Carl Gustav Jung - Videos, Books, Ruminations

Okay, I'm gonna preface this by stating I haven't read all the responses yet, so it's entirely likely I might wind up double posting once I get through it all... along with the fact that my response here to do, DawnEye11, is going to be toward your first response back after my post, where you ask me a few questions specifically. If some of what I've said has been answered for you already, I apologize now.

You aren't that far off by saying that it's because everything exists on the same plane of reality, but only when your definition of existing on the "same" "plane" of reality is... let's say "uncomfortably" vague, at least for me. A good example of why it's too vague for me to be comfortable simply agreeing with it is, would you personally consider metaphysical phenomena like the existence of information or our consciousness and thoughts to exist necessarily on the same plane of reality as the physical matter that composes us does? For me, the answer depends. I find the answer that it does acceptable enough, but at the same time, if we have to come up with a special term to refer to the nature of things that exist, can't you argue that it doesn't too? Not existing on the same plane of reality doesn't necessarily mean that interactions between them can't occur somehow, or that one doesn't arise as the result of activity from another (think the Kabbalistic Tree of Life and the Divine Emanations making it up being "different worlds"). Your answer could change alone based on whether or not you consider the incomprehensible " objective/true" form of existence to be reality or the subjective, integrated perceptions that construct our mental model of reality to be reality because all else is unknowable, but ultimately either answer could still technically work for both simply because of how ignorant we are of... well, everything.

Pedantry aside, it's a bit more than simply existing in essentially the same general place on a larger whole. It's more that everything about existence as we know it exists as a continuous, fluid interaction guided by a few separate, but exceedingly simple fundamental principles guiding everything's behavior that we call physical laws. Things do not exist without each other, but at the same time they do not exist without there being differences between them, making them distinctively separate. Yet still at the same time, the fundamental components that form those differences by coming together in particular arrangements are all the same, and the rules they seem to always follow are all the same for those same components.

The Hermetic Principle, "As Above, So Below" applies well here, because just the same as with physical reality, the same goes for us. We are separate from our surroundings and other human beings. Yet, what we experience are merely our internally constructed perceptions of those things. Given the right perceptions, sensations of oneness, wholeness, connectedness, and unity with all that exists are something we are capable of experiencing. There literally ceases to be any boundary between ourselves and everything else. Yet, that very experience is also one where we lack a self or any kind of identity of any kind. Despite having essentially become one with everything, it is as if we are nothing, and all there "is" is nothingness. Such a state of ego death is not unlike a universe that has reached thermal equilibrium (maximum order/orderliness where all literally becomes one) or whose quantum fields (if you know anything about Quantum Field Theory) are all vibrating as indistinct, nondescript "blurs". The vacuum does not have a zero-point energy state, yet at the same time there is no matter and no differentiation between energy states from wave functions that propagate in those quantum fields like particles usually do. Nothing exists but vacuum, yet the potential for something to come into existence is still there. These indistinct blurs of vibrations in the quantum fields, represent the opposite, which is maximal chaos or no orderliness whatsoever. Then, of course, include all the stuff about the universe's component parts being the same and separate and different, and you see it's all the same for us and the universe in that way; just as with our perceptions and the nature of our own mental realities exists, so too exists the nature of existence itself. Truly, any way that you are capable of finding a similarity in the nature of the rest of existence and our own mental realities, in that way we are connected, even if that connection is in absolutely no way physical. Connections are really just perceptions if relatedness anyway.

Also, I apologize for the confusion over my word choice. It's just the wording I'm used to seeing when talking about the philosophical subjects related to all this and even in my research on Jungian psychology. I figured most everyone else in the thread, since it is pretty much all about these philosophical musings, Jungian psychology, and his interpretations of myths and religions in particular, that using the wording the Bible itself used would still be appropriate, but at the same time, allow others (like happened for me) to more easily perceive the scripture in a new light. The idea being that interpreting it all from a totally different lens/perspective, but otherwise using the same words, would better kind of highlight or contrast the difference between the meaning of it when taking literally rather than from the perspective particular to the thread, psychology, and symbolism.

Oh gosh, thats a lot to read. Kind of had to read it over a few times. First, I understand that it was vague for you now but I expected you to understand what I meant by it.

