Consciousness

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. »

Ron:
James,

I read the posts and I am amazed by the depth of his insights. His vision needs to become the accepted standard for therapy.

I do have a problem with his definition of Self with a capital S. I understand that his focus was helping people individuate and so he had a personal focus.

I want to define the Self in a way that is consistent with science and with human experience. Science says that everything is connected, and nothing is separate from the environment. Human experience says that the transcendent mystery is superior to us in every way, and that includes consciously, emotionally, and intellectually.

My image of the Self must be consistent with Jung's teaching and with these two perspectives.

Jung says:


Quote:
Self. The archetype of wholeness and the regulating center of the psyche; a transpersonal power that transcends the ego.



I haven't thought about it that much, but my image comes from Jung, science, Campbell, Hinduism, and Alan Watts.The self cannot be a whole person, it has to be the whole.

I say

Self: The infinite glorious magnificent, immanent and transcendent ocean of being, becoming tomorrow.

Campbell says we must always include the becoming thing.

The relationship between the greater Self and the conscious ego, or the little self I take from Hinduism.

The Self is the actor and the little self is the character. But unlike human plays where the character isn't real, in the play of reality the characters are alive and can ad lib.

As Jung says, they carry on a conversation with the actor, Self.

Of course I don't expect anyone to adopt this model, and I understand Jung would label all this as some sort of psychological fantasy, but all I can say is that he has not walked in my shoes.

Ron. I really admire the way you are going at this for these are very complex ideas from 2 very different camps to assimilate and synthesize. 8)

Concerning "The Self" and "Consciousness" there are several more concepts that are major components that inter-act within this "Jungian Matrix" that need to be included:

Ego. The central complex in the field of consciousness. (See also self.)

The ego, the subject of consciousness, comes into existence as a complex quantity which is constituted partly by the inherited disposition (character constituents) and partly by unconsciously acquired impressions and their attendant phenomena ["Analytical Psychology and Education," CW 17, par. 169.]
Jung pointed out that knowledge of the ego-personality is often confused with self-understanding.
Anyone who has any ego-consciousness at all takes it for granted that he knows himself. But the ego knows only its own contents, not the unconscious and its contents. People measure their self-knowledge by what the average person in their social environment knows of himself, but not by the real psychic facts which are for the most part hidden from them. In this respect the psyche behaves like the body, of whose physiological and anatomical structure the average person knows very little too. ["The Undiscovered Self," CW 10, par. 491.]
In the process of individuation, one of the initial tasks is to differentiate the ego from the complexes in the personal unconscious, particularly the persona, the shadow and anima/animus. A strong ego can relate objectively to these and other contents of the unconscious without identifying with them.
Because the ego experiences itself as the center of the psyche, it is especially difficult to resist identification with the self, to which it owes its existence and to which, in the hierarchy of the psyche, it is subordinate.

The ego stands to the self as the moved to the mover, or as object to subject, because the determining factors which radiate out from the self surround the ego on all sides and are therefore supraordinate to it. The self, like the unconscious, is an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves.["Transformation Symbolism in the Mass," CW 11, par. 391.]
Identification with the self can manifest in two ways: the assimilation of the ego by the self, in which case the ego falls under the control of the unconscious; or the assimilation of the self to the ego, where the ego becomes overaccentuated. In both cases the result is inflation, with disturbances in adaptation.
In the first case, reality has to be protected against an archaic . . . dream-state; in the second, room must be made for the dream at the expense of the world of consciousness. In the first case, mobilization of all the virtues is indicated; in the second, the presumption of the ego can only be damped down by moral defeat.[The Self," CW 9ii, par. 47.]

(And): to be continued......


I have to step away to take care of some "life maintenance" concerns but will be back later to address the rest.


Namaste :)
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:
I will say it again. Consciousness is like love or honor or beauty. These experiences exist beyond the realm of the intellect. A million scientists and a million philosophers can try to "understand" love and they will fail. Instead they will say something embarrassingly stupid like "love is just a chemical reaction that exists to improve our chances of survival."

