as we are discussing. Focused attention is certainly possible for other species. Predators such as hawks certainly are capable of focused attention. But, self-reflective consciousness--consciousness of being conscious-- seems to be limited for the most part to human beings. Or so it seems to me.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:06 am

People who are “open to experience” tend to be intellectually curious, creative and imaginative. Personality researchers have shown that such people literally see the world differently.
Less open people experience latent inhibition, a brain function that filters out extraneous visual and cognitive input. But highly open people are less subject to such cognitive inhibition.
Because their perception allows more information to flow into their visual system, more open people tend to see things that others block out. Researchers also found that open people can feel very complex emotional states because seemingly incompatible feelings break through into their consciousness simultaneously.

Openness to Experience: The Gates of the Mind
People who are “open to experience” literally see the world differently

By Luke Smillie on August 15, 2017أعرض هذا


Openness to experience
Openness to experience is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, open to emotion, sensitive to beauty and willing to try new things. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are also more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. High openness can be perceived as unpredictability or lack of focus, and more likely to engage in risky behavior or drug-taking.[36] Moreover, individuals with high openness are said to pursue self-actualization specifically by seeking out intense, euphoric experiences. Conversely, those with low openness seek to gain fulfillment through perseverance and are characterized as pragmatic and data-driven—sometimes even perceived to be dogmatic and closed-minded. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret and contextualize the openness factor.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_ ... ity_traits


Openness to experience seems to correlate highly with interest in mental imagery. Does focusing on mental imagery actually enhance openness and creativity?

Here's an article that suggests that with children it can: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 20products.

and this one with college students as well:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 01870/full
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:33 pm

The idea of the “noosphere” has been compared to Jung’s Collective Unconscious and Theosophy’s Akashic Record, yet its more immediate model is the internet.

Lachman, Gary. Dark Star Rising (p. 144). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.


The noosphere is a philosophical concept developed and popularized by the biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky, and the French philosopher and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Vernadsky defined the noosphere as the new state of the biosphere and described as the planetary "sphere of reason". The noosphere represents the highest stage of biospheric development, its defining factor being the development of humankind's rational activities.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

Collective unconscious (German: kollektives Unbewusstes) refers to structures of the unconscious mind which are shared among beings of the same species. It is a term coined by Carl Jung. According to Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes: universal symbols such as The Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, and the Tree of Life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic Chronicle is a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions, and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present, or future. They are believed by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence known as the mental plane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

My hypothesis is that awareness of one's own mental images can bring one into contact with the hypnagogic/imaginal realm which is the potentially conscious sphere of the collective unconscious/noosphere/Akashic record. If so, psychic wholeness would include such spiritual consciousness.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:11 pm

Philo of Alexandria ( c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE), also called Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who sought to harmonize Jewish scripture with Greek philosophy. Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through the Logos. The Christians picked up Logos theology from Philo beginning with the canonical Gospel of John, Chapter 1 verse 1: "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God."


