|
|
 |
Bad Directions |
+ |
Wednesday, May 19, 2004 at 8:54 PM Does Adam read? This is an idea that was popular with Hunter S. Thompson. Anyone else have anything to say about this? Honestly, the only time I've ever heard "God" called "The Great Magnet" was in Hunter Thompson's work. "All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet."
--Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas —Bad Directions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 6:59 PM I was starting to say "synchronicity" too, AC -- which is technically synchronicity in and of itself. Goodtimes. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 10:52 PM
Edited Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 10:52 PM Technically this isn't synchronicity between steve and AC. The event with Adam and Drew in the hallway fit Jung's concept and you two just recognized it like different people recognizing a color as being red or a smell being baked bread. Synchronicity is when the event has no obvious relation and is apparently completely random. Once it took place, the event brought the randomness together and it could be recognized as having something in common or a specific label. (sorry for the poor description). —Cracked |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Thursday, May 20, 2004 at 11:20 PM Hold on Cracked, I have to yell at you like Adam yells at Drew -- "Of course that's not synchronicity -- can't you tell I was making a goddamn joke?!?" No, in all seriousness, that was a good description of synchronicity. Jung takes it a step further, adding a mystical element, which is, the pure randomness of the two coinciding events can be viewed as "truth" itself bubbling up into reality -- sort of like the Platonic notion of the Demiurge -- truth exists atemporally and makes itself known in temporality through synchronicity. You've probably already read Jung's "Synchronicity", but if you're interested in some other things, you should check out "The Portable Jung" (Edited by Joseph Campbell -- along with just about any Joseph Campbell book), along with my personal favourite, "Jung to Live By" by Eugene Pascal. Unfortunately, this appears to be Eugene Pascal's only book, which is a shame because of all the millions of different summaries of Jungian philosophy I've read, "Jung to Live By" was hands-down the best thing ever written. By the way, I actually started a notebook last November recording nothing but synchronous experiences -- real experiences -- not stuff like me and AC calling attention to the obvious. :) I'm up around 100 really crazy coincidences now. It's been really cool. By the way, let me just go ahead and drop this myself: Calling all nerds! —steve |
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 12:15 AM steve, Are these synchronous experiences that you have been recording your own or those that you have learned of? If they are yours, that it well beyond what any single person could expect to occur in their lifetime. These things are rare. I should hold off until you acknowledge this much. —Cracked |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 5:05 PM They're all mine, with the exception of Adam and Drew's "ELP experience", which for whatever reason, I chose to make note of in my notebook. I've heard that the more you focus on synchronicity, the more it appears in your life, which seems to be true based on my personal experience. For example, during the time period when I was reading various books on Jung and synchronicity, I would have three or four substantial coincidences a week. At other times when I wasn't thinking about it at all, I would have none. So you can judge for yourself, here's an example of the type of things I'm counting as synchronicity: (This was a couple of months ago.) I'm sitting in traffic and out of nowhere the phrase, "piss like a racehorse" pops into my head -- I don't have to pee -- I don't have the radio on -- nowhere in my immediate environment is there anything having to do with "pissing" or "racehorses" -- It just materializes out of nothingness, which causes me to think, "Hmm... That's a funny phrase -- I wonder where that came from -- and why "racehorses"? -- Do they have a much stronger urine-stream than any other animal? I wonder if older cultures used to say, "Piss like a water buffalo.", or something to that affect." I continue this dialogue in my head for a few minutes. Later that night while listening to Loveline, Adam launches into the same exact dialogue out of nowhere, making many of the same points and asking many of the same questions that I had asked earlier. It was nothing earth-shattering -- It was just a funny little coincidence. I'm at work right now. I'll check my notebook when I get home and post the date of that show so you can check out Adam's dialogue for yourself. Plus, I'll flip through my notebook and see if there's any others worth mentioning -- "piss like a racehorse" was just the first one I thought of off the top of my head. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 6:06 PM
