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

Post by Roncooper »

Rom,

When I watch Susan Blackmore I find no Zen there, only intellect. Not everyone reaches satori.

Buddhism teaches that we are responsible for our happiness.
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 »

James,

Thanks for the post. It will take some time to digest.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

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

Post by JamesN. »

Roncooper wrote:James,

Thanks for the post. It will take some time to digest.
Ron; for what it's worth; I don't expect you to agree with everything I'm saying. But these are my impressions as I see things so far. (I'm just trying to look at my understanding of this as a "work in progress"; you know.) :wink:
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:Rom,

When I watch Susan Blackmore I find no Zen there, only intellect. Not everyone reaches satori.

Buddhism teaches that we are responsible for our happiness.
She is not a Buddhist.

Why would she follow Buddhism?

Are we all not are own Buddha?
"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,

I stand corrected. She says she practices Zen but is not a Buddhists. I have to say whaat???

She says things are not what they seem and there is no free will.

This reminded me of the Zen saying.
The famous saying of Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin (Seigen Ishin):


Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters.
Perhaps she will continue her practice and see things as they are.
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 »

We are playing games here.

There is a little bit of difference between mountains and consciousness.

I am sure Blackmore has never waivered from seeing mountains as mountains.

Apparently Buddhists believe in free will despite having dependent origination as a core belief. Buddhists don't believe in a panentheistic god do they? Even Buddhists are a little skeptical of consciousness with the concept of not self and of course this is a logical outcome of the concept of dependent origination.

Of course people do not choose to believe stuff, they find themselves believing stuff (after convincing themselves).

The problem with just intuiting things is we end up believing them if we are not careful. This is where the intellect comes in ... can we reconcile our intuitions with our perception of reality.
"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 »

Personally I see Zen as a meditation to empty the mind from questions. Science is exactly the opposite, its all about questions so is Blackmoore. I dont think what she does is not some sort of meditation but I don't think its Zen meditation.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

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

Post by Roncooper »

Andreas,

I agree completely. She has written two books about Zen, but I think she missed the point.
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 wrote:
There is a little bit of difference between mountains and consciousness.

I am sure Blackmore has never waivered from seeing mountains as mountains.
The saying is not just about mountains. It is about the mental transformation along the way of Zen.
Apparently Buddhists believe in free will despite having dependent origination as a core belief. Buddhists don't believe in a panentheistic god do they? Even Buddhists are a little skeptical of consciousness with the concept of not self and of course this is a logical outcome of the concept of dependent origination.
Hinduism is panenthestic and the Buddha would have been raised with this world view. Dependent origination allows for free will when one includes all of reality and not just the physical part.

Panentheism can have individual souls or not. There only needs to be one "soul."
The problem with just intuiting things is we end up believing them if we are not careful. This is where the intellect comes in ... can we reconcile our intuitions with our perception of reality.
Unlike Christianity, both Hinduism and Buddhism teach that religion should be reasonable..
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:Andreas,

I agree completely. She has written two books about Zen, but I think she missed the point.
I would be interested in reading your reviews of the books.
"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. »

Ron. I want to add these 2 definitions from the Lexicon concerning both "The Self" and "The Self Regulation of The Psyche" which have to do with the "Transcendent Function".
Self. The archetype of wholeness and the regulating center of the psyche; a transpersonal power that transcends the ego.

