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 » Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:08 pm

Bob wrote:
I have had a look at what you mentioned about Pageau and his take on A. Jones.

I think his intention wasn’t to declare Jones as acceptable, his side remarks show that Jones’ ranting is all over the place and he mixes one kind of Symbolism with another, but he does show that society is going down a certain road with the depletion of trust in institutions. Jones is a typical voice in such times.

His mistake, as far as I’m concerned, is to underrate the influence Jones has on people and the danger he poses. Having said that, he is a symptom, not the illness. The postmodern tendency to pull down institutions and sow doubt causes this kind of reaction. Anyone on the conservative side of the spectrum would see their trusted institutions in danger, with nothing trustworthy to take its place. Remember, the way that Peterson points at, is the middle way, between order and chaos. Both, on their own, can cause upheaval and all the worst things that civilisations have gone through. The danger is from right and left, the right demanding a strict order and the left raising doubts about everything.

People are not talking to each other, they are not making sense of what they are experiencing and their visions of the way ahead are short-sighted. Pageau has given himself the task of translating what is going on, which I think he does well. He does make mistakes, but I think he does make valid points. Beginners mind is important, but we must be careful not to ignore the ground sliding away under us. That is what I think is happening at present.


Peterson came to Internet prominence with his free speech stand regarding LGBTQ+ He became the intellectual darling of the Right. He sees himself as a centrist but the temptation to appeal to the right wing crowd from which he was getting the cheers was there. His new book seems to be an attempt to achieve balance based on his description of it. [I haven't read it.] https://youtu.be/Iu635BJxBQE

I'm still taking in the Pageaus. Admittedly I didn't listen to the four hour interview of Jones with Joe Rogan.

Here's an interesting dialogue: https://youtu.be/D2Sdas8_c04 The Rationality Rules guy appears to be making an sincere effort at comprehending Pageau who laughs at him smugly. Pageau seems to be averse to anything less than total acceptance of his symbolic system. How does that not fall under Peterson's critique of ideologies?
Understand, my comments are preliminary and not conclusive.

Pageau claims that the symbolic system he's touting is based on phenomenology. That is, it's the way we experience the world writ large sans modern objective scientific theory. You would think if that were the case more people would have it intuitive grasp of what are he is talking about without having to get it from him.

Now based on our dreams and the imagery of our minds it seems clear to me that we are all natural symbolizers. And this occurs spontaneously whether we will it or not. And we don't know how we do it. It's a product of our neuroanatomy.

But there seems to be enormous diversity in how people process their internal imagery and the conclusions they reach about it. This diversity was already evident in the wide range of pre-socratic philosophies circa 2500 years ago.

So if we're all symbolizers then Pageau's burden is to show how his system is somehow better then others. If it's just adopted externally it becomes one more heteronymous system imposed from without. But these are preliminary thoughts/questions. I haven't even finished his brother's book yet.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:39 pm

Oh and here's a tidbit I picked up on Wholeness on the metaphysical side from AJ Ayers in philosophy in the 20th century.[pp71ff] Speaking of William James, Ayers says that the monism James was hostile to was that of contemporary followers of Hegel in particular FH Bradley and Josiah Royce.

They were alike and identifying reality with a Spiritual Whole which they called the Absolute. According to Bradley all relations are internal to their terms with the result that everything is inextricably mixed with everything else. According to Bradley it depended on his inability to see how our thoughts could refer to reality whether truly or falsely unless both the thinker and the object of his thought were themselves ideas in an all-knowing mind. James parodied the latter as the belief that a cat cannot look at a king unless some higher entities looking at them both.

Bradley and Royce were alike in taking the absolute to be perfect. Bradley thought the absolute transcended good and evil. Royce believed that the absolute held good and evil in harmony existence of evil being as he saw it a necessary condition for that of the highest good.