Are they really that blind? I guess so, but it causes me pain.
We continue to play the game.

you say just, I might say bloody amazing.

Here's a thought experiment:

Imagine someone offered to inject you with a dose of oxytocin. Would you accept the offer?

I would with care.

If someone developed a drug that blocked the effects of oxytocin; and ignoring the obvious irrelevancies to the question, would you take that blocker?

Personally there is no way on Earth I would take that blocker.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom wrote,

Imagine someone offered to inject you with a dose of oxytocin. Would you accept the offer?
No, because it wouldn't be real, and even though I may be fooled the first time, the effects would fade with time. Unlike real love which grows.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

I would like to continue on this drug thread because I believe this is another false claim by materialism.

Materialists claim that because an experience produces a drug in the brain that giving the person the drug will precisely reproduce the experience, Drugs can kill pain, give a person a warm and fuzzy feeling, or make you feel great for a while, but the experience is different than a natural experience. In addition, the effect of the drug diminishes with time and only the first few experiences are significant.

The person may continue using the drug for psychological or addictive reasons, but the experience is nothing like the initial one.

Drug induced reality is an altered state. IMHO this is evidence that when we experience something, the experience produces the drug and not the other way around..
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote: I would like to continue on this drug thread because I believe this is another false claim by materialism.

Materialists claim that because an experience produces a drug in the brain that giving the person the drug will precisely reproduce the experience,
Ah we continue to play our word games. Which materialist has claimed we experience precisely the same experience? I don't even claim you and I have the same experiences of love, fear, colour etc ...

Roncooper wrote: Drugs can kill pain, give a person a warm and fuzzy feeling, or make you feel great for a while, but the experience is different than a natural experience. In addition, the effect of the drug diminishes with time and only the first few experiences are significant.
Yep ... for me the nature of love has changed with time too.
Roncooper wrote: The person may continue using the drug for psychological or addictive reasons, but the experience is nothing like the initial one.
Yep I am addicted to breathing, but I suspect one day I will give up on that addiction too.

My wife gave me a hard time ... we went to an evangelical funeral service of a pastor friend of ours. I could not help thinking the congregation exhibited strong symptoms of addiction. My wife pointed out we all have our addictions. I have no reason to disbelieve her.
Roncooper wrote: Drug induced reality is an altered state. IMHO this is evidence that when we experience something, the experience produces the drug and not the other way around.
Yes and whether it is a naturally or an injectedly [made up word] induced state it is an altered state. The dualist sees a difference between natural and "man made". For me there is no significant difference because man is part of nature.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom,

This is rally a bazaar post. Breathing is an addiction? It seems to me that materialism leads to some very strange conclusions. It is a sort of nihilism that says life is an addiction, and people are machines.

I'm glad I am free from that prison.

Just to keep it straight the materialists say there is no difference between love and some drug induced state. I am not playing word games, they are.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Earlier I posted.
Self: The infinite glorious magnificent, immanent and transcendent ocean of being, becoming tomorrow.
I know some people are bothered by flowery adjectives so here is a toned down version.

Self: the whole of reality becoming tomorrow.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:Earlier I posted.
Self: The infinite glorious magnificent, immanent and transcendent ocean of being, becoming tomorrow.
I know some people are bothered by flowery adjectives so here is a toned down version.

Self: the whole of reality becoming tomorrow.
I prefer mine:
When I look deep inside of myself,
I see the universe staring quietly back.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Roncooper wrote:Rom,

This is rally a bazaar post. Breathing is an addiction? It seems to me that materialism leads to some very strange conclusions. It is a sort of nihilism that says life is an addiction, and people are machines.
This I think is fairly typical example of our consciousness and its ungodlike composition. And before I go on, I have this trait in spades. So it is not directed at you personally.

Bazaar ... surely bizarre? this is a fairly typical example of our chemical cogs slipping.