I don't understand why I would have to choose between perception or objective/true form either. What is, is and that's enough. Either way, you c
an separate them but they still work together for us to be is what makes sense to me. For that reason I feel they are both on the same plane of reality. Mind and what is outside mind seem like they merge. Even if we see it from an inside perspective, It can exist without our perspective. In a way, I have a feeling that the idea that things exist only because of our mind is kind of ego centric. Does the universe depend on human observance to exist? Interaction I can see but not every living thing/non living thing is capable of observing or doing what we can do with our minds.And yet they continue to be.Hm...I want to ask you to be more specific about the ignorant part but than again it's your opinion. I don't think humans are ignorant of "everything" although we can be pretty ignorant at times.

That makes me wonder on what plane I would see dreams than...You'd still be on the same plane of reality as WL to me but with a subtle difference. You'd be looking inwards instead of out. Which contradicts the jung meme I guess but im looking at it from a different context.

For the second paragraph it feels like your trying to explain what I already know but with a more specific example that I don't think was necessary.Mainly because I understand that theres more than just existing on the same plane and I don't know the reason for why you mentioned it.

In the third paragraph it seems like your going into how we are connected and how we are connected after...(Ego)death?Getting my thoughts together again I kept rereading what you mentioned but after lack of identity I lost the point. Like it went from humans to what is the same with the universe and us. I know connections don't need to be physical and I don't recall why you are explaining this. So my final thought is that your explaining what happens after death or Ego death..:uhm:


Also about your wording choice and the words the bible used...I don't recall you quoting it from the bible. In the end when it comes to the bible how do you even know which is legit translation and which wording is not? Ultimately you wouldn't but your just taking info from what you can find or feel you can trust and what is closely related to Carl Jung.However, I'm not seeing how that matters for what we were talking about. Perhaps if you actually quoted the text I could understand but than it'd probably be a discussion for a different thread.Or maybe I just lost interest in discussing it.^^

I know this is Carl Jung thread and that you were trying to help answer my questions with detailed information but it felt like most of it could have been sufficiently explained in short, your examples were not easy for me to visualize(Doesn't mean they were bad I just need another example that is easier to picture) and not everything has to be info related to carl jung either, that's why I offered that other info when you mentioned the trinity(you might be talking about when I mentioned the Godliness part though. I tried rereading my past post but I'm lost now) and maybe i found some info unnecessary cause I know what Slash meant already.(It's also harder for me to make connections with my previous questions and statements in the past and with your post now that its been a while):uhm: Sorry if I seem somewhat negative but I feel like you mostly just explained your view and totally disregarded mine just because it wasn't in your style. More so on the talk about the plane of reality part.I'm on page with what you had to say but I don't really see any valid disagreement. In short it may be that I said something that didn't paint the whole picture for you while i was looking at the whole picture in my mind.

That aside I decided to look around for interesting carl jung quotes and found one that caught my attention. I don't know a lot about Carl Jung but I wonder what he meant. I googled it and it turns out the full quote is "Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes"(Carl Jung). I really like this quote more now. I have to think more about what it means to me though.
http://m.quickmeme.com/img/95/95767b...dbfe8d0644.jpg

Sorry about that but I had to edit my thoughts after rereading your post a lot.After rereading like 20 times or more and thinking about it i will stop now.

*still rereading and editing after saying she will stop* ok I will seriously give this thread a break now.

Hahahahahha.... This whole thread :chuckle: I suspect the only one who can really understand what is being said in any given post is the one who wrote it. I enjoy it though. I love trying to decode it all.

The non-conceptual is not meant for words or understanding. It can be known. But it can not be understood. It can be expressed. But it can not be explained. This is the realm of mythology and poetry, music, dance, and other artforms, the spoken word and education can be an artform, but is extremely rare for someone to master.

The one who knows does not care to speak about it. The one who is ever ready to speak about it, knows it not. -Some dead asian.
This must be taken with a grain of salt, but still.

I am not sure why. But it made me think of this absolutely gorgeous piece of music I hadn't heard in ages. It was a favourite when I was in high school: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yehccI-tfs0

Edit: I understand why I thought of that song now. It's a psalm, so a praise to God, but you can't understand a single word being said, I can tell by the messed up accent or tonality that it's probably eastern norwegian dialect, but I can't make out any words... This is also why Beach House is one of my favourite bands, but I never read their lyrics, even though I have them printed on the record cover. I prefer to not know what is being said.

Also: the quote was Lao Tzu.

