Connectivity - C.G.Jung and the WSM

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Geoff,

So glad I can be of some help. Can't wait to see the new page!

I hope people will soon be able to see and appreciate your contribution to the Human understanding...Outstanding! - And if Humanity represents the 'apex' of 'consciousness' on this little ol' planet, even more so!
I think it's all about learning how to 'see' clearly. But first, we have to be prepared to learn!


It is almost summer here, so that means lots of camping and generally being outside (you are so lucky to be able to do that all year round!). Also means that I will only have brief visits to the pc myself. I'm kind of guessing that most of Northern Hemisphere will be thinking on similar lines?
I personally go with 'gut-reactions' most of the time, so if it were my decision to suspend the forum for a while i'd probably consider it 'sound'. The wrong assumptions can be detrimental, especially when there is no defense available. (something else you've helped to teach me - thanks again!)


Hope you have a truely fantastic time with your children (and not worrying about spam or stupidity!)

All the best,
Steve.

[Steve Anthony]

Hi all,

Sorry, it seems like another long-winded post. Hope you can bear with it, and find something of interest...



Following from some of the issues touched on by myself and Lloyd (earlier in this thread) i'd like to try and present another rough outline of our evolution, this time from an even more psychological point of view (as opposed to just 'consciousness'), and hence it seems 'fit' to tie it in with a thread based upon the understandings reached by Carl Jung...

I believe there is a logical 'path' that we can simply understand, even more so, now that we can logically assume a 'wave medium' to all things...


In the menagerie of evolving creatures, fighting for survival many thousands of years ago, we would have been extremely vulnerable, being physically slower, and much less 'spacially aware' than many predators. There would have been many more of them than there are now, and far fewer 'Hominids'. Very scary times!

Fear, then, must have been a great motivator in becoming a more abstract-thinking animal. We know this is true, as we carry a great deal of it with us to this day!

Fear, plus the 'new' propensity for abstract thinking, would have further evolved together to produce 'paranoia' (realisation of the potential to be 'fearful'). We could, by this time, imagine ourselves in situations which were not actually happening at the time we were thinking about them. This is divided attention. It is also still the basis of how we think today.

As we evolved further, using our new found 'powers' to evade previously tricky situations, we could begin to relax just a little bit. Now, the paranoia could settle into a 'superstition'.

At around this same time (10,000 - 15,000 years ago?) the first superstitious 'nomads', we have documented, started to settle into permanent communities ( Harrapa, Indus valley ), and in fact had quite advanced skills as builders at this 'early' time.

Feeling safer still, and having much more time on our hands due to the fact that we no longer had to hunt so vigourously, our superstition gradually turned into a 'proto-religion', and we now had time to contemplate what else there might be 'lurking' that we didn't yet know about. By this time, the wave of further abstraction had turned into and addiction for greater knowledge, but was still subject to the influence of its previous psychological 'roots'.

Thus, all these things, the fear, the paranioa, the superstition, are still with us, and continue to influence our thoughts, and so our actions. Gradually, the 'wave action' of these ideas dissipates into the 'past', and we can slowly leave the fear (firstly) then the paranoia, then the superstition, behind. Gradually these things have less and less influence, chronologically.

From the 'birth' of the religious attitiude, our psychological evolution is more clearly discerned, as at this point we have started to document our 'history'.

The overwhelming evidence of 'something greater than ourselves', our intuition and Natural instinct for such, has produced the notion of 'God' (in various guises), but we need physical 'proof' of this, as our overactive abstraction techniques are now developing faster than our physical selves have been able to cope with.

It is as though the great force of Nature has desperately sought this 'tool' for examining itself, and now it cannot wait for the merely physical 'body' to catch up, as it sprints toward its ultimate goal....that of Knowing!

And so, enter the 'birth' of 'Science'! Science is our method of understanding (physically) all that we intuit. Proving it either 'right' or 'wrong'. Of course, there can only be one 'right', and if this proves to be something other than what we have 'believed' for such a long time, it is bound to cause some psychological upheaval.