Nihilism? Well if all the energy in the universe does add up to zero then nihilism may well be warranted. I think you actually meant fatalism. Monism and nihilism are soul mates (in my book); as are dualism and (philosophical) pluralism.
Roncooper wrote:Just to keep it straight the materialists say there is no difference between love and some drug induced state. I am not playing word games, they are.
Well I can't speak for all materialists. But with someone with materialist tendencies I can say, materialism for me says there are differences in degrees of complexity.

Materialists will observe high oxytocin levels in voles coincides with a relatively monogamous behaviour, while in closely related voles low levels oxytocin coincides with polygamous behaviours. Injection of oxytocin in a ewe can lead to maternal behaviour where there was none before. in the latter case I was wondering once the maternal behaviour was induced, was the oxytocin level behaviour maintained afterwards?

That you think "natural" is more real than induced is your prerogative Ron.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. »

Hey Ron; here are some more of the components I mentioned. (We have already listed the "Ego" and the "Personal Unconscious".)


I said:
Concerning "The Self" and "Consciousness" there are several more concepts that are major components that inter-act within this "Jungian Matrix" that need to be included:
From the Lexicon they are as follows:
Collective unconscious. A structural layer of the human psyche containing inherited elements, distinct from the personal unconscious. (See also archetype and archetypal image.)
The collective unconscious contains the whole spiritual heritage of mankind's evolution, born anew in the brain structure of every individual.[The Structure of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 342.]
Jung derived his theory of the collective unconscious from the ubiquity of psychological phenomena that could not be explained on the basis of personal experience. Unconscious fantasy activity, for instance, falls into two categories.
First, fantasies (including dreams) of a personal character, which go back unquestionably to personal experiences, things forgotten or repressed, and can thus be completely explained by individual anamnesis. Second, fantasies (including dreams) of an impersonal character, which cannot be reduced to experiences in the individual's past, and thus cannot be explained as something individually acquired. These fantasy-images undoubtedly have their closest analogues in mythological types. . . . These cases are so numerous that we are obliged to assume the existence of a collective psychic substratum. I have called this the collective unconscious.[The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 262.]
The collective unconscious-so far as we can say anything about it at all-appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact, the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious. . . . We can therefore study the collective unconscious in two ways, either in mythology or in the analysis of the individual.["The Structure of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 325.]
The more one becomes aware of the contents of the personal unconscious, the more is revealed of the rich layer of images and motifs that comprise the collective unconscious. This has the effect of enlarging the personality.
In this way there arises a consciousness which is no longer imprisoned in the petty, oversensitive, personal world of the ego, but participates freely in the wider world of objective interests. This widened consciousness is no longer that touchy, egotistical bundle of personal wishes, fears, hopes, and ambitions which always has to be compensated or corrected by unconscious counter-tendencies; instead, it is a function of relationship to the world of objects, bringing the individual into absolute, binding, and indissoluble communion with the world at large.[The Function of the Unconscious," CW 7, par. 275.]
Archetype. Primordial, structural elements of the human psyche. (See also archetypal image and instinct.)
Archetypes are systems of readiness for action, and at the same time images and emotions. They are inherited with the brain structure-indeed they are its psychic aspect. They represent, on the one hand, a very strong instinctive conservatism, while on the other hand they are the most effective means conceivable of instinctive adaptation. They are thus, essentially, the chthonic portion of the psyche . . . that portion through which the psyche is attached to nature.["Mind and Earth," CW 10, par. 53.]
It is not . . . a question of inherited ideas but of inherited possibilities of ideas. Nor are they individual acquisitions but, in the main, common to all, as can be seen from [their] universal occurrence.["Concerning the Archetypes and the Anima Concept," CW 9i, par. 136.]
Archetypes are irrepresentable in themselves but their effects are discernible in archetypal images and motifs.
Archetypes . . . present themselves as ideas and images, like everything else that becomes a content of consciousness.[On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 435.]
Archetypes are, by definition, factors and motifs that arrange the psychic elements into certain images, characterized as archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from the effects they produce.["A Psychological Approach to the Trinity," CW 11, par. 222, note 2.]
Jung also described archetypes as "instinctual images," the forms which the instincts assume. He illustrated this using the simile of the spectrum.
The dynamism of instinct is lodged as it were in the infra-red part of the spectrum, whereas the instinctual image lies in the ultra-violet part. . . . The realization and assimilation of instinct never take place at the red end, i.e., by absorption into the instinctual sphere, but only through integration of the image which signifies and at the same time evokes the instinct, although in a form quite different from the one we meet on the biological level.["On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 414.]