Edit 2: Holy shit: Revisiting Shinings album Black Jazz, this is the most evil music! All shadow! :mwahaha: I don't understand how we were able to get high and blast Black Jazz day after day without loosing it completely(or more than we did:muffin:). Don't listen to any shining released after Black Jazz though. It sucks. Black Jazz is dark, the albums before it are much easier listening though all have some heavier elements at times: In the kingdom of kitch is jazzy and delightful. Grindstone adds a lot of classical elements. Both are incredible albums as a whole. Reccomended songs: Asa Nisi Masa, Fight Dusk with Dawn, The Red Room, Romani, Goretex weather report(warning, this one gets stuck in your head), Fisheye, Exit sun, Omen.

Edit 3: I had a lucid dream that is relevant tonight so I might as well share since I'm already rambling. I was at my parents place already lucid. My dog was there, we have a new dog that looks a lot like our old one which passed. I realized that this was our old dog that I grew up with. She visits me in dreams at times. We talked as we often do. I remember asking her if she could drop by our new dogs dream and teach her some manners.
Then she did her signature low key bark and I knew somebody was at the door. It was her best friend, the dog next door Maya, but smaller. They went inside together. Those two were both perfect dogs and could be trusted to be outside by themselves, so they visited each other all the time. Maya is old now and will probably die soon, she was really sad after our dog died... so it was a bit symbolic of that.

I heard a sound outside and decided to investigate. It was just some birds in a bush. I went into the garden and decided to try and enter "the non-dual perspective" completely. I don't do that much in LD's, don't know why. I did that as I walked through the beautiful summer garden where I grew up. The whole feeling of the dream changed drastically, and among other things I suddenly I felt EXTREMELY powerful, as if I had completely taken the shape of my dream. It was unlike anything I have ever felt in a lucid dream. I normally have good dream control and can do a lot of fancy stuff, but this was completely different. I took of flying but with a level of effortlessness, proficiency and clarity that I have never experienced before. As I flew I took of my glasses and the world became more detailed. It didn't last long but it was fascinating. I had slept in and woken up many times so far, which seems to reduce the stability of my dreams. So I had a false awakening that I checked after a while, but my lucidity had faded a lot and I woke up soon after.

When I wrote my journal I remembered that the dogs name Maya is the sanskrit word for "world illusion" or something along those lines. Thought it was a very fitting little detail.

Edit 4: Oh and shit! I became an uncle last night! First time. My sister got a litte daughter called Anna :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LighrkVader

Hahahahahha.... This whole thread :chuckle: I suspect the only one who can really understand what is being said in any given post is the one who wrote it. I enjoy it though. I love trying to decode it all.

The non-conceptual is not meant for words or understanding. It can be known. But it can not be understood. It can be expressed. But it can not be explained. This is the realm of mythology and poetry, music, dance, and other artforms, the spoken word and education can be an artform, but is extremely rare for someone to master.

The one who knows does not care to speak about it. The one who is ever ready to speak about it, knows it not. -Some dead asian.
This must be taken with a grain of salt, but still.

I am not sure why. But it made me think of this absolutely gorgeous piece of music I hadn't heard in ages. It was a favourite when I was in high school: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yehccI-tfs0

Edit: I understand why I thought of that song now. It's a psalm, so a praise to God, but you can't understand a single word being said, I can tell by the messed up accent or tonality that it's probably eastern norwegian dialect, but I can't make out any words... This is also why Beach House is one of my favourite bands, but I never read their lyrics, even though I have them printed on the record cover. I prefer to not know what is being said.

Also: the quote was Lao Tzu.

Edit 2: Holy shit: Revisiting Shinings album Black Jazz, this is the most evil music! All shadow! :mwahaha: I don't understand how we were able to get high and blast Black Jazz day after day without loosing it completely(or more than we did:muffin:). Don't listen to any shining released after Black Jazz though. It sucks. Black Jazz is dark, the albums before it are much easier listening though all have some heavier elements at times: In the kingdom of kitch is jazzy and delightful. Grindstone adds a lot of classical elements. Both are incredible albums as a whole. Reccomended songs: Asa Nisi Masa, Fight Dusk with Dawn, The Red Room, Romani, Goretex weather report(warning, this one gets stuck in your head), Fisheye, Exit sun, Omen.

Edit 3: I had a lucid dream that is relevant tonight so I might as well share since I'm already rambling. I was at my parents place already lucid. My dog was there, we have a new dog that looks a lot like our old one which passed. I realized that this was our old dog that I grew up with. She visits me in dreams at times. We talked as we often do. I remember asking her if she could drop by our new dogs dream and teach her some manners.
Then she did her signature low key bark and I knew somebody was at the door. It was her best friend, the dog next door Maya, but smaller. They went inside together. Those two were both perfect dogs and could be trusted to be outside by themselves, so they visited each other all the time. Maya is old now and will probably die soon, she was really sad after our dog died... so it was a bit symbolic of that.