James opposed this kind of monism by showing the variety in the world and rejecting its dismissal as mere appearance. He was shocked by Bradley's statement "the absolute is the richer for every discord and for all the disunity which it embraces" with its implication that pain can be assumed to disappear into a higher unity. Suffice it to say for the moment, that it seems that James rejected absolute idealism on the basis of the problem of evil.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:03 pm

Pageau develops the biblical symbol of man as a microcosm. Carl Jung's view of the psyche as split into zones of consciousness and unconsciousness fits in this worldview but in a way that deviates from the Orthodox perspective. Orthodoxy favored the light of tradition. Jung favored symbols of transformation of darkness to light via the exploration of the soul.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:35 am

Peterson came to Internet prominence with his free speech stand regarding LGBTQ+ He became the intellectual darling of the Right. He sees himself as a centrist but the temptation to appeal to the right wing crowd from which he was getting the cheers was there. His new book seems to be an attempt to achieve balance based on his description of it. [I haven't read it.] https://youtu.be/Iu635BJxBQE

I think that conservative people thought that he was on their “side”, but instead he was criticising the law imposed that said that a certain language had to be used. It is one thing to forbid certain statements, another to say how one should speak, and was a precedence. On the other hand, he realised that there were many people, above all young men, who reacted positively to his 12 Rules. My son included, who I wouldn’t see as right-leaning. I also see a problem in thinking that straight white men are all the same, but members of the LGBTQ+ community are diverse.

There were issues as well that weren’t covered by the people saying that everything was a social construct and claiming that women were the better human beings. Peterson went out of his way to show that this contradicts science and experience and caused in young men a meaning crisis and chaos. It cannot be equality if, instead of the patriarchy, a matriarchy takes over. There are natural reasons for the differences in temperament and society is served by the fact that men are statistically more disagreeable than women. I see wholeness served by joining differing temperaments together.

“I'm still taking in the Pageaus. Admittedly I didn't listen to the four hour interview of Jones with Joe Rogan.

Here's an interesting dialogue: https://youtu.be/D2Sdas8_c04 The Rationality Rules guy appears to be making an sincere effort at comprehending Pageau who laughs at him smugly. Pageau seems to be averse to anything less than total acceptance of his symbolic system. How does that not fall under Peterson's critique of ideologies?
Understand, my comments are preliminary and not conclusive.

I watched that video and thought that they were in different spaces. Pageau tends to laugh rather than get anti. I agree to the fact that any human being wants to feel accepted and so it should be possible for LGBTQ+ people to have that feeling, it was just that Pageau wasn’t clear that this was what they were talking about. He was talking about the cosmology of the Bible with reference to the condemnation of homosexuality. I don’t think it was a very good talk from him.

Pageau claims that the symbolic system he's touting is based on phenomenology. That is, it's the way we experience the world writ large sans modern objective scientific theory. You would think if that were the case more people would have it intuitive grasp of what are he is talking about without having to get it from him.

I think he’s right, we do experience life in that way, we talk about the sun rising and other things from the perspective we have at that moment. We have to move outside of that experience to start talking about the solar system and movement of planets, because that is something that is shown us via screens. It is something that we have added to our knowledge but not everyday experience.

Now based on our dreams and the imagery of our minds it seems clear to me that we are all natural symbolizers. And this occurs spontaneously whether we will it or not. And we don't know how we do it. It's a product of our neuroanatomy.

But there seems to be enormous diversity in how people process their internal imagery and the conclusions they reach about it. This diversity was already evident in the wide range of pre-socratic philosophies circa 2500 years ago.

So if we're all symbolizers then Pageau's burden is to show how his system is somehow better then others. If it's just adopted externally it becomes one more heteronymous system imposed from without. But these are preliminary thoughts/questions. I haven't even finished his brother's book yet.

I’m not sure that Pageau can show that his symbolism is “better”. Instead he talks about it being a biblical symbolism, just as other traditions have their own symbolism. He is really trying to show that much of the criticism of the Bible is due to our modern worldview, which has a different language. I found the attempt of Mathieu Pageau to decipher Genesis noteworthy, especially in view of the fact that early Christianity was at odds about whether the OT was actually Christian.