Archetypes

Psychologically . . . the archetype as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon.[Ibid., par. 415.]
Archetypes manifest both on a personal level, through complexes, and collectively, as characteristics of whole cultures. Jung believed it was the task of each age to understand anew their content and their effects.
We can never legitimately cut loose from our archetypal foundations unless we are prepared to pay the price of a neurosis, any more than we can rid ourselves of our body and its organs without committing suicide. If we cannot deny the archetypes or otherwise neutralize them, we are confronted, at every new stage in the differentiation of consciousness to which civilization attains, with the task of finding a new interpretation appropriate to this stage, in order to connect the life of the past that still exists in us with the life of the present, which threatens to slip away from it.["The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 267.]
Archetypal image. The form or representation of an archetype in consciousness. (See also collective unconscious.)
[The archetype is] a dynamism which makes itself felt in the numinosity and fascinating power of the archetypal image.["On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 414.]
Archetypal images, as universal patterns or motifs which come from the collective unconscious, are the basic content of religions, mythologies, legends and fairy tales.
An archetypal content expresses itself, first and foremost, in metaphors. If such a content should speak of the sun and identify with it the lion, the king, the hoard of gold guarded by the dragon, or the power that makes for the life and health of man, it is neither the one thing nor the other, but the unknown third thing that finds more or less adequate expression in all these similes, yet-to the perpetual vexation of the intellect-remains unknown and not to be fitted into a formula.["The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 267]
On a personal level, archetypal motifs are patterns of thought or behavior that are common to humanity at all times and in all places.
For years I have been observing and investigating the products of the unconscious in the widest sense of the word, namely dreams, fantasies, visions, and delusions of the insane. I have not been able to avoid recognizing certain regularities, that is, types. There are types of situations and types of figures that repeat themselves frequently and have a corresponding meaning. I therefore employ the term "motif" to designate these repetitions. Thus there are not only typical dreams but typical motifs in dreams. . . . [These] can be arranged under a series of archetypes, the chief of them being . . . the shadow, the wise old man, the child (including the child hero), the mother ("Primordial Mother" and "Earth Mother") as a supraordinate personality ("daemonic" because supraordinate), and her counterpart the maiden, and lastly the anima in man and the animus in woman.["The Psychological Aspects of the Kore," ibid., par. 309.]
Assimilation. The process of integrating outer objects (persons, things, ideas, values) and unconscious contents into consciousness.
Assimilation is the approximation of a new content of consciousness to already constellated subjective material . . . . Fundament-ally, [it] is a process of apperception, but is distinguished from apperception by this element of approximation to the subjective material. . . . I use the term assimilation . . . as the approximation of object to subject in general, and with it I contrast dissimilation, as the approximation of subject to object, and a consequent alienation of the subject from himself in favour of the object, whether it be an external object or a "psychological" object, for instance an idea.["Definitions," CW 6, pars. 685f.]
Archetypal image. The form or representation of an archetype in consciousness. (See also collective unconscious.)
[The archetype is] a dynamism which makes itself felt in the numinosity and fascinating power of the archetypal image.["On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 414.]
Archetypal images, as universal patterns or motifs which come from the collective unconscious, are the basic content of religions, mythologies, legends and fairy tales.
An archetypal content expresses itself, first and foremost, in metaphors. If such a content should speak of the sun and identify with it the lion, the king, the hoard of gold guarded by the dragon, or the power that makes for the life and health of man, it is neither the one thing nor the other, but the unknown third thing that finds more or less adequate expression in all these similes, yet-to the perpetual vexation of the intellect-remains unknown and not to be fitted into a formula.["The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 267]
On a personal level, archetypal motifs are patterns of thought or behavior that are common to humanity at all times and in all places.
For years I have been observing and investigating the products of the unconscious in the widest sense of the word, namely dreams, fantasies, visions, and delusions of the insane. I have not been able to avoid recognizing certain regularities, that is, types. There are types of situations and types of figures that repeat themselves frequently and have a corresponding meaning. I therefore employ the term "motif" to designate these repetitions. Thus there are not only typical dreams but typical motifs in dreams. . . . [These] can be arranged under a series of archetypes, the chief of them being . . . the shadow, the wise old man, the child (including the child hero), the mother ("Primordial Mother" and "Earth Mother") as a supraordinate personality ("daemonic" because supraordinate), and her counterpart the maiden, and lastly the anima in man and the animus in woman.["The Psychological Aspects of the Kore," ibid., par. 309.]
Complex. An emotionally charged group of ideas or images. (See also Word Association Experiment.)