I heard a sound outside and decided to investigate. It was just some birds in a bush. I went into the garden and decided to try and enter "the non-dual perspective" completely. I don't do that much in LD's, don't know why. I did that as I walked through the beautiful summer garden where I grew up. The whole feeling of the dream changed drastically, and among other things I suddenly I felt EXTREMELY powerful, as if I had completely taken the shape of my dream. It was unlike anything I have ever felt in a lucid dream. I normally have good dream control and can do a lot of fancy stuff, but this was completely different. I took of flying but with a level of effortlessness, proficiency and clarity that I have never experienced before. As I flew I took of my glasses and the world became more detailed. It didn't last long but it was fascinating. I had slept in and woken up many times so far, which seems to reduce the stability of my dreams. So I had a false awakening that I checked after a while, but my lucidity had faded a lot and I woke up soon after.

When I wrote my journal I remembered that the dogs name Maya is the sanskrit word for "world illusion" or something along those lines. Thought it was a very fitting little detail.

Edit 4: Oh and shit! I became an uncle last night! First time. My sister got a litte daughter called Anna :D

---

Thats true.lol Some dead asian. I know its to be taken with a grain of salt but it makes sense. It's interesting to listen to music without lyrics. Sometimes you end up picking up funny words that arent actually there.
Ive never heard of black jazz. I listened to Gortex Weather report now though. I really like it, sounds like it could be played for a video game.

Its sad that your old dog passed and Maya might die soon but its sweet that you dream about them. I dream of my deceased dog at times. His name was Max~I wish i could have done much more with Max before he passed but that day i had a fever. T--T

Its cool how in the end you had such effortless control. The garden and detailed scene was a plus too. I love Gardens.
I need a garden of my own someday. >. <

World illusion does seem fitting. Congrats on becoming a uncle for the first time~Anna is a lovely name. ^w^)~☆

Just wanted to comment on the quote, "Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes".
It's just, it's a great quote, and it merits some proper discussion.

Dawn, I know you had a bit of confusion regarding that, because dreams come from "inside". But something to remember is that even in dreams, we are looking outwardly. Outward is the only direction people tend to look. Because it's the only direction they know to look.
I prefer to say "look inward", rather than "look inside". But it means the same thing. To look inward, you sorta trace your own awareness in the opposite direction from which you are looking, eventually tracing awareness to its origin.

Let's forget about the idea of the origin of awareness. Like Vader said, "It can be known. But it can not be understood. It can be expressed. But it can not be explained."
The origin of awareness is one of those non-concepts. In the context of the quote, the origin of awareness is the heart of your being.

But what we can look at, is the fact that when you look in this opposite direction, inward, you begin to move into awareness. I hope that helps explain why "who looks inside, awakes".

The simple mindfulness concept of "observe your thoughts" is actually an inward movement. It's not necessarily "looking inward", because you are still looking outwardly from awareness, but it is a genuine movement inwards. It moves you deeper into awareness. If you do this, observe your thoughts, you notice that before that very moment, you were sorta dreaming, in a sense. Suddenly observing thoughts can feel kinda like waking up from a daydream, even though daydreaming was nothing to do with it. This waking up of awareness while already awake and aware, can be referred to as an "awakened state". This is something I think we have all experienced, many times. But we give it no importance, we forget about it, and we fall back into "daydream mode", better known as "normal waking state". So you've got "waking state", and you've got "awakened state".

Now, the thing, this mindfulness thing (observing thoughts) will slowly move you inwardly, and indeed it is an awakening, but one day, if you practice it for years, your perspective will suddenly flip round and suddenly you are looking inward, this direction which was previously unknown to you and you see the origin of awareness. That's like another awakening all-together.
We can even go through both types of awakenings at the same time, which can be done through Vedanta or Jungian psychology, and I'm sure there's more (I think Taoism and Zen allow for it too).

But I take the stance that we are all awakening beings. "Awakening" is just another natural feat of the human being. It's just, some of us love to focus on it, and the awakening becomes us.

Hey Slash, As I was thinking today that actually came to mind, that even though we dream, we look outwards. Also, I can see why you prefer inwards. Inside sounds like your looking at something not within yourself. Thanks for explaining what the quote meant. I read another explanation that was different to what you explained before but Its good to know what your perspective is on it.