As an empirical concept, the self designates the whole range of psychic phenomena in man. It expresses the unity of the personality as a whole. But in so far as the total personality, on account of its unconscious component, can be only in part conscious, the concept of the self is, in part, only potentially empirical and is to that extent a postulate. In other words, it encompasses both the experienceable and the inexperienceable (or the not yet experienced). . . . It is a transcendental concept, for it presupposes the existence of unconscious factors on empirical grounds and thus characterizes an entity that can be described only in part.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 789.]
The self is not only the centre, but also the whole circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious; it is the centre of this totality, just as the ego is the centre of consciousness. ["Introduction," CW 12, par. 44.]
Like any archetype, the essential nature of the self is unknowable, but its manifestations are the content of myth and legend.
The self appears in dreams, myths, and fairytales in the figure of the "supraordinate personality," such as a king, hero, prophet, saviour, etc., or in the form of a totality symbol, such as the circle, square, quadratura circuli, cross, etc. When it represents a complexio oppositorum, a union of opposites, it can also appear as a united duality, in the form, for instance, of tao as the interplay of yang and yin, or of the hostile brothers, or of the hero and his adversary (arch-enemy, dragon), Faust and Mephistopheles, etc. Empirically, therefore, the self appears as a play of light and shadow, although conceived as a totality and unity in which the opposites are united.[Definitions," CW 6, par. 790.]
The realization of the self as an autonomous psychic factor is often stimulated by the irruption of unconscious contents over which the ego has no control. This can result in neurosis and a subsequent renewal of the personality, or in an inflated identification with the greater power.
The ego cannot help discovering that the afflux of unconscious contents has vitalized the personality, enriched it and created a figure that somehow dwarfs the ego in scope and intensity. . . . Naturally, in these circumstances there is the greatest temptation simply to follow the power-instinct and to identify the ego with the self outright, in order to keep up the illusion of the ego's mastery. . . . [But] the self has a functional meaning only when it can act compensatorily to ego-consciousness. If the ego is dissolved in identification with the self, it gives rise to a sort of nebulous superman with a puffed-up ego.[On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 430.]
Experiences of the self possess a numinosity characteristic of religious revelations. Hence Jung believed there was no essential difference between the self as an experiential, psychological reality and the traditional concept of a supreme deity.
It might equally be called the "God within us."[The Mana-Personality," CW 7, par. 399.
Self-regulation of the psyche. A concept based on the compensatory relationship between consciousness and the unconscious. (See also adaptation, compensation, neurosis, opposites and transcendent function.)
The psyche does not merely react, it gives its own specific answer to the influences at work upon it.[Some Crucial Points in Psychoanalysis," CW 4, par. 665.]
The process of self-regulation is going on all the time within the psyche. It only becomes noticeable when ego-consciousness has particular difficulty in adapting to external or internal reality. That is often the start of a process, proceeeding along the lines outlined in the chart, that may lead to individuation.




The Self-regulation of the Psyche

1. Difficulty of adaptation. Little progression of libido.

2. Regression of energy (depression, lack of disposable energy).

3. Activation of unconscious contents (fantasies, complexes,
archetypal images, inferior function, opposite attitude,
shadow, anima/animus, etc.). Compensation.

4. Symptoms of neurosis (confusion, fear, anxiety, guilt, moods, extreme affect, etc.).

5. Unconscious or half-conscious conflict between ego and contents activated in the unconscious.
Inner tension. Defensive reactions.

6. Activation of the transcendent function, involving the self and archetypal patterns of wholeness.

7. Formation of symbols (numinosity, synchronicity).

8. Transfer of energy between unconscious contents and consciousness. Enlargement of the ego,
progression of energy.

9. Assimilation of unconscious contents. Individuation.



Consciousness and the unconscious seldom agree as to their contents and their tendencies. The self-regulating activities of the psyche, manifest in dreams, fantasies and synchronistic experiences, attempt to correct any significant imbalance. According to Jung, this is necessary for several reasons:

(1) Consciousness possesses a threshold intensity which its contents must have attained, so that all elements that are too weak remain in the unconscious.

(2) Consciousness, because of its directed functions, exercises an inhibition (which Freud calls censorship) on all incompatible material, with the result that it sinks into the unconscious.

(3) Consciousness constitutes the momentary process of adaptation, whereas the unconscious contains not only all the forgotten material of the individual's own past, but all the inherited behaviour traces constituting the structure of the mind [i.e., archetypes].

(4) The unconscious contains all the fantasy combinations which have not yet attained the threshold intensity, but which in the course of time and under suitable conditions will enter the light of consciousness.["The Transcendent Function," CW 8, par. 132.]

This is important to note in the understanding of what the inter-relationships of various aspects of the Psyche have to do with the "creation" of the (dialogue) between the "Conscious" and "Unconscious" that constitutes this central feature and role of the "Transcendent Function". This element is very important to the understanding of this as a manifestation of the (dynamic process) included in the previous post concerning Jung's ideas and how they influenced Joseph Campbell's thinking. (Psychologically speaking of course.) :


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 »

Rom wrote:
I would be interested in reading your reviews of the books.
In the book "Ten Zen Questions," she is kind enough to give us her Zen teacher's review.
"all this intellection is Not It"
That is good enough for me. I find it physically painful when my fellow intellectuals display their lack of wisdom. IQ doesn't mean wise.

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.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

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

Post by Andreas »

Ron tbh I dont think anything exists beyond the realm of the intellect. Since If I am not there to experience something then what do I care if it exists. I agree if you say that the intellect is affected by experiences like beauty and love but I also think that our ability to solve problems and rationalize and externalize inward experiences is what defines us as a species and I am not so sure that we can have one without the other, there is some sort of relationship, seems to me.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki

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

Post by Roncooper »

Andreas,

I don't deny the intellect, but I see it as one of the inner dimensions. Emotions are north, consciousness is east, and the intellect is up. You need them all to define inner space, and they are not the same thing.

Of course, there are two more inner dimensions to go with these three.
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 »

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:
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.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

Locked