[A complex] is the image of a certain psychic situation which is strongly accentuated emotionally and is, moreover, incompatible with the habitual attitude of consciousness.["A Review of the Complex Theory," CW 8, par. 201.]
The via regia to the unconscious . . . is not the dream, as [Freud] thought, but the complex, which is the architect of dreams and of symptoms. Nor is this via so very "royal," either, since the way pointed out by the complex is more like a rough and uncommonly devious footpath.[ Ibid., par. 210.]
Formally, complexes are "feeling-toned ideas" that over the years accumulate around certain archetypes, for instance "mother" and "father." When complexes are constellated, they are invariably accompanied by affect. They are always relatively autonomous.
Complexes interfere with the intentions of the will and disturb the conscious performance; they produce disturbances of memory and blockages in the flow of associations; they appear and disappear according to their own laws; they can temporarily obsess consciousness, or influence speech and action in an unconscious way. In a word, complexes behave like independent beings.[Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," ibid., par. 253.]
Complexes are in fact "splinter psyches." The aetiology of their origin is frequently a so-called trauma, an emotional shock or some such thing, that splits off a bit of the psyche. Certainly one of the commonest causes is a moral conflict, which ultimately derives from the apparent impossibility of affirming the whole of one's nature.["A Review of the Complex Theory," ibid., par. 204.]

Everyone knows nowadays that people "have complexes." What is not so well known, though far more important theoretically, is that complexes can have us.[Ibid., par. 200.]
Jung stressed that complexes in themselves are not negative; only their effects often are. In the same way that atoms and molecules are the invisible components of physical objects, complexes are the building blocks of the psyche and the source of all human emotions.
Complexes are focal or nodal points of psychic life which we would not wish to do without; indeed, they should not be missing, for otherwise psychic activity would come to a fatal standstill.["A Psychological Theory of Types," CW 6, par. 925.]
Complexes obviously represent a kind of inferiority in the broadest sense . . . [but] to have complexes does not necessarily indicate inferiority. It only means that something discordant, unassimilated, and antagonistic exists, perhaps as an obstacle, but also as an incentive to greater effort, and so, perhaps, to new possibilities of achievement.[Ibid., par. 925.]

