Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Greenslade
Both the conscious and unconscious seems to be relative to the brain, and scientific studies seem to show at least that much. It was David Chalmers who said the 'Hard Problem' of the scientific study of consciousness is how brain processing becomes subjective experience. The experience is what we become conscious of.
It's really not difficult to join the dots between the brain and the collective unconscious, Jung found patterns and called them archetypes and frankly it's not that difficult to observe archetypes as you read through any thread. 'Spiritual' is an archetype according to Jung, interestingly. When you have a group of people come together inevitably they'll unconsciously take on roles within the group, and the same thing happens when in family groups, groups at school and so on. What's happening is a perpetuation of the - often unconsciously - learned patterns/archetypes. While we are individual the underlying brain patterns don't change as much as people would like to think they do, often becoming predictable.
|
Either there is something other or there is not. You either believe that or you don't, this type of clear thinking in this area helps. So do you think when Carl Jung experienced supernatural psychic phenomena in his household/ actually in his kitchen for this instance on one or more occasions that he knew fully logically and totally completely what that psychic phenomena represented ? In this case it was the pots and pans on the walls moving around as if of their own free will ? So Jung knew what the opposite of all that was ?
What was it then ? So you see the human mind has governance or better i might say takes Governance from something not fully known. It is much like the death zone on Mount Everest, few if any people venture there. Well nowadays lololol that has changed a little. But relatively few people still venture there, to the death zone. And so it was with Jung, he plunged into the depths of his own being and often mysterious miraculous and psychic phenomenon followed him about.
Do you think he knew fully conclusively, day and night what these worldly supernatural happenings represented ? So to think you can on paper say there is perfection and imperfection on paper therefore there is no perfection is something only the limited logical mind can think up tbh. Just as Jung would not or could not too say here is why that psychic phenomena occurred so in this way you can not 'conclusively' say there is no perfection, you can say it and logic may allow you to say that and fair enough, but like Jung couldn't conclusively say what these psychic phenomena were, so no-one can conclusively comment or say what reality is even more so through language. Jung could say things no doubt about these psychic phenomena, plenty of things i would imagine but he couldn't fit them into this so called logical pretence that language occupies most of the time. Best Regards Joe
************************************************** **********