People habitually deny things that conflict with their (hard earned) understanding. They see a 'threat' to what was previously thought to be 'solid truth'. (And don't forget that this 'truth' has been built up for many thousands - if not millions - of years!). A 'new' idea is thus refuted mechanically, rather than thoughtfully, until we can adopt what we currently call an 'open mind'.

I think, to do this, we must let go of the old fear, the paranoia, and the superstition, and this is why many 'thoughtful' people have advocated 'knowing yourself'; Knowing that we must, of necessity, carry these past fears and paranoias around with us, but understanding that they must also dissipate with time, as the 'wave' loses its momentum.

This will leave 'space' for further advanced development, such as 'compassion' and 'acceptance'.

We complete a full 'circle' of emotional evolution when we chase the tail of fear with a mind full of 'love'...


Now, at this precariously balanced point in our furthering development, we NEED 'psychology'. Not the 'science' of it, but a basic self-awareness of the ways in which we 'operate'. It is the next logical step, and a subsequent movement (wave motion) of 'scientific thought', that we should know our own minds in order to understand the things we are about to realise concerning our greater understanding of who and what we are.
It must be the next link; the next test of what is actually TRUE. 'Belief' has infinite, and conflicting perspective, but Truth can have only One.

We have to KNOW that we are being Honest with ourselves, and that means understanding more of what this term 'ourselves' actually means.

The WSM theory provides a vital link to this greater understanding, and with the 'new' wave of personal knowledge that self-analogy brings, the Truth of it all becomes, likewise, self-evident. The understanding of this lies in the understanding that 'we' are simply another 'part' of everything else that exists.

And, we need to decipher for ourselves, personally, any truths, including those 'presented' to us by people we hold dear (or reverent), before we continue with actions that are detrimental to our further survival...



Hopefully, from this we will be able to see how our 'spiritual side' has evolved alongside our physical.....As a wave action of our collective unconscious (Jung et WSM)

Basic psychology: It ought to make sense!


Thanks for bearing with me!
Steve.

[Gil]

Hi Steve, excellent points. You know, lately I've been thinking about how to define our ideas more clearly, or even all ideas more clearly. The way I see it is the closer to the "ontic" [god side] we take our investigations, the less definition we end up with, seemingly so I think, because we are using words that mean "too much, at once." Yet, on the other hand, the closer we take our investigations toward science and logic, the more our investigations have truer definitions. So___all I'm looking for is your ideas about this simple formula___"The closer to the emotional ontic, the further from provable truth, and the closer to the logical scientific, the closer to the provable truth." This seems to be the linguistic case with all words that imply closeness to oneness, whereas, the closer to scientific particulars, and further away from oneness words, the more logical definitions that become possible.

I think there is a giant linguistic problem we all face in trying to define the world. What do you think, Steve? Must oneness always imply less definition? Is oneness even true, or is science dualistic___energy and matter/waves? I'm looking at space properties before WSM, if this be possible___just questioning... The energy I'm referring to is space's lack of heat thermodynamic properties, independent of space...yet part of, or attributes of infinite space...

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
Geoff, any thoughts? Could the thermodynamic energy system of nothing [zero infinite space temp] have produced the weather system that produced first light hydgrgen/helium gasses through just such thermodynamic compression? [infinite zero temp compresses][this would not violate thermodynamic laws befor such now known laws were created as we know them][a case of pre-matter thermodynamic laws?][what were they?][absolute lack of heat surely existed, and would have had extreme cold compressive effects___possibly able to create first star?][thus, the possibility of a dualistic universe___energy and matter?]

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Lloyd,

On the face of it, it would appear to be that way. However, I believe, if we take the equilibrium of all things seriously, we would have to logically concede that both 'sides' are always equal, in ALL things, when we take the ususal dualistic viewpoint, and that our personal opinion my well be biased.

There is a popular struggle, particularly in USA, happening right now, between the two perceived 'sides' of Religion and Science, but it should be understood that these are collective 'ideas' that we all share, and this is because of our OWN PERSONAL dualistic thinking. These things are part of us all, as two 'sides' of our conscious/unconscious selves (In totality). Therefore, if we neglect one 'side', it gets compensated by the other. This is my take on it, from a personal viewpoint.