Some degree of one-sidedness is unavoidable, and, in the same measure, complexes are unavoidable too.["Psychological Factors in Human Behaviour," CW 8, par. 255.]
The negative effect of a complex is commonly experienced as a distortion in one or other of the psychological functions (feeling, thinking, intuition and sensation). In place of sound judgment and an appropriate feeling response, for instance, one reacts according to what the complex dictates. As long as one is unconscious of the complexes, one is liable to be driven by them.
The possession of complexes does not in itself signify neurosis . . . and the fact that they are painful is no proof of pathological disturbance. Suffering is not an illness; it is the normal counterpole to happiness. A complex becomes pathological only when we think we have not got it.[Psychotherapy and a Philosophy of Life," CW 16, par. 179.]
Identification with a complex, particularly the anima/animus and the shadow, is a frequent source of neurosis. The aim of analysis in such cases is not to get rid of the complexes-as if that were possible-but to minimize their negative effects by understanding the part they play in behavior patterns and emotional reactions.
A complex can be really overcome only if it is lived out to the full. In other words, if we are to develop further we have to draw to us and drink down to the very dregs what, because of our complexes, we have held at a distance.["Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype," CW 9i, par. 184.]
Emotion. An involuntary reaction due to an active complex. (See also affect.)
On the one hand, emotion is the alchemical fire whose warmth brings everything into existence and whose heat burns all superfluities to ashes (omnes superfluitates comburit). But on the other hand, emotion is the moment when steel meets flint and a spark is struck forth, for emotion is the chief source of consciousness. There is no change from darkness to light or from inertia to movement without emotion. ["Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype," CW 9i, par. 179.
Dreams. Independent, spontaneous manifestations of the unconscious; fragments of involuntary psychic activity just conscious enough to be reproducible in the waking state.
Dreams are neither deliberate nor arbitrary fabrications; they are natural phenomena which are nothing other than what they pretend to be. They do not deceive, they do not lie, they do not distort or disguise. . . . They are invariably seeking to express something that the ego does not know and does not understand.["Analytical Psychology and Education," CW 17, par. 189.]
In symbolic form, dreams picture the current situation in the psyche from the point of view of the unconscious.
Since the meaning of most dreams is not in accord with the tendencies of the conscious mind but shows peculiar deviations, we must assume that the unconscious, the matrix of dreams, has an independent function. This is what I call the autonomy of the unconscious. The dream not only fails to obey our will but very often stands in flagrant opposition to our conscious intentions["On the Nature of Dreams," CW 8, par. 545.]
Jung acknowledged that in some cases dreams have a wish-fulfilling and sleep-preserving function (Freud) or reveal an infantile striving for power (Adler), but he focused on their symbolic content and their compensatory role in the self-regulation of the psyche: they reveal aspects of oneself that are not normally conscious, they disclose unconscious motivations operating in relationships and present new points of view in conflict situations.
In this regard there are three possibilities. If the conscious attitude to the life situation is in large degree one-sided, then the dream takes the opposite side. If the conscious has a position fairly near the "middle," the dream is satisfied with variations. If the conscious attitude is "correct" (adequate), then the dream coincides with and emphasizes this tendency, though without forfeiting its peculiar autonomy.[ Ibid., par. 546.]
In Jung's view, a dream is an interior drama.
The whole dream-work is essentially subjective, and a dream is a theatre in which the dreamer is himself the scene, the player, the prompter, the producer, the author, the public, and the critic.["General Aspects of Dream Psychology," ibid., par. 509.]
This conception gives rise to the interpretation of dreams on the subjective level, where the images in them are seen as symbolic representations of elements in the dreamer's own personality. Interpretation on the objective level refers the images to people and situations in the outside world.
Many dreams have a classic dramatic structure. There is an exposition (place, time and characters), which shows the initial situation of the dreamer. In the second phase there is a development in the plot (action takes place). The third phase brings the culmination or climax (a decisive event occurs). The final phase is the lysis, the result or solution (if any) of the action in the dream.

