I am aware that what I am about to say is likely to be thought of as heretical by many - however as a
seeker of truth - the results of my 40 year investigation of the nature and use of meaningful coincidences (synchronicities) strongly suggests that Jung's concept of the collective unconscious is an ingenious and seductive unproved hypothesis. Instead I suggest that a more frutiful concept in understanding widespread acceptance of given ideas is an articulation of the 'mass' attained level of consciouness at any one moment - and made such by creative individuals such as Freud who select from the realm of the collective consciousness what they deem to be relevant and related organizing concepts. They then synthesize these selected concepts in their theory building. The resulting new theory is then used to view the raw data of experience throug the filter of the new theory. The new theory is able to incorporate the findings of previous theories but extends them. -----Original Message----- From: Molly Brogan <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 9:03 am Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: The Role of Emotion Why would a "Almighty God", a all powerful "Creator", of the Universe nd all life have to communicate through ignorant human beings, in the orm of 66 books combined into one, become a human to be tortured and illed for the sake of humanity.........?" SD Carl Jung answered this to my satisfaction with his idea of the ollective unconscious. He proposed that the world was ready for such n example, so Christ became manifest into Jesus through the workings f the collective unconsciousness. He gives us this idea in his Answer to Job," which is my favorite of all his work. Rudolph Steiner takes this idea of a collective unconscious and works t into the soul of humanity, but also gives us a nice model, I think, f how our collective, subtle natures manifest into our collective xperience. On Sep 29, 10:21 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: We each can derive whatever we can from any and all the passages but in the context of it all being the word of an omni-all being is simply imaginary. I reiterate in portion from post 6: Why would a "Almighty God", a all powerful "Creator", of the Universe and all life have to communicate through ignorant human beings, in the form of 66 books combined into one, become a human to be tortured and killed for the sake of humanity.........? So you see how it was man that came up with these concepts of creation and divinity. Would the inventor of cell phone technology use Morse code to communicate a message? When the telephone was invented did they tell people to use homing pigeons? Why would I want to waste a minute of my time paying serious attention to the concepts of an archaic culture void of any scientific knowledge? Take this biblical passage for example: "Then Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven; and20The Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down to the earth. And The Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt; there was hail, and fire flashing continually in the midst of the hail, very heavy hail, such as had never been in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. The hail struck down everything that was in the "field" throughout all the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and the hail struck down every plant of the field, and shattered every tree of the field. Only in The Land Of Goshen, where the people of Israel were, there was no hail." (Exodus 9:23-26) Considering that is was not just a story but an actual event..... Obviously there was a 'isolated' storm, the lightning struck the "field" and sparked a fire while the hail pummeled the earth amidst the lightning a thunder. You can imagine what a superstitious culture would have thought about all that, 'such as had never been in all the land of Egypt...', it must be God's wrath. Run for your lives, God's pissed off! Silly stuff mon, just silly! On Sep 29, 8:39 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Very interesting, Slip. This is the passage of the bible I have been > contemplating for several weeks. The meaning wasn't clear to me until > I read a translation of the bible that had Abraham naming the mountain > where he took Isaac to sacrifice "The Lord Provides." I don't think > this is really a passage about killin g our children, although there > are plenty of opinions in that vein to be found. I think it is the > passage that explains to us the process of the manifestation of our > experience, and the necessity to let go of our own goals or creations, > and sacrifice our suffering (the ram in the thorns) so that it is out > of the way and the our highest potential can become manifest. I find > hope in this passage, and instruction. > On Sep 29, 8:18 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes of course, communicate with God alone, happened the other day, > > then he told me to kill my son, said like Abraham, said not to worry > > that he wont die, I said 'wont that be attempted murder'? God said > > "yes, but don't worry, I'm God and I'll have you out in 5-10 with good > > behavior and if you read my book that will be easy!" > > On Sep 29, 6:31 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28 Sep, 17:39, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Emotions can be expressed in isolation. > > > Absolutely. In that way, we communicate our feelings to God alone. > > > Not that God doesn't receive the messages when we are NOT alone, but > > > He is the only receiver when we ARE alone. > > > > On Sep 28, 11:05 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 27 Sep, 17:13, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What role do es emotion play in our everyday lives? How does motion > > > > > > affect our experience and being? These are questions addressed by > > > > > > some of the finest minds of our era. > > > > > > For Piaget, emotion is the motivating force of action emanating rom > > > > > > outside the individual in the form of sensations emitted by bjects. > > > > > > His view is rooted in the Newtonian conception of a universe omprised > > > > > > in isolated objects requiring an emotive force to initiate a eries of > > > > > > mechanistic interactions between objects. Piaget reduces all > > > > > > conscious human experience to a cognitive formulation of these ausal > > > > > > relations. His abstract concept of emotion as force fails to > > > > > > explain the relationship between bodily feelings, emotions, and igher > > > > > > forms of consciousness in human beings. > > > > > > Alfred North Whitehead indicates the factors in human nature which o > > > > > > to make up the particular emotions, arise from our apprehension of > > > > > > these permanent features of order in the world. His concrete oncept > > > > > > of emotion gives insight into the experience of bodily feelings nd > > > > > > their relationship to the growth and learning of human beings. He > > > > > > explains the emotions are the crucial mediating factors between he > >20> > > > welter of awareness of these feelings in higher organisms. “We > > > > > > perceive other things which are in the world of actualities in the > > > > > > same sense as we are. So our emotions are directed toward other > > > > > > things, including of course, our bodily organs . . . the world for e > > > > > > is nothing else than how the functioning of my body present it for y > > > > > > experience.” > > > > > > Jean Paul Sartre sees it differently in his book, The Emotions, > > > > > > Outline of a Theory. He sees our emotion as an “abrupt drop of > > > > > > consciousness into the magical.” He believes: “emotion is not > > > > > > accidental modification of a subject which would otherwise be lunged > > > > > > into an unchanged world. It is easy to see that every emotional > > > > > > apprehension of an object which frightens, irritates, sadness, tc., > > > > > > can be made only on the basis of a total alteration of the world. In > > > > > > order that an object may in reality appear terrible, it must ealize > > > > > > itself as an immediate and magical presence face to face with > > > > > > consciousness.“ In other words, we modify our experience with motion > > > > > > to make it more comfortable, according to our own nature. We mote > > > > > > s adness, anger or gloom because “lacking the power and will to > > > > > > accomplish the acts which we have been planning, we behave in such > > > > > > way that the universe no longer requires anything of us.” > > > > > > What do YOU think? > > > > > As for me, I see emotions as the outward expression of inner > > > > > feelings. They are the way we communicate our inner feelings to hose > > > > > around us. So, emotions are a form of communication of data (our > > > > > inner feelings) to those who cannot (and, perhaps, could not) erceive > > > > > them (the feelings) in an obvious way.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Minds Eye"" group. o post to this group, send email to [email protected] o unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] or more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en ~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