Significant references of Philo's to the Logos include the following:
Philo, On the Creation X (36) (p. 6)
The incorporeal world then was already completed, having its seat in the Divine Reason [Logos]; and the world, perceptible by the external senses, was made on the model of it;
PHILO, ON THE CREATION LI (146) (P. 21)
... Every man in regard of his intellect is connected with divine reason [logos], being an impression of, or a fragment or ray of that blessed nature ...
Philo, Allegorical Interpretation III XXXI (96) (p. 61)
... But the shadow of God is his word [logos], which he used like an instrument when he was making the world. And this shadow, and, as it were, model, is the archetype of other things. ...
Philo, On the Cherubim -- Part 1 XI (35) (p. 84)
... it is not the pursuits which you follow that are the causes of your participation in good or in evil, but rather the divine reason [logos], which is the helmsman and governor of the universe ...
Philo, On Husbandry XII (45) (p. 178)
... For God, like a shepherd and king, governs (as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water, and the fire, and the air and all the plants, and living creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine; and he regulates the nature of the heaven, and the periodical revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them according to law and justice; appointing as their immediate superintendent, his own right reason [logos], his first-born son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the great king; ...
Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things XXVI (130) (p. 287)
... it was the untaught God who divides them, and that he divided all the natures of bodies and things one after another, which appeared to be closely fitted together and united by his word [logos], which cuts through everything; which being sharpened to the finest possible edge, never ceases dividing all the objects of the outward senses, ...
Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things XXVII (140) (p. 287)
... God, having sharpened his own word [logos], the divider of all things, divides the essence of the universe which is destitute of form, and is destitute of all distinctive qualities, and the four elements of the world which were separated from this essence, and the plants and the animals which were consolidated by means of these elements.
Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things XXXVIII (188) (p. 292)
... if there is anywhere anything consolidated, that has been bound by the word [logos] of God, for this word is glue and a chain, filling all things with its essence. And the word, which connects together and fastens every thing, is peculiarly full of itself, having no need whatever of any thing beyond.
Philo, Who Is the Heir of Divine Things XLVIII (234) (p. 296)
... the two natures are indivisible; the nature, I mean, of the reasoning power in us, and of the divine Word [logos] above us; but though they are indivisible themselves, they divide an innumerable multitude of other things. http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/ ... iloCreaV20


To Philo, God is the incorporeal, eternal, indescribable, essential Being of the world. Reason can describe no quality to God, since every quality is a limitation.

To conceive God as having human form is a concession to the sensuous imagination. God is everywhere; "what place can a man find where God is not?"

But God is not everything. Matter is also eternal and uncreated. However, matter has no life motion or form until infused with the Divine Force.

To create the world by giving form to matter, and to establish relations with humanity, God used a host of intermediary beings called angels by the Jews daimones by the Greeks and ideas by Plato. These, says Philo, may popularly be conceived as persons, but really they exist only in the Divine Mind as the thoughts and powers of God.

Together these powers constitute what the Greek philosophers called the Logos or Divine reason thus creating and guiding the world. As can be seen the above quotations from the works of Philo, the Logos has both transcendent and immanent aspects. In the fractal universe we are in the Logos and the Logos is in us.

Logos means "word". But it also refers to the meaning of a word, the reasonable structure which is indicated by a word. Therefore, Logos can also mean the universal law of reality. This is what Heraclitus meant by it, who was the first to use this word philosophically. The Logos for him was the law which determines the movements of all reality.

Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought (Touchstone Books) (p. 7). Kindle Edition.


For the Stoics the Logos was the divine power which is present in everything that is.

Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought (Touchstone Books) (p. 7). Kindle Edition.


The Logos became most important for it united the Jewish memra' with the Greek philosophical logos. Logos in Philo is the protogenes huios theou, the first-born Son of God. These mediating beings between the most high God and man to some extent replace the immediacy of the relationship to God.

Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought (Touchstone Books) (p. 11). Kindle Edition.


C.G. Jung then discovers psychological evidence of the Logos as an archetype of the collective unconscious.

There is no consciousness without discrimination of opposites. This is the paternal principle, the Logos, which eternally struggles to extricate itself from the primal warmth and primal darkness of the maternal womb; in a word, from unconsciousness. [“Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype,” CW 9i, par. 178.]


By Logos I meant discrimination, judgment, insight, and by Eros I meant the capacity to relate. I regarded both concepts as intuitive ideas which cannot be defined accurately or exhaustively. From the scientific point of view this is regrettable, but from a practical one it has its value, since the two concepts mark out a field of experience which it is equally difficult to define.

As we can hardly ever make a psychological proposition without immediately having to reverse it, instances to the contrary leap to the eye at once: men who care nothing for discrimination, judgment, and insight, and women who display an almost excessively masculine proficiency in this respect. … Wherever this exists, we find a forcible intrusion of the unconscious, a corresponding exclusion of the consciousness specific to either sex, predominance of the shadow and of contrasexuality. [“The Personification of the Opposites,” CW 14, pars. 224f.]