Here, a Scientist might be tempted to hide his intuitive side, or a Religious person deny what seems patently logical. In the greater picture, beyond the Human ego, there is no 'judgement', but as weak little things we can scarcely live without it! (Probably why its taking so long to 'discover reality'!)
'Science' can be just as 'religious' in its attitudes.

That's why I personally adopt the 'third option' as much as I am aware of it, until I can determine some undeniable truth in a given thing. And I have to be very careful too, as you have noticed, I can 'wander' sometimes! (Intuitive/Feeling types have much 'space' to create in!) I believe some have called this 'transcending duality', but its not some 'mystic journey' to anywhere 'spiritual', in reality. It's just another frame of mind, and anyone can 'adopt' it with a little concentration. The trick is to be aware of your own bias, not other peoples! (That's their problem, but we all like to blame 'others' for it!.. )

Nobody knows everything, so its a little strange (especially for a 'scientist'!), to pretend to ourselves that we do, whenever our personal views are challenged. With a little basic psychology there could be much more 'dialogue' between the 'priests' and the 'doctors'. Carl Jung came from a very religious background, yet adopted a scientific approach to his work. It was probably this acceptance of the two aspects that made his findings stick out, as they still do to this day. And he remains a fine example of what can be achieved when we really DO attempt to know ourSelves...

Likewise, I continue to see this 'melding' between the WSM and Jung's work, as two vital poles of the same (spherical wave) spectrum. That of understanding Reality, at last! (And as we are reality, it starts with us, as individuals...)

This 'transcendence' may even be the basic function of Infinite Space itself! The two extreme properties of any given wave function meet in the centre to produce a 'new' wave. Certainly, that's how it works physically, to produce 'children', no?...just a thought..


Having said all that, this is still MY interpretation, and one that helps me 'see' clearer. One that lets me change my opinion, as frequently as I find Truth. You may be just as 'right', or more so, than I...

Beliefs and theories are of the mind, but I think knowing must be of the heart. What do you think?


Regards,
Steve.

P.S. Lloyd, have you had a look at the Infinity thread? There's a rough 'theory' on the 3rd post. Be nice to see what you think?

[Gil]

Hi Steve, I read all the recent posts by you and others, especially about infinity___I enjoyed all your ideas immensely. I think you are all doing a great job of exploring the depths of WSM and relating it more clearly... As one of your posters mentioned, I think it was Areial,[correct me if I'm wrong] about his Shamanistic experience, I can only truly confirm the almost identical experience of my own in 1972. However, with 34 years of deeply reflective experience since, I have had to realize, as Geoff has mentioned, it is extremely hard to recognize the difference between our emotional and logical experiences, at times. At that time, I would have sworn my heart mind knew more of the universe of science and spirit than my logical mind, but with extensive reflection and thousands of conversations and debates with others, I have come to realize, for me anyway, that the heart mind can often improperly over-rule the more reasonable logic mind of true science. I totally agree with you and others about the heart mind's truths, however, for me, the logic mind of systems often is in conflict with such truths, with its own truths. This doesn't mean that either one or the other is correct and the only truth, just that there is more than one truth to infinity, i.e., the finite and the infinite___and as many mathematicians have realized, the two sets of truths, of the one greater truth.

As you have mentioned, you believe the heart mind holds the higher truth, and as my experience has taught me, the logic mind holds the higher truth. Now, I'm not arguing with you, as your opinion is your own, but I would like to state why I believe the way I do. I see a major problem with the modern age trying to evolve the heart mind to the top of the spectrum of truth. Yes, I can agree, that when it comes to the animate world and our true senses and emotions of family, nature and animals as such, the heart is often the dominate truth. The problem with me comes in when we try to define the birth timeframe of animate being from inanimate being, or non-being, i.e., scientific mechanical existence. I believe the ontological only extends back to the divide between the geosphere and the biosphere___I do not any longer believe in animate matter as a pre-biosphere reality. My logic tells me, after long and extensive reasoning, that pre-biosphere would have to be a purely scientific mechanical process___totally devoid of the animate nature of the ontological. I believe consciousness only arose with the birth of the biosphere___in other words___science gave birth to life.