There are many that have pointed to the connection of Christian teaching to Platonism, saying that Platon could have been the OT for Christians. That shows me that even then, the biblical symbolism wasn’t understood as that, but probably taken literally. So, it is very interesting that some of the Church fathers (like Origen) pointed to the need for and allegorical exegesis of the OT but failed to teach the symbolism as the Pageaus are professing.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:59 am

felix dakat wrote:Oh and here's a tidbit I picked up on Wholeness on the metaphysical side from AJ Ayers in philosophy in the 20th century.[pp71ff] Speaking of William James, Ayers says that the monism James was hostile to was that of contemporary followers of Hegel in particular FH Bradley and Josiah Royce.

They were alike and identifying reality with a Spiritual Whole which they called the Absolute. According to Bradley all relations are internal to their terms with the result that everything is inextricably mixed with everything else. According to Bradley it depended on his inability to see how our thoughts could refer to reality whether truly or falsely unless both the thinker and the object of his thought were themselves ideas in an all-knowing mind. James parodied the latter as the belief that a cat cannot look at a king unless some higher entities looking at them both.

Bradley and Royce were alike in taking the absolute to be perfect. Bradley thought the absolute transcended good and evil. Royce believed that the absolute held good and evil in harmony existence of evil being as he saw it a necessary condition for that of the highest good.

James opposed this kind of monism by showing the variety in the world and rejecting its dismissal as mere appearance. He was shocked by Bradley's statement "the absolute is the richer for every discord and for all the disunity which it embraces" with its implication that pain can be assumed to disappear into a higher unity. Suffice it to say for the moment, that it seems that James rejected absolute idealism on the basis of the problem of evil.

The idea of spiritual wholeness being the absolute is human experience inasmuch that human beings are continually finding themselves divided or disjoined, even if it is for a short time, but a source of joy is when that is overcome and a kind of completion takes place. It is like when a couple are joined in love and thereby perfect. The same happens when a team experiences flow, when everything comes together, and goals are achieved.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby Dan~ » Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:09 pm

What about my post/reply ?
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
Image
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10485
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:49 pm

Dan~ wrote:What about my post/reply ?

Did you ask me something?
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby Dan~ » Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:53 pm

Bob wrote:
Dan~ wrote:What about my post/reply ?

Did you ask me something?

I want to know if you feel you can hear God's thoughts or feel his Guidance.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
Image
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10485
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:39 pm

Dan~ wrote:
Bob wrote:
Dan~ wrote:What about my post/reply ?

Did you ask me something?

I want to know if you feel you can hear God's thoughts or feel his Guidance.

I can’t hear the thoughts of my wife, let alone the thoughts of God. But then, I don’t believe that anyone can. Rather, through silencing my own monologue to a certain degree, getting away from the noise of civilisation I manage to find back to the existential assurance that life is a good idea. It is a good idea for this and that reason; I can interact with this or that person; I should heed what this or that person has said.

Integrating contemplation into that solitude, a verse is repeated silently, or the Lord’s Prayer is chanted, or a song or a poem is recited. I have a small book in which I collect such things and which serves me as a personal prayerbook.

Usually the recognition of having been “touched” comes afterwards when my voice has quietened and I’m back in operating modus. And although I always feel benefited by doing this, there is always a reason beforehand for not using up my time for this. It is sometimes a struggle but always worth it, even if I don’t have the feeling of being “touched”.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby Dan~ » Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:50 pm

Mormons believe God can talk to anyone.
But there are things you can do to increase clarity and reception.
It's something that takes a life-time to produce in good form.

I was curious if you had a system worked out.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
Image
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10485
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:55 pm

Dan~ wrote:Mormons believe God can talk to anyone.
But there are things you can do to increase clarity and reception.
It's something that takes a life-time to produce in good form.

I was curious if you had a system worked out.