I'd be interested to hear your own perspective on it too! You've done your own investigation, your input would be valuable.
There's more than one way to look at anything.

Thanks but i didnt thoroughly investigate it, i just looked up an explanation and the explanation viewed it more as looking at your true self and making decisions not by following the crowd or what you pick up. That the path of others is like a dream and when you go on your own path, you awaken. I can see how your explanation fits into it so i dont really have more to incorporate
Maybe if i knew more of jung i would but I'm good now.^^

Yeah, indeed that fits. :D

Moving into awareness causes you to go your own path.
And likewise going your own path causes you to move into awareness.
Both of those ways are an awakening.

Awakening is a funny mysterious thing, it can happen in so many different ways. But in the end there are these distinct markers we can identify.
This thread is filled to the brim with these markers.

This thread is amazing, it would be so valuable for anyone struggling on their own awakening. It sure would have helped me a year ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slash112

Yeah, indeed that fits. :D

Moving into awareness causes you to go your own path.
And likewise going your own path causes you to move into awareness.
Both of those ways are an awakening.

Awakening is a funny mysterious thing, it can happen in so many different ways. But in the end there are these distinct markers we can identify.
This thread is filled to the brim with these markers.

This thread is amazing, it would be so valuable for anyone struggling on their own awakening. It sure would have helped me a year ago.

---

Good to know you think it fits. I agree that it will be of good use to others too. :reading: : )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawnEye11

Also about your wording choice and the words the bible used...I don't recall you quoting it from the bible. In the end when it comes to the bible how do you even know which is legit translation and which wording is not? Ultimately you wouldn't but your just taking info from what you can find or feel you can trust and what is closely related to Carl Jung.

I know this is Carl Jung thread and that you were trying to help answer my questions with detailed information but it felt like most of it could have been sufficiently explained in short, your examples were not easy for me to visualize
[/IMG]

---

You're right, I never actually quoted anything from the Bible. I definitely should be more careful. I guess I was really more meaning to say I was referring to things in a biblical sense, but not actually quoting the Bible itself.

Also, I put the second part of the quote in bold because I wanted to stress just how much this habit of mine really annoys the crap out of me. I typically wind up cursing myself a bit and get really self-conscious of how much I actually wrote... to the point that I often consider deleting my posts right after making them and regularly write out huge spiels that I wind up never posting for exactly this reason. I know there's a shorter, simpler, more elegant, and especially more effective way of saying what I'm trying to, but my tendency to be so ridiculously anal about what I'm trying to communicate that, in the end, I'm actually doing more to obscure my intended message than communicate it.

I'm gonna take the time now to read the rest of the thread. I also want to apologize about just explaining things from my point of you instead of considering yours... in part, that's because I hadn't read really any of the new replies since my last response, but in conversations like this there's it's really easy to wind up just going on a monologue and repeating one's self ad nauseam, rather than have a real dialog about everything. I know I have a problem with this in particular and will make an effort to do better from now on. Thanks for pointing it out to me though, otherwise I'd probably just keep doing it just as much.

Personally I like the way you talk, snoop. If you wrote a book, I'd read it.

But yeah I have had similar problems. Even in this very thread, I've learned to be mindful of other people's perspectives. It's a very useful lesson to learn, but please don't beat yourself up about it!

Okay, so Dawn, responding to you here, when I mention the perspective where one believes our experience of reality is the only reality there is, I don't mean it in the way you seemed to have understood what I said. I chalk this up to very poor word choice on my part. Or maybe not properly elaborating on what I actually mean by that, because it makes perfect sense that you interpreted the way you did.

To begin with, I agree that anybody that holds that perspective, in the way you interpreted specifically, has a very egocentric view of the world. What I was trying to do by saying it and offering it as a possible perspective was more to highlight the duality between what is, and what is experienced. That is to say, our realities are only created by and exist as a result of our experience. Outside of any conscious observer lies an existence that is beyond comprehension or experience, because to do either both requires consciousness and for its fundamental nature as the existence of what is to completely change and become what is experienced. That's why I often use the words reality and existence to mean two different, but specific things; reality referring to what we experience the world and existence to be, and existence referring to that which actually and simply is.

Regarding the discussion on the I Am, the Ego, enlightenment, etc., I have a few thoughts. Actually first is a question to clarify. Slash, I don't know if you read any of the Kybalion pdf I shared or are familiar enough with Hermeticism even if you didn't, but it sounds like your "I Am" is essentially the same as the concept of The ALL. Is that correct? If not, they seem so similar in meaning that I feel like even if it isn't, they're pretty much the same thing. If you feel they differ at all, hopefully you wouldn't mind clearing up any distinctions for me?