Frith Luton, Jungian analyst, says of Jung's conception of Logos:
In his later writing on alchemy, Jung described Logos and Eros as psychologically equivalent to solar and lunar consciousness, archetypal ideas analogous to the Eastern concepts of yang and yin – different qualities of energy. This did not change his view that Eros was more “specific” to feminine consciousness and Logos to masculine. Hence he attributed Eros in a man to the influence of the anima, and Logos in a woman to that of the animus. https://frithluton.com/articles/logos/


Here author Robert Wright, & Massimo Pigliucci, stoic philosopher, discuss the history of the Logos image including criticism of Jung's and Peterson's treatment of the concept. (They admit to cursory knowledge of Peterson.)
https://youtu.be/FJr9_zGqOPU

Concerning the Logos ,Peterson writes in Maps of Meaning:

In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the Logos--the word of God-- that creates order from chaos, and it is in the image of the Logos that man ["Let us make man in our image after our likeness (Genesis 1:26)] is created. This idea has clear additional precedents in early and late Egyptian cosmology as (we shall see). In the Far East, similarly, the cosmos is imagined as composed of the interplay between Yang and Yin, chaos and order, [Peterson has this backwards]-- that is to say, unknown or unexplored territory and known or explored territory. Tao, from the Eastern perspective, is the pattern of behavior that mediates between them (analogous to En-lil, Marduk and the Logos) constantly generating, destroying and regenerating the universe. For the Eastern individual, Life in Tao is the highest good the way and meaning, the goal toward which all other goals must remain subordinate.[pg 100]


In the Judeo-Christian tradition, creation depends on the existence and action of logos, mythically masculine discriminate consciousness or exploratory spirit, associated inextricably with linguistic ability--with the Word..." [pg 111]


The early Jews were perhaps the first to clearly posit that activity in the mythically masculine domain of spirit was linked in some integral manner to the construction and establishment of experience as such. [pg 111]


The "son-hero's" roll in the birth of things is therefore as primal as the mother's, although this part is somewhat more difficult to comprehend. Nonetheless, the Sumerians manage the representation, in narrative form. It is a relatively small step from this dramatic/ imagistic portrayal of the hero to the most explicit Christian doctrine of Logos--the creative Word (and from there to our notion of "consciousness"). [pg 123]


If the Logos is imagined as masculine, one wonders if there is a feminine equivalent in the Judeo-Christian. And we find that there is--Sophia:

Christian theology received the Old Testament personification of Divine Wisdom (Septuagint Sophia, Vulgate Sapientia). The connection of Divine Wisdom to the concept of the Logos resulted in the interpretation of "Holy Wisdom" (Hagia Sophia) as an aspect of Christ the Logos.

The expression Ἁγία Σοφία itself is not found in the New Testament, even though passages in the Pauline epistles equate Christ with the "wisdom of God" (θεοῦ σοφία).[8] The clearest form of the identification of Divine Wisdom with Christ comes in 1 Corinthians 1:17–2:13. In 1 Cor. 2:7, Paul speaks of the Wisdom of God as a mystery which was "ordained before the world unto our glory".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom)


One thing that can be said is that this Logos idea does find very close parallels with other biblical texts – in particular with texts that speak of the Wisdom (Greek: Sophia) of God. Sophia and Logos are related ideas; both have to do in some respect with “reason.” Sophia is reason that is internal to a person; Logos is that reason that gets expressed verbally.

Wisdom plays an important role in some biblical passages, none more so than Proverbs chapter 8, where “wisdom” is celebrated and is portrayed almost as a hypostasis – that is, a characteristic or feature of God that takes on personal characteristics as a being separate from God. Much of the Christ poem in John 1 has parallels with the paean to Wisdom in Proverbs 8. https://ehrmanblog.org/johns-logos-and- ... r-members/


While Wisdom is viewed as a hypostasis in Judeo-Christian scriptures, she is a full-blown goddess in world mythology as for examples, Isis of the Egyptians, Athena of the Greeks, Minerva of the Romans, Saraswati of the Hindus and others. This points toward the universality of feminine Wisdom as a universal archetype.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ecmandu » Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:37 pm

Felix, some beings create by just thinking a being into existence; no sex, no gender to make it happen:

This male/female logos is absurd to them.