Thanks for clearing that up.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=196362
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:31 pm

Bob wrote:I think that conservative people thought that he was on their “side”, but instead he was criticising the law imposed that said that a certain language had to be used. It is one thing to forbid certain statements, another to say how one should speak, and was a precedence.


Right. I get that and agree. Yet, I see him invariably critical of the "Far Left" as "Social Justice Warriors" and identifying them with collectivism and largely silent about the Fascist Right. So I'll keep listening for him to find the unifying center which is where he says he wants to go. Balance isn't easily achieved I suppose.

On the other hand, he realised that there were many people, above all young men, who reacted positively to his 12 Rules. My son included, who I wouldn’t see as right-leaning. I also see a problem in thinking that straight white men are all the same, but members of the LGBTQ+ community are diverse.


Of course. I found his 12 Rules with its emphasis on personal responsibilty by and large helpful myself.

There were issues as well that weren’t covered by the people saying that everything was a social construct and claiming that women were the better human beings. Peterson went out of his way to show that this contradicts science and experience and caused in young men a meaning crisis and chaos. It cannot be equality if, instead of the patriarchy, a matriarchy takes over. There are natural reasons for the differences in temperament and society is served by the fact that men are statistically more disagreeable than women. I see wholeness served by joining differing temperaments together.



Yes. Peterson takes on the notion that there is no human nature--that everything is socially constructed. Particularly, he's famous [or infamous]s for showing the evolutionary basis of hierarchy and why its not going to go away. He's also big on the societal distribution of intelligence and the big five personality factors and the relationship to adaptive success. Also notable is his pragmatic/Darwinian POV on truth, and his symbolic exegesis of the Bible, and his application of existential Jungian and Taoist principles. He synthesize all this in a unique and brilliant way. I don't think he should be ignored. I'm still dialoging and assimilating his thinking. I don't accept his propositions uncritically, however.

I watched that video and thought that they were in different spaces. Pageau tends to laugh rather than get anti. I agree to the fact that any human being wants to feel accepted and so it should be possible for LGBTQ+ people to have that feeling, it was just that Pageau wasn’t clear that this was what they were talking about. He was talking about the cosmology of the Bible with reference to the condemnation of homosexuality. I don’t think it was a very good talk from him.


Right. Laughing while your opponent is bad form in a debate. Better than screaming or talking over the other guy though. His comment on homosexuality in Leviticus--they only stone you for male homosexual acts not female ones was jaw dropping. Was that a defense? What?


I think he’s right, we do experience life in that way, we talk about the sun rising and other things from the perspective we have at that moment. We have to move outside of that experience to start talking about the solar system and movement of planets, because that is something that is shown us via screens. It is something that we have added to our knowledge but not everyday experience.


I see the importance of recognizing when one is looking phenomenologically versus theoretically and then recognizing the limits of one's knowledge. Now, where does Pageau's Biblically based symbolic system fall?


I’m not sure that Pageau can show that his symbolism is “better”. Instead he talks about it being a biblical symbolism, just as other traditions have their own symbolism. He is really trying to show that much of the criticism of the Bible is due to our modern worldview, which has a different language. I found the attempt of Mathieu Pageau to decipher Genesis noteworthy, especially in view of the fact that early Christianity was at odds about whether the OT was actually Christian.


The modern tendency is to dismiss the Biblical cosmology as pre-scientific and therefore obsolete. Peterson says not necessarily obsolete since there may be things that the ancient scriptures say that still apply today because they are enduring patterns of being and therefore of the utmost meaning. Enter the Pageaus with their worked-out symbolism. That's what I'm looking at through the lens of my own experience.

There are many that have pointed to the connection of Christian teaching to Platonism, saying that Plato could have been the OT for Christians. That shows me that even then, the biblical symbolism wasn’t understood as that, but probably taken literally. So, it is very interesting that some of the Church fathers (like Origen) pointed to the need for and allegorical exegesis of the OT but failed to teach the symbolism as the Pageaus are professing.