Also Dawn, I agree with your statements about oneness not necessarily being the ultimate goal, and that the ocean isn't necessarily the same as oneness itself. For one thing, the ocean itself, even in its entirety, isn't the unified whole. The concept of the ocean itself, or really more the gestalt of the ocean is closer to being something of unified oneness, but it too is merely a symbolic representation of that oneness. The oneness is the ocean itself, the concept/gestalt of it, and even more than we can know, understand, or ever put in words.

My ideas toward ultimate goals, meaning, and enlightenment almost border on having root in and influence from existential nihilism than most philosophies on existentialism. Your ideas on it seem to be similar to mine in that same way. Truly there are no real goals or meaning, but that lack of meaning or any goals is what makes any meaning or goals real and significant to me. They're all just one way of doing things, one way for things to be and for a person to be. A life of utter misery, terrible suffering, and where one believes in no point and no value or meaning is equally as valid, significant, and valuable as one where the exact opposite is the case... and anything in between.

For this very reason, I find myself incapable of seriously judging, beyond what I feel is a somewhat menial and only moderately significant (in a strictly personal sense) human perspective, anybody else for any choice they make or being any particular way. I accept them for who and what they are, and what they do or have done. So too do I accept what happens in life the very same way. I cannot fault things for being the way they are, they simply are. By the same token, that doesn't mean I can't make personal judgments and judgment calls on things, or lament the state the world is in, my life is in, or the way people act (or hold them or myself responsible for it). It's completely valid to, makes sense to, and even helpful to. Of course, in a very circular/loopish kind of manner, this very fact in itself is just another reason why I don't blame people or existence for being the way it is. In as many ways as it can be helped, in just as many ways it can't. Things just are and aren't in a way that's too complicated, yet paradoxically simple that acceptance and reserved judgment on it all is demanded of me.

Quick drop in on your bit about meaning. This is something that has been on my mind lately. I haven't really solidified it in my mind yet, so I have no good way to formulate the background yet.

But I was looking at my self and wondered there could be a part of my subconscious mind that wants to maximize my suffering. Just like there is a part of me, more conscious and closely related to the ego that wants me to experience pleasure as much as possible. It naturally ties into shadow. But in a direction I hadn't explored. I looked at possible motivations, mechanisms etc... and as I said it's a bit blurry still.

What this inquiry led to was an intuitive understanding of a pretty simple and obvious thing. That pleasure seeking causes suffering that feels meaningless. Where as chasing things that seem meaningful while rejecting meaningless pleasure when it seems to matter, will cause suffering but it will not feel meaningless, there will be less shame, self hatred etc. Of course there needs to be balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Regarding the discussion on the I Am, the Ego, enlightenment, etc., I have a few thoughts. Actually first is a question to clarify. Slash, I don't know if you read any of the Kybalion pdf I shared or are familiar enough with Hermeticism even if you didn't, but it sounds like your "I Am" is essentially the same as the concept of The ALL. Is that correct? If not, they seem so similar in meaning that I feel like even if it isn't, they're pretty much the same thing. If you feel they differ at all, hopefully you wouldn't mind clearing up any distinctions for me?

---

Yep, I Am = ALL.

However, in Advaita Vedanta, a first step towards realizing this is to break the I Am off from everything. So then I Am becomes nothing; I Am nothing, watching something. At that point in time, I Am is only one half of ALL.
When this duality of nothing and something becomes utterly clear, then it gets resolved into nonduality: The I Am which sees, is One with the things it sees. That's where it becomes just "I Am". I Am All. I Am One.
I Am the Limitless One.


I still need to look properly into Hermeticism tho. I'll have a look for the pdf you shared, later.

Kybalion is a great read. I tried to follow it up with Corpus Hermeticum, but the PDF got corrupted when sending it to my Kindle. So I haven't gotten any further... Has anybody read Corpus Hermeticum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Okay, so Dawn, responding to you here, when I mention the perspective where one believes our experience of reality is the only reality there is, I don't mean it in the way you seemed to have understood what I said. I chalk this up to very poor word choice on my part. Or maybe not properly elaborating on what I actually mean by that, because it makes perfect sense that you interpreted the way you did.