Edited Friday, May 21, 2004 at 6:39 PM Hey steve, I think this "racehorse" example is a little different. What it is describing is more of a psychic precognitive experience. You received some form of impression and your rational mind sent you off on the tangential thinking process. The impression alone matching up to the event later that evening is the true essence of that experience. Synchronicity is different. It is in the moment. You can imagine water leaking out of a balloon and spilling or dripping where it doesn't belong yet in its own way it belongs where it is and has a perfectly logical reason to exist where it is. A friend of mine was thinking of a bluejay and turned to see the letter "J" in a sign in the color blue. The energy manefested two forms of the same description. It can be more abstract and a concept or mere essence and not as easy to see as so literal. Jung used a similar experience to describe synchronicity in a documentary I saw. He was at his desk thinking of something and turned around and saw an insect that matched his thoughts in some abstract way that I don't recall specifically. Do you remember reading anyting like this? I have awakened from sleep with a song on my mind. When I turned the radio on that same song was playing in the same spot. Maybe time is the only element that seems to distinguish what I am describing as precognitive vs. synchronicity. I can also see that the same spilling over or underlying energy can appear to be displaced by time yet if you accept time as just some condition that displaces, you can also see that everything can exist in the same moment. Do you follow me here? I wonder what Jung would say about this. I have not read what you have. Any comments? —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 6:43 PM "Madam, here's your scarab!" Yeah, I love that story -- the woman was a patient of his. They were going over the significance of the beetle in her dream when it flew through the window. Y'know, precognition is interesting, if you consider it in terms of quantum physics and the notion of all time being relative -- I mean, from a quantum physical standpoint, all time -- Past, Present, and Future -- simply exists simultaneously -- the Past is every bit as "current" as the Present and the Future, basically leaving us with one big "IS". It's really only the human mind that perceives time in a linear fashion or a sequential order of events. So having said that, why shouldn't we, on occasion possess just as strong of an awareness of the future as we do of the past or present? -- Because technically, the future is "already out there" in the process of existing. By the way AC -- the racehorse story, although it's an example of "precognitive psychic experience", still falls under the heading of synchronicity -- Jung considered that kind of psychic phenomenon as part of the bigger picture of synchronicity -- I'm sure you've probably heard the story that Jung always told about What's His Nose (sorry, can't think of his name) having the premonition of the "Great Fire" and the entire city burning down, only to return from vacation a few days later to find that there had in fact been a great fire that did an enormous amount of damage to the city. (I'll post the names when I have a chance to look it up.) —steve |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 6:45 PM Wait a minute -- You just edited your post at the same time I was posting my post. In your post you asked questions that I was unknowingly answering in my post -- how funny is that? —steve |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 7:10 PM
Edited Friday, May 21, 2004 at 7:30 PM I think everything has some form of ego. Maybe ego is not the best word because it may involve more self-awareness that excludes what I am getting at. There is some individuallity/dividing/seaparating quality in all things that enables us to feel unique and separate from all other things. Mankind seems to be the only form that has conscious awareness of this and we are only able to speculate and abstract about it. The key is going beyond that limit. I think if anyone was able to perceive real all-inclusiveness, omniscience, omnipotence, omniscience, etc, in that instant we would be God or those qualities and cease to exist as we are individuals. There only is one big whole. That whole has broken itself into bubbles- not literally but in perception -although it manefests itself literally in time/space/matter. The whole has blocked part of itself from seeing itself as the whole. From the bubble's point of view, we are separated. From the whole's point of view everything is one big whole. The idea is to learn and experience in increments what it is to be the whole. The more we learn and experience the closer we are able to understand what the whole feels like until we eventually feel like/are the whole. We can't break out of this limited point of view by design or else we would be absorbed into the all-being. We all actually are already a part of it but we live with the illusion we are not. To crack that perception instantly brings with it all knowledge and awareness that coexists outside of the time/space illusion. There are leaks, overlaps and gaps or areas where the wall is not unbreachable. I've heard people speculate it is like a crystal with all of the different planes and crevaces to see things from different perspectives. We can never actually be anywhere else we can only catch different points of view. Probably we undergo changes on all levels as we go through these experiences which enable us to traverse further up or into or out of the depths of the whole. Evolved spiritual beings vs primitive? —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Friday, May 21, 2004 at 8:30 PM Yeah, I totally agree with that -- Y'know, another similar metaphor I've always liked is that of the ocean, which is basically, within the ocean, waves form -- each wave is separate and distinguishable from every other wave, yet technically, it's still just "the ocean". All waves share the same origin and the same final destination. Their "waveness" is really nothing more than a process -- a series of varying states and degrees of the one Original Ocean. You could think of life that way -- basically, there's one Original Consciousness -- this Consciousness manifests itself in temporality through different "concrete processes" known as "living things". Living things, view themselves as separate entities, but you could argue that on a much larger scale, their source is one and the same -- Another metaphor you could use is that of pouring water through a sieve -- the sieve separates the water into distinguishable streams, but ultimately, there's only one source of water or "One Water". And likewise, I'd like to add that I agree with you in that this whole process seems to be one of "remembering what we already know" or "transcending these qualities that distinguish us or make us separate from other things". RE: the other posts -- Emmanuel Swedenborg was the man who had the premonition of the great fire in Stockholm. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Saturday, May 22, 2004 at 1:12 AM