You’re talking to a cosmic consciousness right now. Not THEE cosmic consciousness (those beings always get fucked up).
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10787
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:35 am

Ecmandu wrote:Felix, some beings create by just thinking a being into existence; no sex, no gender to make it happen:

This male/female logos is absurd to them.

You’re talking to a cosmic consciousness right now. Not THEE cosmic consciousness (those beings always get fucked up).


Ecmandu, my link to the divine is the images of my mind. Beyond that lies the pleroma. Here's how Jung described it:

The dead came back from Jerusalem, where they found not what they sought. They prayed me let them in and besought my word, and thus I began my teaching.

Harken: I begin with nothingness. Nothingness is the same as fullness. In infinity full is no better than empty. Nothingness is both empty and full. As well might ye say anything else of nothingness, as for instance, white is it, or black, or again, it is not, or it is. A thing that is infinite and eternal hath no qualities, since it hath all qualities.

This nothingness or fullness we name the PLEROMA. Therein both thinking and being cease, since the eternal and infinite possess no qualities. In it no being is, for he then would be distinct from the pleroma, and would possess qualities which would distinguish him as something distinct from the pleroma.

In the pleroma there is nothing and everything. It is quite fruitless to think about the pleroma, for this would mean self-dissolution.

CREATURA is not in the pleroma, but in itself. The pleroma is both beginning and end of created beings. It pervadeth them, as the light of the sun everywhere pervadeth the air. Although the pleroma pervadeth altogether, yet hath created being no share thereof, just as a wholly transparent body becometh neither light nor dark through the light which pervadeth it. We are, however, the pleroma itself, for we are a part of the eternal and infinite. But we have no share thereof, as we are from the pleroma infinitely removed; not spiritually or temporally, but essentially, since we are distinguished from the pleroma in our essence as creatura, which is confined within time and space.

Yet because we are parts of the pleroma, the pleroma is also in us. Even in the smallest point is the pleroma endless, eternal, and entire, since small and great are qualities which are contained in it. It is that nothingness which is everywhere whole and continuous. Only figuratively, therefore, do I speak of created being as a part of the pleroma. Because, actually, the pleroma is nowhere divided, since it is nothingness. We are also the whole pleroma, because, figuratively, the pleroma is the smallest point (assumed only, not existing) in us and the boundless firmament about us. But wherefore, then, do we speak of the pleroma at all, since it is thus everything and nothing?

I speak of it to make a beginning somewhere, and also to free you from the delusion that somewhere, either without or within, there standeth something fixed, or in some way established, from the beginning. Every so-called fixed and certain thing is only relative. That alone is fixed and certain which is subject to change.

What is changeable, however, is creatura. Therefore is it the one thing which is fixed and certain; because it hath qualities: it is even quality itself.

The question ariseth: How did creatura originate? Created beings came to pass, not creatura; since created being is the very quality of the pleroma, as much as non-creation which is the eternal death. In all times and places is creation, in all times and places is death. The pleroma hath all, distinctiveness and non-distinctiveness.

Distinctiveness is creatura. It is distinct. Distinctiveness is its essence, and therefore it distinguisheth. Therefore man discriminateth because his nature is distinctiveness. Wherefore also he distinguisheth qualities of the pleroma which are not. He distinguisheth them out of his own nature. Therefore must he speak of qualities of the pleroma which are not.

What use, say ye, to speak of it? Saidst thou not thyself, there is no profit in thinking upon the pleroma?

That said I unto you, to free you from the delusion that we are able to think about the pleroma. When we distinguish qualities of the pleroma, we are speaking from the ground of our own distinctiveness and concerning our own distinctiveness. But we have said nothing concerning the pleroma. Concerning our own distinctiveness, however, it is needful to speak, whereby we may distinguish ourselves enough. Our very nature is distinctiveness. If we are not true to this nature we do not distinguish ourselves enough. Therefore must we make distinctions of qualities.