To begin with, I agree that anybody that holds that perspective, in the way you interpreted specifically, has a very egocentric view of the world. What I was trying to do by saying it and offering it as a possible perspective was more to highlight the duality between what is, and what is experienced. That is to say, our realities are only created by and exist as a result of our experience. Outside of any conscious observer lies an existence that is beyond comprehension or experience, because to do either both requires consciousness and for its fundamental nature as the existence of what is to completely change and become what is experienced. That's why I often use the words reality and existence to mean two different, but specific things; reality referring to what we experience the world and existence to be, and existence referring to that which actually and simply is.

Regarding the discussion on the I Am, the Ego, enlightenment, etc., I have a few thoughts. Actually first is a question to clarify. Slash, I don't know if you read any of the Kybalion pdf I shared or are familiar enough with Hermeticism even if you didn't, but it sounds like your "I Am" is essentially the same as the concept of The ALL. Is that correct? If not, they seem so similar in meaning that I feel like even if it isn't, they're pretty much the same thing. If you feel they differ at all, hopefully you wouldn't mind clearing up any distinctions for me?

Also Dawn, I agree with your statements about oneness not necessarily being the ultimate goal, and that the ocean isn't necessarily the same as oneness itself. For one thing, the ocean itself, even in its entirety, isn't the unified whole. The concept of the ocean itself, or really more the gestalt of the ocean is closer to being something of unified oneness, but it too is merely a symbolic representation of that oneness. The oneness is the ocean itself, the concept/gestalt of it, and even more than we can know, understand, or ever put in words.

My ideas toward ultimate goals, meaning, and enlightenment almost border on having root in and influence from existential nihilism than most philosophies on existentialism. Your ideas on it seem to be similar to mine in that same way. Truly there are no real goals or meaning, but that lack of meaning or any goals is what makes any meaning or goals real and significant to me. They're all just one way of doing things, one way for things to be and for a person to be. A life of utter misery, terrible suffering, and where one believes in no point and no value or meaning is equally as valid, significant, and valuable as one where the exact opposite is the case... and anything in between.

For this very reason, I find myself incapable of seriously judging, beyond what I feel is a somewhat menial and only moderately significant (in a strictly personal sense) human perspective, anybody else for any choice they make or being any particular way. I accept them for who and what they are, and what they do or have done. So too do I accept what happens in life the very same way. I cannot fault things for being the way they are, they simply are. By the same token, that doesn't mean I can't make personal judgments and judgment calls on things, or lament the state the world is in, my life is in, or the way people act (or hold them or myself responsible for it). It's completely valid to, makes sense to, and even helpful to. Of course, in a very circular/loopish kind of manner, this very fact in itself is just another reason why I don't blame people or existence for being the way it is. In as many ways as it can be helped, in just as many ways it can't. Things just are and aren't in a way that's too complicated, yet paradoxically simple that acceptance and reserved judgment on it all is demanded of me.

---

It's okay. There's nothing wrong with your style snoop, you only have to accommodate it depending on your reader or audenice. (If you find yourself obscuring your message, remind yourself its okay to edit/revise it)I appreciate you taking the time to clear things up for me. So it turns out reality is actually seperate than existence? When I looked up reality it was defined how you defined existence. I can see how what is experienced makes up our reality. However, it seems like only part of reality cause I'm not sure which definition is right. Im pretty sure I've heard reality used in both scenarios before though. Either way looking at it the way you defined it, could you clarify what you mean by "because to do either both requires consciousness and for its fundamental nature as the existence of what is to completely change and become what is experienced".What is changing exactly? Could you simplify this in steps?

Its good to know you agree.:) It definetly is more than we can put into words. But when you mention unified whole and unified oneness,did you mean the same thing or is there a difference?

Hmm...when it comes to existential nihilism i can see your point. We are similar in that way. Though i'am not entirely sure if there is no meaning, i agree that its not wrong to see how many things, dont need to be the way they are, and yet they are. So many ways to view our existence/reality.

I have the totally same view when it comes to your last paragraph.:cheers:I like that balanced perspective.

Oh, my comment about reality and existence pertains specifically to my personal usage of the terms, not any actual differences in their definitions. That's all I meant by what I said in my last post.

Also, I'm going to look up a pdf of Corpus Hermeticum, Vader.

edit: Dawn, I think I've fallen into another word trap with what I said about the nature of existence changing when it is perceived and understood. Again, I'm just highlighting the differences between the dual nature of the world that exists and simply is as opposed to the one that is experienced. Your experience of existence and existence itself are not the same thing in much the same way that an image or symbol is not actually the thing it represents itself. They obviously appear to be the same thing, but fundamentally they are not and cannot be. I know this is obvious, but it's really easy to get the two tangled up in your head the deeper a philosophical discussion like this gets. That is all I meant by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoop

Your experience of existence and existence itself are not the same thing in much the same way that an image or symbol is not actually the thing it represents itself. They obviously appear to be the same thing, but fundamentally they are not and cannot be. I know this is obvious, but it's really easy to get the two tangled up in your head the deeper a philosophical discussion like this gets. That is all I meant by it.