Edited Saturday, May 22, 2004 at 2:03 AM I had to read your post several times to decide whether or not you were serious or mocking me it was so out there. -I hope my concluding you do understand this perception is correct. The last laugh is truly yours if not. Trying to describe this sounds so much like we are nuts. Regardless, you have made a lot of sense. This sounds like we are on some halucinagenic drug. People think they understand the universe and life while on Acid/LSD because brain activity is increased exponentiallly. Some drug-gibberish reveals temporary glimpses of advanced perception. Even without drug we periodically remember what we are and where we came from. We are not discovering anything we do not already have an affiliation with. This is the reasoning behind grounding/centering and finding the truth within ourselves. We are more powerful the more we find inside as opposed to looking outside for any truth. It is paradoxical when people fear death. They are fearing the loss of indiviuality and this is evidence supporting our inability to perceive true omniconsciousness. In theory we have everything to (re)gain but we are convinced we have everything to lose. I hope you are sincere and understand what I have tried to describe. If not, good times anyway.
—Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Saturday, May 22, 2004 at 9:56 PM Aw man -- did it sound that bad? I was tired when I wrote that -- I was having a really hard time focusing -- But yes, I'm most certainly down with everything you're saying. In a way, I hate talking about consciousness and its origins out of a fear of it sounding "New Age-y". I can assure you that all of these notions I carry around with me come from years of extensive philosophical and scientific research and most certainly aren't borne of any fruity mysticism. Ironically, I went into quantum physics an atheist and came out a believer in "god" for lack of a better word. RE: "Even without drugs we periodically remember what we are and where we came from. We are not discovering anything we do not already have an affiliation with." -- Yeah exactly -- This is basically what Jung was saying with his notion of the "collective unconscious". Likewise, this is what Kierkegaard had in mind when he spoke of "subjective truth". This is also what Nietzsche was referring to with his concept of the "overman". All of these philosophies were philosophies of self-transcendence, with the implication that beyond your own "human consciousness" there lies an even greater "Original Consciousness". RE: Mortality -- People fear death because they view their own humanity in very concrete terms -- "This body is who I am." -- They inadvertantly view the body as a concrete object which exists in the world, but the truth of the matter is, the body along with all things that exist in this universe, are merely just processes -- a notion which came as a rude awakening to the materialists when Einstein came forth with his theory of relativity. Up to that point, life had been viewed in materialistic or reductionistic terms -- meaning, people felt that the world was made up of concrete objects which could be broken down into smaller concrete objects, which could be broken down still further, into even smaller concrete objects (atoms). Relativity Theory and likewise quantum physics showed that there were no such things as "concrete objects" when they pushed past the atomic level revealing that the "building blocks of all reality" were actually nothing more than "packets of energy" so to speak -- Gone were the days of that rational reductionism which stood on its firm ground of "objects" -- Now we find ourselves faced with the notion of a "reality" which is made up of nothing more than energy -- our bodies, our houses, our cars, our land, our planets, our stars, our solar systems, our galaxies, our entire universe -- are nothing more than "processes of energy" interwoven in an endless dance of connections and disconnections -- and endless array of "somethings" and "nothings" forming an infinite tapestry of spacetime. But still -- it's goodtimes though, right? —steve |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Monday, May 24, 2004 at 12:51 AM
Edited Monday, May 24, 2004 at 12:56 AM All a "process" the only constant is change. My beliefs are ecclectic and I don't have the desire to keep everything tightly organized in my memory. I cannot quote or remember many sources that influenced my beliefs. I just am far too right-brained for that. I might sound "New Agey" because some of those New Age people know some truths but have not come to it through books or famous scholar's insights. When they speak of it they do it in a different context and often using less concrete terms. There have been different periods when I have read, taken classes and work shops on existentialism, quantum physics, specuative science, mythology and spiritualism. I have hung out with a few advanced minds -people with a knack for speaking lofty thoughts in layman's terms. I saw that Carl Jung documentary at a retreat conducted by a triple PhD. During these times I could discuss ideas using the language within that given context. I have just been living life for a number of years and have let a lot of that go, just keeping the essence. It is possible someone else knows as much truth as you even when they do not use words you prefer. We all can scorn people for not fitting within a box of our preference. Sometimes we miss out recognizing and enjoying a kindred spirit seeing them as one to impress with our ability to reference other people and their ideas, as interesting as those are. On the other hand, you might not have an opportunity to speak with some great minds if you cannot walk the walk and talk the talk. So what are you gonna do? :-)
—Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Monday, May 24, 2004 at 4:44 PM Yeah, I'm the same way -- I just pick up a bunch of stuff as I go along -- sort of like Adam's "whatever makes sense" rant -- anything that makes sense gets thrown into the proverbial all-encompassing philosophy. It's nice to get a chance to talk about this kind of stuff. I work in an office of people who are all in their 50's and 60's -- they're much more into stocks and sports than philosophy. I mean, the last time I had a conversation like this was -- what's today -- Monday? *pretends to do math* Um, never. It's cool to see that there are like-minded people out there. —steve |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 11:15 AM Speaking of lofty abstract concepts, if any of you have mp3s or oggs or even wmas of the interview with Ken Wilbur, "Speaking of Everything" or other Ken Wilbur audio, could you send it to me? —ZT |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 2:24 PM Yeah mee too, ZT -- I'm a huge fan of Ken Wilbur. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 7:31 PM
Edited Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 7:39 PM You guys have said "calling all nerds" more than once. This subject matter is hardly nerdy. If it were pure science it might be for nerds. This is looking endlessly for the true meaning of life, philosophies, something more like the fine art of existence than nerd food like engineering or computers. Wait... everything in this thread has conjured up 2001: A Space Odyssy in my mind including engineering and computers, come to think of it. Anyone familiar with Teilhard de Chardin and the concept of the Alpha and Omega points? Relating to a figure eight, life expands out so far that it rounds back on itself to the beginning. I apologize for butchering the idea. The Omega Point: "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the Paelentologist and Jesuit priest, defines the omega point as the climactic convergent point of human evolution as the emergence of the hyperpersonal" - A point of full superconscious global telepathy as the norm of the human mental condition. The culmination and integration of all forms of art, philosophy, culture, and science into a coherent dynamic singularity. Chardin explains, "Someday, after we have mastered the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love. Then, for the second time in the history of the world, [hu]mankind will have discovered fire - By its structure Omega, in its ultimate principle, can only be a distinct Center radiating at the core of a system of centers; a grouping in which the personalization of the All and personalizations of the elements reach their maximum, simultaneously and without merging,under the influence of a supremely autonomous focus of union. Dr. Frank Tipler and his Omega Point Theory describes the omega point as the future state of the universe where all life has permanent existence and continues to evolve forever. Tipler and Barrow state in the Anthropic Cosmological principle, "If life evolves in all of the many universes in a quantum cosmology, and if life continue to exist in all of these universes, then all of these universe, which include all possible histories among them, will approach the Omega Point. At the instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could locally exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know." —http://www.OmegaPoint.org —Don't be thrown by the he Raylien looking website :-) Does anyone here remember The Rayliens? LOL
—Cracked |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 8:05 PM Y'know, I always flip-flop back and forth on this point -- on one hand, it makes perfect sense -- given any type of evolving being and an infinite amount of time, the being would have to evolve into a god-like state of existence like Chardin and Tipler have stated. But on the other hand, if said being had evolved into a god-like existence and permeated all of reality, it would permeate all temporality as well, meaning, it wouldn't just permeate spacetime from Its point of ultimate evolution onward -- It would permeate all of spacetime -- from Its point of ultimate evolution and everything retroactive, as well as all "future" events -- Basically, all of us, right here and now, would be existing in the presence of this god-like being... Come to think of it -- I think this is my new favourite argument for the existence of god -- If we believe in a universe with a finite origin (i.e.: big bang) and an infinite "future", combined with an infinite size and hence, infinite posiblities for consciousness to form and evolve, isn't it logical to conclude that atleast one of these conscious beings would evolve to the point of existing in a god-like state? P.S. Were the Rayliens the one with the leader that Adam referred to as a "Faux French Fag"? :) —steve |
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 8:23 PM
