Wholeness

The supreme good contains infinite elements of every basic kind.
Water is a good one, but there is an unlimited amount of good-ones.

It’s a simile. How is the ultimate good like water? I suppose all those elements of which you speak are contained in it and it is contained in the Tao. Where are we in this picture? Within the water of infinite possibilities what constraints do we imagine our selves/egos/brains/bodies limit us to? Here are three possibilities from cognitive science:
1 thought is mostly unconscious
2 abstract concepts(like the ones above) are largely metaphorical
3 the mind is inherently embodied

Individuation, the actualization of wholeness, focuses on experiences of meaning. On these occasions one becomes aware of a sense of meaning inherent in the universe. The nihilists say it’s projected meaning. But perhaps the meaning is there all the time, our minds are just too dull to notice it.

At these moments, peak experiences Maslow called them, our consciousness widens. We see the world as it is–full of meaning.

Religion tries to codify, ritualize and institutionalize these experiences. In them God speaks to us. But that expression is merely a metaphor for what is actually ineffable. Some atheists have these experiences too.

These experiences take us beyond the subject-object split. They intimate that our belief in our insignificance–that we have very little control over our lives and destinies and that we can’t win, is a fallacy. They suggest that instead of broken mechanisms we are sleeping gods.

“When thought is closed in caves, then love will show its roots in deepest Hell.”

William Blake

The modern emphasis on the individual’s insignificance results in a growing resentment towards the anonymous power that controls our lives. In some cases this resentment reaches homicidal levels as the need to release and assert one’s being becomes urgent.

Cute. Love doesn’t even have a hell. Nobody in hell is thinking “thank you love for sending me here for no reason just so you can save me so that I know you’re the boss”

You’ll get no argument from me on that point.
Hold on to the center.

The importance of psychological centering to a sense of wholeness cannot be overestimated. Centering is a worthy goal of meditation or prayer.

Do we not learn from phenomenology that all consciousness is intentional? And if so, doesn’t it follow that pure objectivity is impossible? If the answer to those questions is affirmative doesn’t it further follow that putative scientific objectivity is always embedded in intentions that proceed from the values of the observer be they conscious or unconscious?

Except within a subconscious realm, perhaps, of that is both , within and without a possible realization.

Why does the phenomenological reduction interface with the eidectic, at some point, conscious or unconscious?

The limits can not impose a tautology, therefore the sub-conscious has to change the imbededness as praxis to situational value, toward the kind of reasoning that lead to the proximity of the limits of perceived horizons.

I am inferring here to the problem of the stretching of space-time to accommodate an absolute fracture .

We have dealt with this in many ways and at different times.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

The Gospel of Matthew

“The Master doesn’t take sides; she welcomes both saints and sinners.”

The Tao Te Ching, chapter 5

Good advice for dealing with a trickster.

“Ritual sacrifice was an early (pre-abstract behavioral) variant of the “idea” of heroism, of belief in individual power–the acting out of the idea that voluntary exposure to the unknown (or dissolution of the most favorite thing) constituted a necessary precondition (1) for the emergence of the beneficial “goddess” (2) for continued successful adaptation.”
Jordan Peterson, Maps of Meaning, page 176

“I am different from ordinary people. I drink from the Great Mother’s breasts.”
Tao Te Ching, chapter 20

These are symbolic representations of confrontation and awareness of the anima, also known as the archetypal feminine, the lunar as opposed to the solar aspect of the soul, right brain cognition as opposed to the left, the adaptive response to an unmapped territory as opposed to the explored.

“Earlier than any authority in the field of Gnostic studies, Jung recognized the Gnostics for what they were: seers who brought forth original, primal creations from the mystery which he called the unconscious. When in 1940 he was asked Is Gnosticism philosophy or mythology? he gravely replied that the Gnostics dealt in real, original images and that they were not syncretistic philosophers as so many assumed. He recognized that Gnostic images arise even today in the inner experiences of persons in connection with the individuation of the psyche, and in this he saw evidence of the fact that the Gnostics were expressing true archetypal images which are known to persist and to exist irrespective of time or of historical circumstances. He recognized in Gnosticism a mighty and utterly primal and original expression of the human mind, an expression directed toward the deepest and most important task of the soul, which is attainment to wholeness. The Gnostics, so Jung perceived, were interested in one thing above all—the experience of the fullness of being.”

Hoeller, Stephan A. The Gnostic Jung and the Seven Sermons to the Dead (Quest Books) . Quest Books. Kindle Edition.

The realm of the imaginal encompasses the realm of knowledge. The “realm” of the unknown encompasses both.

To lose sight of wholeness is to fall into ideology.

Wholeness is beyond number which begins only with duality.

Duality is nonetheless of ontological origin.

Duality’s reason for being is love-- the union of the feminine and the masculine, the yin and the yang, the lunar and the solar.

The fruit of this bipolarization is the child.

This is the foundational archetypal myth.

I’ve never been a particular fan of Norman Vincent Peale. But Gary Lachman writes that for Peale prayer was a way of becoming “in tune with the infinite” a phrase he borrowed from Ralph Waldo Trine. “All the universe is in vibration,” wrote Peale “and prayer was a way of aligning our vibrations with those of the person we were praying for, as well as with God, the source of all vibrations.” I find that proposition rather a-Peale-ing.

My term is ‘otherness’ not ‘duality’

I don’t like these folks who stroll into life and say inane things like “there must be evil for there to be good”

Fuck that shit!

Sadistic vicious hateful corrupting rage.

Satan doesn’t “test” everyone.

Satan is not necessary.

Satan is really a crappy idea.
One of the worst mistakes of christianity.

My approach is phenomenological. Metaphysics is beyond my paygrade. When God became identified with the summum bonum, a dichotomous evil became necessary. Hence Satan. Likewise Christ necessitates Antichrist. The vision of the New Jerusalem is the symbol of wholeness in which the Christian Bible culminates.

And Judaism if we’re going to be accurate. Look at the book of Job!

Your reactivity is evidence of their psychological significance to you.