Platonism was hugely influential on Christianity from early on. Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus interpreted the Hebrew Bible in Platonic terms and his way of thinking can be seen in the hermeneutics of Paul and the author of the Gospel of John. I haven't had time to thoroughly compare the symbolic/analogic systems of the ancient writers with Pageau's but obviously they are all variations of the tradition cosmology.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:43 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:Oh and here's a tidbit I picked up on Wholeness on the metaphysical side from AJ Ayers in philosophy in the 20th century.[pp71ff] Speaking of William James, Ayers says that the monism James was hostile to was that of contemporary followers of Hegel in particular FH Bradley and Josiah Royce.

They were alike and identifying reality with a Spiritual Whole which they called the Absolute. According to Bradley all relations are internal to their terms with the result that everything is inextricably mixed with everything else. According to Bradley it depended on his inability to see how our thoughts could refer to reality whether truly or falsely unless both the thinker and the object of his thought were themselves ideas in an all-knowing mind. James parodied the latter as the belief that a cat cannot look at a king unless some higher entities looking at them both.

Bradley and Royce were alike in taking the absolute to be perfect. Bradley thought the absolute transcended good and evil. Royce believed that the absolute held good and evil in harmony existence of evil being as he saw it a necessary condition for that of the highest good.

James opposed this kind of monism by showing the variety in the world and rejecting its dismissal as mere appearance. He was shocked by Bradley's statement "the absolute is the richer for every discord and for all the disunity which it embraces" with its implication that pain can be assumed to disappear into a higher unity. Suffice it to say for the moment, that it seems that James rejected absolute idealism on the basis of the problem of evil.

The idea of spiritual wholeness being the absolute is human experience inasmuch that human beings are continually finding themselves divided or disjoined, even if it is for a short time, but a source of joy is when that is overcome and a kind of completion takes place. It is like when a couple are joined in love and thereby perfect. The same happens when a team experiences flow, when everything comes together, and goals are achieved.


This is where I find Jung helpful. He mainly wrote as a psychologist. So when he's talking about wholeness he is in the first place talking about the wholeness of the human psyche. And there he was describing and analyzing imagery of his patients and himself. This is before any metaphysical inference. And in addition to Jungian analysis of archetypes, world mythology, and perennial philosophy we have the findings of Gestalt psychology on the tendency to seek wholeness and closure. Of course, in James we see a movement in a different direction toward pluralism which was also religiously motivated. So what can we say about that tendency?
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:00 am

felix dakat wrote:Right. I get that and agree. Yet, I see him invariably critical of the "Far Left" as "Social Justice Warriors" and identifying them with collectivism and largely silent about the Fascist Right. So I'll keep listening for him to find the unifying center which is where he says he wants to go. Balance isn't easily achieved I suppose.

I think he said in one talk that the dangers of fascism are apparent, whereas the West seemed to romanticise the idea of communism, saying that the real, experienced communism wasn’t the true communism. He picks up the criticism of George Orwell, who portrayed famously the gradual transition in Animal Farm, and of Solzhenitsyn, who portrayed what happened in terrible images. His worry is that one day the West could slide into such a regime and that it would be downhill from there on.

Yes. Peterson takes on the notion that there is no human nature--that everything is socially constructed. Particularly, he's famous [or infamous]s for showing the evolutionary basis of hierarchy and why its not going to go away. He's also big on the societal distribution of intelligence and the big five personality factors and the relationship to adaptive success. Also notable is his pragmatic/Darwinian POV on truth, and his symbolic exegesis of the Bible, and his application of existential Jungian and Taoist principles. He synthesize all this in a unique and brilliant way. I don't think he should be ignored. I'm still dialoging and assimilating his thinking. I don't accept his propositions uncritically, however.

I don’t think we should accept anyone’s propositions uncritically.

His comment on homosexuality in Leviticus--they only stone you for male homosexual acts not female ones was jaw dropping. Was that a defense? What?

