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.
The idea of a destructive god, deity, deva, devil, or evil spirit didn’t begin with Christianity or Judaism. Angra Mainyu was the adversary of Ahura Mazda, the good God of ancient Zoroastrianism, for instance. Devilish figures appear to be archetypes of the collective unconscious. They were probably with us in prehistory. They populate world mythology. Hermes, Prometheus, Lucifer, and Satan in the book of Job are trickster figures.
Some here worship the will.
I’m not here to tell you what to do.
The Tao Te Ching chapter 22 says:
According to the Tao, enantiodromia, the tendency of things to become their opposites, is more powerful then the human will. Wholeness then is not static. A sense of wholeness involves recognizing that becoming is a dynamic process.
Those of us who are relatively high in neuroticism can expect to find help in stoic philosophers like Epictetus, cognitive therapy, New Thought practices and positive thinking. Such practices can help us to achieve the psychic balance necessary for a sense of wholeness.
We’ll need a context, of course.
“Can I explain the Friend to one for whom he is no Friend?”
Jalal-uddin Rumi
I already tried that:
See above, and find one.