---

This is indeed obvious with the right viewpoint. A popular example being the psychological viewpoint, which relies on what I sometimes, for several reasons call "The Brain Symbol". One of those reason would be what you described above.

But would you be wrong to say that all authority given to any viewpoint or belief is ultimately granted by the one who decides to hold it? And further, that the view must be in some way derived entirely from their direct experience + the concepts, symbols and memories etc. momentarily arising within it?

With that in mind we see that the very logic that builds the idea that my experience is not "it" can also be used to take that statement apart. And you would have as eastern mysticism teaches: a reality that is set up so that it is quite difficult to see that "you're it".

Could anyone, in any form through any sort of ascension or transformation, ever, in any way, other than through conceptualization, know an existance beyond their direct experience? At least I personally am unable to conceptualize such a thing... You could have a god, that sees wayyyy more than us. But in the end all he sees is, like us, direct experience, but putting on a different display.

If conceptualization is the only way, then again that conceptualization is forced to take place inside your direct experience.

This sounds like solipsism, and solipsism is a part of it. But I am no solipsist. From the Kybalion: All truths are but half truths, all paradoxes may be reconciled.

This sounds a bit like riddles to me when I type it out, and I don't really know what I'm saying but it's as good as I can do. And I felt like doing it :)

Lol, I think the nature of what you're saying is more behind it all coming out sounding like riddles than anything else. That is to say, I don't think it's possible to avoid it all coming out sounding kind of cryptic, esoteric, or like riddles.

You are right:lol: Maybe because as I said(in an edit)

Quote:

---

And you would have as eastern mysticism teaches: a reality that is set up so that it is quite difficult to see that "you're it".

---

Hard to say... it's all riddled with riddly stuff

Oh okay. :3 Thanks again for explaining. I'm sorry if i asked so many questions.
So thats what you meant by change. I know that experience and existence itself is not the same thing so i guess i fully get what you were saying now.

Oh okay. :3 Thanks again for explaining. I'm sorry if i asked so many questions.
So thats what you meant by change. I know that experience and existence itself is not the same thing so i guess i fully get what you were saying now.

I want to revive this thread to include some of what I’ve been learning lately. Bear with me - each of these posts does relate to Jung’s theories especially the idea of Individuation, which is essentially a mystical union with the inner God, or the God who communicates through the psyche or the soul, however you want to interpret it. This is essentially what’s known as mysticism, and is what I’ve been studying lately.

I’ve been watching a lot of videos by Jonathan Pageau, an Eastern Orthodox icon carver and a friend of Jordan Peterson, and he talks a lot about the meanings of the icons and the Bible stories and how they can be interpreted. He does much the same thing Peterson was doing with his Biblical lecture series, which is to interpret the scripture in terms that make sense to a modern audience. This was apparently well known back in the day, but the symbolism has been long lost except in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, so I see it as an important connecting link for anyone wanting to develop an understanding of what Christianity and the Old Testament are really saying.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity, based originally in Greece and Russia if I understand correctly, remained fairly isolated from the Western branch which was more under the control of the Roman church, and so it remained largely free of the changes the Roman church instituted. However I don’t believe even Eastern Orthodox Christianity is quite the same as certain of the pre-Roman versions which were much more about Mysticism. I bring it up here because watching Pageau’s videos is extremely helpful in understanding how to interpret Biblical symbolism. It seems to be largely practical life wisdom, in fact very much like early Greek philosophy, but couched in mythological and story terms and with a very discernible language of symbolism. As you learn to understand the symbols it all begins to make a lot of sense. Here are a few of his videos that I found extremely helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ORNdBd0Rw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrfr2vUKyAM&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUOBZoFEeWQ&feature=youtu.be

If this stuff fascinates you like it does me, just delve in and start watching a bunch of his videos. I might post a few more here as I encounter (or rediscover) some of the really good ones. But from here I really want to get on to mysticism, and especially Christian/Hebrew mysticism. But I consider his videos to be absolutely essential if you want to try to understand religious texts, because they all use symbolism. Jonathan Pageau is your decoder ring.