the civilized adult.[Ibid., par. 741.]
Persona. The "I," usually ideal aspects of ourselves, that we present to the outside world.
The persona is . . . a functional complex that comes into existence for reasons of adaptation or personal convenience. [Ibid., par. 801.]
The persona is that which in reality one is not, but which oneself as well as others think one is.["Concerning Rebirth," CW 9i, par. 221.]
Originally the word persona meant a mask worn by actors to indicate the role they played. On this level, it is both a protective covering and an asset in mixing with other people. Civilized society depends on interactions between people through the persona.
There are indeed people who lack a developed persona . . . blundering from one social solecism to the next, perfectly harmless and innocent, soulful bores or appealing children, or, if they are women, spectral Cassandras dreaded for their tactlessness, eternally misunderstood, never knowing what they are about, always taking forgiveness for granted, blind to the world, hopeless dreamers. From them we can see how a neglected persona works.["Anima and Animus," CW 7, par. 318.]
Before the persona has been differentiated from the ego, the persona is experienced as individuality. In fact, as a social identity on the one hand and an ideal image on the other, there is little individual about it.
It is, as its name implies, only a mask of the collective psyche, a mask that feigns individuality, making others and oneself believe that one is individual, whereas one is simply acting a role through which the collective psyche speaks.
When we analyse the persona we strip off the mask, and discover that what seemed to be individual is at bottom collective; in other words, that the persona was only a mask of the collective psyche. Fundamentally the persona is nothing real: it is a compromise between individual and society as to what a man should appear to be. He takes a name, earns a title, exercises a function, he is this or that. In a certain sense all this is real, yet in relation to the essential individuality of the person concerned it is only a secondary reality, a compromise formation, in making which others often have a greater share than he. ["The Persona as a Segment of the Collective Psyche," ibid., pars. 245f.]
A psychological understanding of the persona as a function of relationship to the outside world makes it possible to assume and drop one at will. But by rewarding a particular persona, the outside world invites identification with it. Money, respect and power come to those who can perform single-mindedly and well in a social role. From being a useful convenience, therefore, the persona may become a trap and a source of neurosis.
A man cannot get rid of himself in favour of an artificial personality without punishment. Even the attempt to do so brings on, in all ordinary cases, unconscious reactions in the form of bad moods, affects, phobias, obsessive ideas, backsliding vices, etc. The social "strong man" is in his private life often a mere child where his own states of feeling are concerned.["Anima and Animus," ibid., par. 307. ]
The demands of propriety and good manners are an added inducement to assume a becoming mask. What goes on behind the mask is then called "private life." This painfully familiar division of consciousness into two figures, often preposterously different, is an incisive psychological operation that is bound to have repercussions on the unconscious.[Ibid., par. 305.]
Among the consequences of identifying with a persona are: we lose sight of who we are without a protective covering; our reactions are predetermined by collective expectations (we do and think and feel what our persona "should" do, think and feel); those close to us complain of our emotional distance; and we cannot imagine life without it.
To the extent that ego-consciousness is identified with the persona, the neglected inner life (personified in the shadow and anima or animus) is activated in compensation. The consequences, experienced in symptoms characteristic of neurosis, can stimulate the process of individuation.

There is, after all, something individual in the peculiar choice and delineation of the persona, and . . . despite the exclusive identity of the ego-consciousness with the persona the unconscious self, one's real individuality, is always present and makes itself felt indirectly if not directly. Although the ego-consciousness is at first identical with the persona-that compromise role in which we parade before the community-yet the unconscious self can never be repressed to the point of extinction. Its influence is chiefly manifest in the special nature of the contrasting and compensating contents of the unconscious. The purely personal attitude of the conscious mind evokes reactions on the part of the unconscious, and these, together with personal repressions, contain the seeds of individual development.[The Persona as a Segment of the Collective Psyche," ibid., par. 247.]

(Here is Jung's definition of "Consciousness"):

Consciousness. The function or activity which maintains the relation of psychic contents to the ego; distinguished conceptually from the psyche, which encompasses both consciousness and the unconscious. (See also opposites.)