What is the harm, ye ask, in not distinguishing oneself? If we do not distinguish, we get beyond our own nature, away from creatura. We fall into indistinctiveness, which is the other quality of the pleroma. We fall into the pleroma itself and cease to be creatures. We are given over to dissolution in the nothingness. This is the death of the creature. Therefore we die in such measure as we do not distinguish. Hence the natural striving of the creature goeth towards distinctiveness, fighteth against primeval, perilous sameness. This is called the principium individuation is. This principle is the essence of the creature. From this you can see why indistinctiveness and non-distinction are a great danger for the creature.

We must, therefore, distinguish the qualities of the pleroma. The qualities are pairs of opposites, such as—

The Effective and the Ineffective.
Fullness and Emptiness.
Living and Dead.
Difference and Sameness.
Light and Darkness.
The Hot and the Cold.
Force and Matter.
Time and Space.
Good and Evil.
Beauty and Ugliness.
The One and the Many. etc.
The pairs of opposites are qualities of the pleroma which are not, because each balanceth each. As we are the pleroma itself, we also have all these qualities in us. Because the very ground of our nature is distinctiveness, therefore we have these qualities in the name and sign of distinctiveness, which meaneth—

1. These qualities are distinct and separate in us one from the other; therefore they are not balanced and void, but are effective. Thus are we the victims of the pairs of opposites. The pleroma is rent in us.
2. The qualities belong to the pleroma, and only in the name and sign of distinctiveness can and must we possess or live them. We must distinguish ourselves from qualities. In the pleroma they are balanced and void; in us not. Being distinguished from them delivereth us.
When we strive after the good or the beautiful, we thereby forget our own nature, which is distinctiveness, and we are delivered over to the qualities of the pleroma, which are pairs of opposites. We labor to attain to the good and the beautiful, yet at the same time we also lay hold of the evil and the ugly, since in the pleroma these are one with the good and the beautiful. When, however, we remain true to our own nature, which is distinctiveness, we distinguish ourselves from the good and the beautiful, and, therefore, at the same time, from the evil and the ugly. And thus we fall not into the pleroma, namely, into nothingness and dissolution.

Thou sayest, ye object, that difference and sameness are also qualities of the pleroma. How would it be, then, if we strive after difference? Are we, in so doing, not true to our own nature? And must we none the less be given over to sameness when we strive after difference?

Ye must not forget that the pleroma hath no qualities. We create them through thinking. If, therefore, ye strive after difference or sameness, or any qualities whatsoever, ye pursue thoughts which flow to you out of the pleroma; thoughts, namely, concerning non-existing qualities of the pleroma. Inasmuch as ye run after these thoughts, ye fall again into the pleroma, and reach difference and sameness at the same time. Not your thinking, but your being, is distinctiveness. Therefore not after difference, as ye think it, must ye strive; but after your own being. At bottom, therefore, there is only one striving, namely, the striving after your own being. If ye had this striving ye would not need to know anything about the pleroma and its qualities, and yet would ye come to your right goal by virtue of your own being. Since, however, thought estrangeth from being, that knowledge must I teach you wherewith ye may be able to hold your thought in leash.http://gnosis.org/library/7Sermons.htm


Parmenides called the same "Being Itself".

Wittengenstein said of the same:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

Tao Te Ching says: "The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

So, what are you talking about, and how do you expect to be understood?
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:44 pm

The Logos informs how our minds shape reality. A person's processes are psychologically channelized by the way they anticipate events. Expectations influence events.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Oct 01, 2020 6:28 pm

"...philosophy opens up a refuge for men where no tyranny can reach: the cave of inwardness, the labyrinth of the breast; and that annoys all tyrants."

Friedrich Nietzsche, "Schopenhauer as Educator"
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:51 pm

"...philosophy opens up a refuge for men where no tyranny can reach: the cave of inwardness, the labyrinth of the breast; and that annoys all tyrants."

Friedrich Nietzsche, "Schopenhauer as Educator"


Two impediment to exploration of the cave of inwardness:

heteronomous religion,

scientism.

Two sources of nihilism.

Nietzsche’s poem:

Undaunted

Where you stand, there dig deep!

Below you lies the well!

Let obscurantists wail and weep:

‘Below is always — hell!’