Yes, he’s managed to rationalise these issues and has thereby lacked the empathy for those suffering. That is a big mistake because Christianity is built on love and compassion. It is notable that rationalisation is what caused the inquisition and slaughter of Jews – also by the Nazis. If anything, Christians should let compassion rule, despite the outcome.

I see the importance of recognizing when one is looking phenomenologically versus theoretically and then recognizing the limits of one's knowledge. Now, where does Pageau's Biblically based symbolic system fall?

I think it falls because it is hardly transmittable. People will struggle with his ideas because they portray the OT as a collection of allegories and metaphors, symbolically pointing to a higher good. People want to know if that is reliable and trustworthy, otherwise they will turn to what they consider is trustworthy.

The modern tendency is to dismiss the Biblical cosmology as pre-scientific and therefore obsolete. Peterson says not necessarily obsolete since there may be things that the ancient scriptures say that still apply today because they are enduring patterns of being and therefore of the utmost meaning. Enter the Pageaus with their worked-out symbolism. That's what I'm looking at through the lens of my own experience.

Now Peterson takes what he has heard from Pageau and makes it reachable. He makes the stories relevant to human experience. That is because he is well read and able to formulate in a manner that’s helpful, which probably goes back to his clinical experience.

Platonism was hugely influential on Christianity from early on. Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus interpreted the Hebrew Bible in Platonic terms and his way of thinking can be seen in the hermeneutics of Paul and the author of the Gospel of John. I haven't had time to thoroughly compare the symbolic/analogic systems of the ancient writers with Pageau's but obviously they are all variations of the tradition cosmology.

I have been reading several people, even Paul Wallis with his UFO theory, although at the end of his book “Escaping From Eden” he points to the platonic connection to Paul and John. It is the cosmic Christ that moves them and the love inherent in the world, despite appearances.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Mon Nov 30, 2020 10:12 am

felix dakat wrote:This is where I find Jung helpful. He mainly wrote as a psychologist. So when he's talking about wholeness he is in the first place talking about the wholeness of the human psyche. And there he was describing and analyzing imagery of his patients and himself. This is before any metaphysical inference. And in addition to Jungian analysis of archetypes, world mythology, and perennial philosophy we have the findings of Gestalt psychology on the tendency to seek wholeness and closure. Of course, in James we see a movement in a different direction toward pluralism which was also religiously motivated. So what can we say about that tendency?

The fact that the whole of anything is greater than its parts is clearly obvious in ourselves. We know what organs are there but the fact that everything works so perfectly together is a mystery. There are aspects of human life that just remain unaccounted for by the mechanistic worldview. The same could be said of the planet we live on that is becoming to look like one great big organism, which, like the human body, is made up out of smaller organisms.

The human psyche is as complicated as it gets and it needed a mind like Jung’s (and others) to realise the role of archetypes and their connection with world mythology and perennial philosophy. I feel though that especially with perennial wisdom, you see how interconnected we are, if we can let appearances drop and meet each other without our social trappings and baggage.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:32 am

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:This is where I find Jung helpful. He mainly wrote as a psychologist. So when he's talking about wholeness he is in the first place talking about the wholeness of the human psyche. And there he was describing and analyzing imagery of his patients and himself. This is before any metaphysical inference. And in addition to Jungian analysis of archetypes, world mythology, and perennial philosophy we have the findings of Gestalt psychology on the tendency to seek wholeness and closure. Of course, in James we see a movement in a different direction toward pluralism which was also religiously motivated. So what can we say about that tendency?

The fact that the whole of anything is greater than its parts is clearly obvious in ourselves. We know what organs are there but the fact that everything works so perfectly together is a mystery. There are aspects of human life that just remain unaccounted for by the mechanistic worldview. The same could be said of the planet we live on that is becoming to look like one great big organism, which, like the human body, is made up out of smaller organisms.

The human psyche is as complicated as it gets and it needed a mind like Jung’s (and others) to realise the role of archetypes and their connection with world mythology and perennial philosophy. I feel though that especially with perennial wisdom, you see how interconnected we are, if we can let appearances drop and meet each other without our social trappings and baggage.