Now, when we're dealing with infinities, I think we must consider this a-theistic point of view, and herein may lie most of the problems of definition between the religeous and the scientific meanings. We must be able to decide for ourselves, and agree, or at least, agree to disagree on the outcome of this most important of cosmological-biological evolutionary processes. Most of the philosophers I deal with are stumped, at this point, as most had never considered it. When we do consider the fact that the world is made up of those who view the two realities, we are forced to reconsider our spiritual egoes in relation to our logical egoes___and the facts of which has the truth___or do both have the truth of the opposite sides of science and religion.

Now, if I were to take this further, and give the example of water turning to ice in the edge of a cliff, and breaking off a piece of rock___is this animate nature or inanimate nature? I agree all living biosphere has the qualities and attributes of animate nature, but I can not logically agree that rocks, dead planets, moons and suns are animate___and herein lies the divide where I chose to take leave of my old heart mind ego, in favor of my logic mind ego___just a different frame of mind. I still agree the heart mind ego is great for most human interactions, but for systems interactions, it fails in many places. Just as an example; take the example of beauty many of you mentioned. I can see no beauty in two, most likely highly populated galaxies[trillions of men, women, children and animals, etc.] colliding and destroying all life needlessly___this is the great systems' crime___and can only be a mechanical inanimate process of scientific universal evolution[possibly the many universes colliding?] I sure don't want to think it an ontic animate process___this would be the greatest of crimes of the heart mind!

Though my thoughts go deeper into WSM realities than some, they are all in agreement with WSM, and I thank Geoff for creating such a worthy site of philosophy and physics. At the same time, I think we must go much deeper into the infinite nature of WSM wave theory of infinite space. I think one of the best places to investigate is the very nature of the two sides of infinite thinking___the animate and the inanimate.

Steve, you will most likely not agree, but, I think systems thinking is more important than people/animals/nature thinking___as all people/animals/nature hangs by the rope of systems around its neck. "Only systems improvement, will improve people's actions." This is one reason Geoff's site is so important in creating a systems' foundation for new thoughts and ideas to resonate from. We all need to help make WSM more visible to the rest of humanity, and improve nature through new logical systems' thinking.

Hope I haven't offended too badly,
Regards,
Lloyd

[Steve Anthony]

Lloyd,

I hold it true that you will never be able to reduce 'beauty' to a mathematical equation. To rubble, maybe, but that will be because you keep attempting to divide something that cannot be divided. The 'division' is the illusion that there is more than one truth.

In Reality there is simply what there is. Therefore Reality is One Thing with Infinite aspects, once we know that the WSM is correct. We can never know the One Truth, until we actually see it as it is, and for the One Thing that it must be. Only then, can we understand Reality from a correct foundation. I was careful to express that my thoughts have no 'correctness' to them.

You will notice, if you read the post again, that I do not mention a 'higher' truth. 'Higher' is a judgement that simply does not exist outside of the Human concept. Here is where you interpret my words with your own dualistic thinking (please, take no offence at this, as it is merely an observation, and in no way personal - I have been doing this to myself recently, actually, with your help in pointing it out from an earlier post! We are all just as guilty of that, until we make a conscious effort not to do it. )

Don't get me wrong, I think the 'science' is just as necessary as the 'intuition'. I was actually trying to point out that they are both as necessary as each other, therefore equal, as this also complies with WSM.

The (w)holistic approach is the only way I can envisage WSM, and this is based not just on my theories, but on everything else I read from this site also (Including Einstein, et al.). I say, by all means go and make equations, but don't forget that they will always be a metaphor for what is real, and not 'real' in themselves. With that kind of 'logic', science offers no better description of Reality than the Bible does... Hence 'big bang' (read: 'creation') theories!

There is no separation between 'heart' and 'mind', when used as a metaphor for conscious understanding. Even as physical organs they are part of One system. This is obvious to all things except Humans, who have developed the ability for abstract thinking, without realising that they are doing it!