Edited Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 8:53 PM Rayliens: I don't know about the "Faux French Fags" Adam refers to. I have not heard him talk about it. Rayliens were a group in San Diego living in a mansion, taking freelance website development work. The leader, a crazed looking bald old man, was the only male that retained his genitals. The other men were castrated. They had haircuts that looked like they put a salad bowl over their head and trimmed the hair that stuck out underneath. They all killed themselves so they could meet up with an alien ship that was supposed to be flying around nearby. "...It would permeate all of spacetime" -to even have space/time you must have limitation. This condition would seem to leave no room for a god/all encompassing form that was everywhere all of the time. So there may need to be a fluxuation of "the one and the many" (alpha and omega) where this god thing is many then one then many then one yet everywhere yet no where breathe in breathe out noise/voice/creation pause/silence OUM. And where did the idea come from that a devil/Satan thing could exist anywhere? That concept means there would be some place where a god did not inhabit. How could that be? I think there has to be some truth in everything we as humans can imagine. I don't think we can think of something that doesn't exist in some remote way, you know that remembering you guys talk about. So how does a hell and mankind separate from god come up? How can that be possible? -ALL things considered (everything speculated in this thread) -NOT strickly religious explanations. —Cracked |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Tuesday, May 25, 2004 at 11:15 PM
Edited Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 12:08 AM arteitle is correct. The Raelians were the ones claiming they had cloned a human. It seems like there may be some kind of pulse or contracting-expanding going on during this big process. When you think of the micro/macrocosm angle, evidence of the whole game ought to be contained within small experiences. We breath and have a pulse. There are ebbs and flows, waxing and waning, coming and going, night and day, we start out young and naive we end with varying degrees of dementia and many back in diapers. Carl Jung also speculated about the concept of being cast out of heaven was the result of being birthed and expelled from the womb. It has a very basic root in our experience and we later came up with an elaborate explaination for the faint memory of that experience. This could be the micro/macro symetry or it could be a unique experience that we do not realize is just something we lived through when we were very young rather than something with history dating back to the origins of mankind or life in general. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
commie |
+ |
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 12:11 AM
Edited Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 1:02 AM Carl Jung was a Nazi sympathizer. Exhibiting pro-Nazi sympathies is the most virulent manifestation of false consciousness. Any psychological theory emanating from such a consciousness is deeply suspect. Any system of psychology that is not based on rigorous scientific materialism is decadent and unsound. Anyone here study cognitive psychology? How about probability theory? Any cold readers or professional magicians reading this forum? Let's hear from you. —commie |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 2:24 PM Carl Jung was a Nazi sympathizer. "The Aryan Christ" is the most ricockulous book ever written. Although Jung felt Germany held a certain importance in Europe, anyone who's thoroughly read Jung knows that he most certainly was not a Nazi-sympathizer. Anyone here study cognitive psychology? Yes. How about probability theory? Yes. —steve |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 4:47 PM "...It would permeate all of spacetime" -to even have space/time you must have limitation. This condition would seem to leave no room for a god/all encompassing form that was everywhere all of the time. This comes up a lot -- the ol' "atemporal vs. temporal god" debate. People usually wanna pick one or the other -- either a god that exists outside of spacetime and has no effect on temporality, or a god who exists inside of spacetime and is in essence "trapped" here. My answer to this question has always been, "Yes". Although it's paradoxical, I think both scenarios are true. I don't see any reason why an all-powerful atemporal being couldn't create temporality -- I'm basically saying god creates the rules (limitations, spacetime, something/nothing duality, etc.), yet at the same time, transcends these very rules. All of the "somethingness" of our infinite universe is confined in the "nothingness" of god. God is what Sartre would refer to as a "nihilation" as opposed to "annihilation" -- meaning "annihilation" implies a nothingness with a ground or basis -- It's a nothingness in relation to something -- It was once here in relation to other things and now it is gone, whereas a "nihilation" is a nothingness without foundation -- an absolute that exists beyond all concepts, limitations, foundations, structures, etc. I think there has to be some truth in everything we as humans can imagine. I don't think we can think of something that doesn't exist in some remote way... I've always thought the same thing -- Borrowing from what we said earlier in this thread -- it seems to me that given an infinite amount of space and an infinite amount of time everything must happen -- anything we could possibly imagine must have happened somewhere at sometime. This has interesting implications for our dreams -- For example, if every possible event has happened at one time or another, then that would mean that everything we dream has happened at one time or another. It doesn't necesarrily imply that our dreams are "real" so to speak, but it would imply that we possess a conscious knowledge of events that exist apart from our conscious, immediate reality. —steve |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 4:53 PM