Those are all really good observations in my opinion, Bob.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:32 am

In the first chapter of the Bible, Genesis 1:27 it says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If God doesn't have a feminine side, how could the female be created in God's image?
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Dec 05, 2020 4:29 pm

"The psychology of individuation also has a teleological aspect. It points out that the life in us is striving toward a goal that is usually unseen and unrecognized by consciousness but is known somewhere in the unconscious. The increasing recognition by consciousness that such a goal exists and the increasing cooperation of the ego with the fulfillment of this goal make up an important part of psychological development. The fact that the achievement of such a psychological goal seems to be intrinsically important fortifies the faith that there is an overall purpose to life."

John A Sanford, "Mystical Christianity", page 39
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:58 am

felix dakat wrote:"The psychology of individuation also has a teleological aspect. It points out that the life in us is striving toward a goal that is usually unseen and unrecognized by consciousness but is known somewhere in the unconscious. The increasing recognition by consciousness that such a goal exists and the increasing cooperation of the ego with the fulfillment of this goal make up an important part of psychological development. The fact that the achievement of such a psychological goal seems to be intrinsically important fortifies the faith that there is an overall purpose to life."

John A Sanford, "Mystical Christianity", page 39

"the life in us is striving" sounds very mystical indeed. I've noted the book, but I've been buying so many recently that I have to put it on hold. I'm having difficulty catching up ;-)
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:40 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:"The psychology of individuation also has a teleological aspect. It points out that the life in us is striving toward a goal that is usually unseen and unrecognized by consciousness but is known somewhere in the unconscious. The increasing recognition by consciousness that such a goal exists and the increasing cooperation of the ego with the fulfillment of this goal make up an important part of psychological development. The fact that the achievement of such a psychological goal seems to be intrinsically important fortifies the faith that there is an overall purpose to life."

John A Sanford, "Mystical Christianity", page 39

"the life in us is striving" sounds very mystical indeed. I've noted the book, but I've been buying so many recently that I have to put it on hold. I'm having difficulty catching up ;-)


I know the feeling-- too many riches!

The goal of individuation is wholeness which can be defined as psychic integration or unification . Individuation seems to correspond to symbolically on the cosmic level with the Omega Point, the idea that "everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:05 pm

The movement toward wholeness is individuation. It's the movement towards becoming a completed unique person. Wholeness calls for the fulfillment of our potentiality. It's an ideal that can never be fully realized because circumstances require that we make choices, and the choices we make limit us from other possibilities which might have fulfilled our potentiality in different ways. The life force of every organism seeks to realize it's potential and this is its individuation.Only in humans does the ego unambiguously get involved in the process. The conscious ego can facilitate or thwart the journey toward wholeness.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby Bob » Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:47 pm

felix dakat wrote:The movement toward wholeness is individuation. It's the movement towards becoming a completed unique person. Wholeness calls for the fulfillment of our potentiality. It's an ideal that can never be fully realized because circumstances require that we make choices, and the choices we make limit us from other possibilities which might have fulfilled our potentiality in different ways. The life force of every organism seeks to realize it's potential and this is its individuation. Only in humans does the ego unambiguously get involved in the process. The conscious ego can facilitate or thwart the journey toward wholeness.

Yes, I agree. But the linear restrictions of time, the past being lost, has always been frustrating. Mistakes that seem so idiotic later on in life make me shudder when I think of them, but they are simply there, waiting for someone to mention them. On the other hand, they are also what makes us unique. I discovered the fact that I was a part of the whole far later than beginning thinking of myself as singular and different from others (albeit incomplete). I don’t think that I have ever felt “whole” in myself, rather I have always sought others as enhancements to my incompleteness – and it has always been varying supplements that I felt were missing.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:18 pm

Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:The movement toward wholeness is individuation. It's the movement towards becoming a completed unique person. Wholeness calls for the fulfillment of our potentiality. It's an ideal that can never be fully realized because circumstances require that we make choices, and the choices we make limit us from other possibilities which might have fulfilled our potentiality in different ways. The life force of every organism seeks to realize it's potential and this is its individuation. Only in humans does the ego unambiguously get involved in the process. The conscious ego can facilitate or thwart the journey toward wholeness.