In Plato's allegory the philosopher goes into the light of day and then preaches to those in the darkness of the cave. And Nietzsche's allegory Zarathustra goes into the cave and then preaches to those in the light of day. Thus does Nietzsche picture turning the values of the Enlightenment on their heads.
Last edited by felix dakat on Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:50 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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:12 pm

Historically, autonomous reason has liberated and maintained itself in a never ending fight with heteronomy. Heteronomy imposes a strange (heteros) law (nomos) on one or all of the functions of reason. It issues commands from “outside” on how reason should grasp and shape reality. But this “outside” is not merely outside. It represents, at the same time, an element in reason itself, namely, the depth of reason. This makes the fight between autonomy and heteronomy dangerous and tragic. It is, finally, a conflict in reason itself.

Out of this conflict arises the quest for theonomy.

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume 1 (pgs, 84, 83). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.


Most people in the West and in the US in particular see themselves as autonomous. In other words they're law on to themselves. Now in the history of Christianity the church once imposed heteronymous law. If there is a higher source of law, a theonomy, what is it? How can we know it? What are the consequences of living according to it or not? If life is a matter of winning the game of all games then it seems we should make a serious effort to understand and play by the rules. But how?
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:43 pm

I contemplate the Tao Te Ching as often as I do the wisdom of Bible. I entertain the proposition that the major religions have a common esoteric core.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Ierrellus » Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:43 pm

felix dakat wrote:I contemplate the Tao Te Ching as often as I do the wisdom of Bible. I entertain the proposition that the major religions have a common esoteric core.

Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy finds the common denominators of the world's religions.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12840
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Wholeness

Postby MagsJ » Mon Oct 05, 2020 1:35 pm

Ierrellus wrote:
felix dakat wrote:I contemplate the Tao Te Ching as often as I do the wisdom of Bible. I entertain the proposition that the major religions have a common esoteric core.

Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy finds the common denominators of the world's religions.

Yes.. that pivotal point in human history, where the divergence of the main genetic lineages, created the main religious or Pagan strands of worship or being.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Wait, What! - MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20464
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka/LDN Town

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:02 pm

Ierrellus wrote:
felix dakat wrote:I contemplate the Tao Te Ching as often as I do the wisdom of Bible. I entertain the proposition that the major religions have a common esoteric core.

Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy finds the common denominators of the world's religions.


PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS—the phrase was coined by Leibniz; but the thing—the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being—the thing is immemorial and universal. universal. Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions.

Huxley, Aldous. The Perennial Philosophy: An Interpretation of the Great Mystics, East and West . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.


I've cited huxley's book on this thread before. The perennial philosophy is also referred to as the perennial wisdom. If the deep unconscious of humanity is collective as Carl Jung proposed it would not be surprising if the deepest archetypes of human wisdom were to reappear throughout human history. Wholeness which is the theme of this thread is such an archetype.
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Oct 05, 2020 2:14 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:
felix dakat wrote:I contemplate the Tao Te Ching as often as I do the wisdom of Bible. I entertain the proposition that the major religions have a common esoteric core.

Aldous Huxley's The Perennial Philosophy finds the common denominators of the world's religions.

Yes.. that pivotal point in human history, where the divergence of the main genetic lineages, created the main religious or Pagan strands of worship or being.


Indeed. Huxley himself makes that point:

A version of this Highest Common Factor in all preceding and subsequent theologies was first committed to writing more than twenty-five centuries ago, and since that time the inexhaustible theme has been treated again and again, from the standpoint of every religious tradition and in all the principal languages of Asia and Europe.

Huxley, Aldous. The Perennial Philosophy: An Interpretation of the Great Mystics, East and West . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Dan~ » Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:19 am

I entertain the proposition that the major religions have a common esoteric core.

What if their common esoteric core has to do with them being humanized?
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Image
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10337
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:10 pm

Dan~ wrote:
I entertain the proposition that the major religions have a common esoteric core.

What if their common esoteric core has to do with them being humanized?


Hi Dan. That seems to imply that they were inhuman to begin with. How so? And if so, then how could humanizing them be at their core?
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: 8863
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users