There is no consciousness without discrimination of opposites.["Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype," CW 9i, par. 178.]
There are two distinct ways in which consciousness arises. The one is a moment of high emotional tension, comparable to the scene in Parsifal where the hero, at the very moment of greatest temptation, suddenly realizes the meaning of Amfortas' wound. The other is a state of contemplation, in which ideas pass before the mind like dream-images. Suddenly there is a flash of association between two apparently disconnected and widely separated ideas, and this has the effect of releasing a latent tension. Such a moment often works like a revelation. In every case it seems to be the discharge of energy-tension, whether external or internal, which produces consciousness.["Analytical Psychology and Education," CW 17, par. 207.]
In Jung's view of the psyche, individual consciousness is a superstructure based on, and arising out of, the unconscious.
Consciousness does not create itself-it wells up from unknown depths. In childhood it awakens gradually, and all through life it wakes each morning out of the depths of sleep from an unconscious condition. It is like a child that is born daily out of the primordial womb of the unconscious. . . . It is not only influenced by the unconscious but continually emerges out of it in the form of numberless spontaneous ideas and sudden flashes of thought
.["The Psychology of Eastern Meditation," CW 11, par. 935.]
More later.

Cheers :)
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

James,

Thank you for the information. This will take sometime to digest.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper »

Rom.

Thank you or the thoughtful reply. I have been rethinking the problem I have with materialism. I see that it can provide a meaningful relationship with something greater (the physical universe). It enables a person to identify with the Whole in the form of the physical universe. A person could carry on a conversation with the universe, which may promote the precipitation of insights, but I guess praying to the universe is too strange.

The problem I have is that it seems to be just another exclusive Western religion, and I had higher hopes for intellectuals. In my opinion the intellectual is the only person who can see all of the other paths in detail. The intellect can be objective to a great degree, and this is a unique ability. The world needs intellectuals to help make human reality reasonable, but this must begin by accepting and honoring human reality as it is.

We should make warriors honorable and reasonable rather than telling them that they are soulless machines and there is no free will and therefore no honor. Doing this reduces their lives to pointless sacrifice and suffering. A materialist might say that they should join our church, but this church is for intellectuals.

There have been intellectuals of the highest order who have studied the other paths without reducing their importance. Immanual Kant studied morality and honor without trivializing it. Alan Watts remained an intellectual even though he studied consciousness and accepted it in all its glory.

Materialism cannot embrace the other paths on their own terms and help make them reasonable. This is why I look elsewhere. Panentheism embraces all of the paths and everyone on them, without trivializing them. It is democratic. It even embraces materialism.

It seems to me that an intellectual who wants a universal perspective that embraces all of the universe, including the transcendent mystery, that person is forced into something like panentheism. Of course I would be open to something better.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Ron
Thanks for your comments.
I think your post makes us a step closer to understanding.

I think we have that relationship with the universe whether it is meaningful or not.
For me, materialism is an understanding of that relationship rather than having a meaning per se.

I don't think materialism is "western" as such; for me it has at least some in common with eastern traditions. None of the western religious traditions are atheistic, accept minority points of view, perhaps like "Progressive Christianity". And they by and large willing to draw on eastern traditions.

Soulless Warriors? This I see as your fighting talk. Soulless perhaps in the Christian sense of the word soul. But I am undeniably a product of the universe. If that Is soulless, so be it.

Yet your panentheistic words don't seem to embrace a materialistic path. That is for me or anyone else. From my "lack of free will" point of view, we don't consciously choose our beliefs, though it could be argued we do choose them and we are conscious of them. So while I don't agree with panentheistic world view, and I might not understand the underlying causes of your belief, I do understand the causes are there.

That I don't understand the ins and outs of how the universe ticks does not force me into a panentheistic point of view. Transcendent or otherwise.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas »

That thing again Rom... You assume that spirituality is a choice meanwhile arguing that there is no choice..

The irony...
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh »

Andreas wrote:That thing again Rom... You assume that spirituality is a choice meanwhile arguing that there is no choice..

The irony...
You assume that I assume spirituality is a choice.

Just curiosity, what in my post made you think that?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Locked