Yes, I agree. But the linear restrictions of time, the past being lost, has always been frustrating. Mistakes that seem so idiotic later on in life make me shudder when I think of them, but they are simply there, waiting for someone to mention them. On the other hand, they are also what makes us unique. I discovered the fact that I was a part of the whole far later than beginning thinking of myself as singular and different from others (albeit incomplete). I don’t think that I have ever felt “whole” in myself, rather I have always sought others as enhancements to my incompleteness – and it has always been varying supplements that I felt were missing.


Jung wrote that the unconscious always tries to produce an impossible situation in order to force the individual to bring out his very best. Becoming whole isn't about being perfect or being happy. It's about growing into who we authentically are.

It's an ancient idea that illness is a loss of harmony. A soul in harmony with itself and nature is whole. Illness is a sign that a person is not in harmony with their self. The whole person is the focus of the healing activity. If one becomes whole again one is cured. Instead of focusing on disease one focuses on working toward a whole healthy person. I'm thinking about what this means in the age of covid-19.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:08 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Bob wrote:
felix dakat wrote:The movement toward wholeness is individuation. It's the movement towards becoming a completed unique person. Wholeness calls for the fulfillment of our potentiality. It's an ideal that can never be fully realized because circumstances require that we make choices, and the choices we make limit us from other possibilities which might have fulfilled our potentiality in different ways. The life force of every organism seeks to realize it's potential and this is its individuation. Only in humans does the ego unambiguously get involved in the process. The conscious ego can facilitate or thwart the journey toward wholeness.

Yes, I agree. But the linear restrictions of time, the past being lost, has always been frustrating. Mistakes that seem so idiotic later on in life make me shudder when I think of them, but they are simply there, waiting for someone to mention them. On the other hand, they are also what makes us unique. I discovered the fact that I was a part of the whole far later than beginning thinking of myself as singular and different from others (albeit incomplete). I don’t think that I have ever felt “whole” in myself, rather I have always sought others as enhancements to my incompleteness – and it has always been varying supplements that I felt were missing.


Jung wrote that the unconscious always tries to produce an impossible situation in order to force the individual to bring out his very best. Becoming whole isn't about being perfect or being happy. It's about growing into who we authentically are.

It's an ancient idea that illness is a loss of harmony. A soul in harmony with itself and nature is whole. Illness is a sign that a person is not in harmony with their self. The whole person is the focus of the healing activity. If one becomes whole again one is cured. Instead of focusing on disease one focuses on working toward a whole healthy person. I'm thinking about what this means in the age of covid-19.

Covid-19 is a symptom and a sign to show humanity that it is out of balance with nature and to continue on this path will bring about its own destruction.
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: 9057
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Wholeness

Postby felix dakat » Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:20 am

I died to the mineral state and became a plant,
I died to the vegetal state and reached animality,
I died to the animal state and became a man,
Then what should I fear? I have never become less from dying.
At the next charge (forward) I will die to human nature,
So that I may lift up (my) head and wings (and soar) among the angels,
And I must (also) jump from the river of (the state of) the angel,
Everything perishes except His Face,
Once again I will become sacrificed from (the state of) the angel,
I will become that which cannot come into the imagination,
Then I will become non-existent; non-existence says to me (in tones)
like an organ,
Truly, to Him is our return


― Rumi Jalal ad'Din


Rumi sees the role of death in evolution, and the roll of evolution in transcendence. The soul's Individuation recapitulates cosmic evolution in a microcosm. His poem is an image of the soul ascending the hierarchy of being, It's a mandala of being toward wholeness in time. Wholeness itself transcends time.
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: 9057
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