Edited Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 4:54 PM It seems like there may be some kind of pulse or contracting-expanding going on during this big process. I agree (as do the Taoists). All of life seems to have that ebb and flow like one infinite computer code -- just an endless array of 0's and 1's -- an endless flow of somethings and nothings. —steve |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 11:54 PM
Edited Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 12:42 AM Well, let us see where we all end up in this thread of consciousness. "All of life seems to have that ebb and flow like one infinite computer code --just an endless array of 0's and 1's -- an endless flow of somethings and nothings." I don't think this metaphor is correct. Binary code is off/on. The concept of a god-form/all-everything force/point/figure/center is always on, always has been, always will be. The ebbs and flows of life never stop. The sun does not die or stop beaming, the blood does not stop flowing, the physiological impact of oxegen does not stop between breaths, high and low tide is not the result of the life and death of the moon. Stated earlier, the only constant is change. Energy changes form it doesn't die. In this way god-energy can be, and maybe even must be, seen as change -the only constant. The apparent existence of duality may only be an illusion, a perception from our point of view within the conditions of our location in space/time/matter. A goldfish only knows the experience within the bowl yet from our position we see there is a container surrounded by air in an environment, littered with objects, that extends to the furthest areas of outer space. The goldfish can't see this even though on some inherent level it knows its place in the largest scheme of things if we are all part of the god-source. —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Adam's Crows |
+ |
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 1:03 AM
Edited Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 1:12 AM Cracked- Regarding the source and reason characters and concepts like Satan/devil and being separated from God exist if we can only remember and do not invent may be indicative of the existence and role of a divine personality. Personality is key to a god concept we can relate to emotionally. This all encompassing god form supposedly loves and cares for us. It doesn't seem to be just a predictable mindless force. We have personalities and histories that make use of vested interests, attachment, bonding, desires, idealism, etc. We have some power to shape our own and other's lives. Our personality evolves through experiences. Jung spends a lot of time with "archetypes." The roles we step into at various times in life like the teacher, the hero, the student, the father, the mother, the messenger, etc. have definite influences on how and what we learn enabling us to grow. We all step in and out of these roles. At the same time people adopt roles for a career. Some people are natural leaders and end up leading any group they end up around (formally or informally). On a global scale, countries act as parents to other countries govmnt policy can take care of its countrymen and offer international assistance. More and more individuals are guided by fewer numbers of people the more we zoom out and look at the entire planet. This can extend to the cosmos. There may be stages and levels stepping closer to the whole/center/god/source. The actual description of this "Satan/devil" may be an eroded version of what this character really is. This could also be some lesser-than-god being like man but different. I don't know of course. This speculation is just attempting to suggest possibilities in an effort to explain why personality and characters of mythological and heavenly literature might have come to be. -but now I am too tired :-) —Adam's Crows |
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 8:26 PM
Edited Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 8:27 PM Your turn, steve. Let's hear more about these arcetypes. Sounds like Zeus, Cherubs and the FTD Florist guy (Prancerus ?). Seriously, I remember something having to do with Greek gods. Joseph Campbell wrote about it also. Does Carl Jung compare Greek myths to the arcetypes? Are they the same thing? —Cracked |
|
|
|
|
steve |
+ |
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 9:19 PM AC covered the majority of the archetypes with this sentence: The roles we step into at various times in life like the teacher, the hero, the student, the father, the mother, the messenger, etc. Jung and Joe Campbell covered a lot of Greek mythology (along with a bunch of other mythologies)in order to show how all cultures share the same innate "characters" and "stories". In one of his lesser known works, Jung did extensive research on the FTD Flower Guy along with subsequent chapters on the Fed Ex Guy, that Rooms To Go Couple and his underwhelming summary, "What can Brown do for you?". (Thank you! -- Good night!) No seriously, if I'm not mistaken, Jung and Campbell have spoken of the FTD Guy from time to time -- I assume he would fall under the "messenger" archetype. —steve |
|
|
|
|
prick stuck |
+ |
Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 9:59 PM Aaaaccckkk! I've stumbled into the middle of a pseudointellectual circle jerk! —prick stuck |
|
|
|
|
Cracked |
+ |
Friday, May 28, 2004 at 5:50 PM The original post by Bad Directions referred to Adam possibly reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Adam gathers his intelligence through osmosis. He listens and senses and notices key points. He probably heard the line discussed somewhere and understood the jest of it.
BTW Mr. Stuck,
"Psuedo," hardly.
—Cracked |
|