Anyway, sorry to ramble. I don't think we are here to argue over 'names', but to simply understand ourselves. You and I are two parts of an extremely complex 'puzzle', but let us not forget that it is the same 'puzzle' we are trying to put together... (From six and a half billion viewpoints, there is still only One Thing to see.)

It's got a lot 'friendlier(?)' round here recently, I think, because we are sharing positive realisations with each other. This is a rare thing, as anyone who visits other 'physics forums' will attest! Primarily, this is due to Geoff's insistance that we keep to WSM, and though I may be guilty of 'wandering' at times, I do always try to comply with what WSM necessarily suggests, as I do understand its Truth, though NOT from a purely scientific view. This, I believe, should also be correct, if we know we are describing One Thing. (And therefore, ALL things.)


Lloyd,
It is impossible to offend a free man, for a truely free man never stops learning.

Everyday I switch on the news, and I know without any shadow of a doubt that we are still animals at heart... In fact, if you want a judgement, I'd say far 'less' so. We ALL have much to learn, hence we are still not 'free'...by any means (and neither from ourselves!).


Take care, my fellow piece of wobbling space!

Steve.

[Gil]

[haselhurst]

May I suggest that above language be connected to waves in one thing / substance, Space.
Thus in terms of science, the two sources of knowledge are;
i) Logic from principles. This can exist because waves in space behave logically / necessarily as determined by properties of space. Thus language can also be connected logically to wave states of brain / body / matter in universe.
ii) Knowledge from senses - explained by spherical In-waves flowing in through all other matter in universe.

To take one example from above discussion;
"Are mathematical equations real?"

My point is that we must clarify the meaning of these words by relating them back to what physically exists.
So mathematics exists because;
i) physical reality is logical - waves behave in a necessary way determined by properties of space.
ii) physical reality has quantities - e.g. velocity of waves, wavelength of waves, amplitude of waves and number of wave center 'particles'.

So yes maths equations are real, in that they are created by interconnected repeating wave patterns - that correspond to real quantities that exist. But the things described in maths equations are not necessarily real (like photons as discrete particles of light). As Einstein writes;

"The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/metaphysics.htm


Finally, it is true that WSM does not explain all things we humans experience, WSM does not explain human emotions (though evolution explains why most of them exist).

There is an underlying unity / interconnection to reality, and thus to us humans. Try to be nice to one another and enjoy exploring this unity.

Cosmos,
Geoff

[Steve Anthony]

Hi all,

Here is a quote from Jung that can very easily be seen in terms of WSM...

[Steve Anthony]

Hi all,

Here is a link to another site that concentrates on the Pauli/Jung collaborations...

http://www.psychovision.ch/synw/pauli_parapsychology_p1.htm

I will study this in the next few weeks to try and find some necessary links to this line of thought regarding the WSM.


And here is a quote from Marie-Louise von Franz, a close associate of Jung, from her book 'Psyche and Matter'...

"Jung was convinced that a link with physiology would manifest itself naturally, when both fields had gone far enough in their research. This link seems little by little to be peeking through in a very unexpected place, where no-one had anticipated it - in microphysics."



Regards,
Steve.

[Steve Anthony]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to present a few of paragraphs from 'Mysterium Coniunctionis' (excerpt from 'Collected Works 14', pars.767-80) by Carl Jung, as I feel they are very relevant to the theme of this thread, i.e. the connections that exist between the physical and the spirit/psyche, as two properties of the One Universal Reality that we all share...

[Aireal]

Knotty

I was deeply affected by Plato's parable of the cave as a child when I first read it.
I started to see the growing connections between the physical/spirit/psyche early on, and have mixed feeling about it. On one hand I can't wait, on the other hand, I wonder if most of mankind is ready for it?

[Raphael]

A Binary Universe would explain...

Dualities .... Jung

Field of pairs and opposites ... Joseph Campbell

Math ... Binary code 1's and 0's

Physics ... particle/wave or wave/wave duality

Philosophy ... macrocosm and microcosm

Mysticism ... macroprosopus and microprosopus

Essentially relativity and quantum have this field of pairs and opposites covered.

namaste

Raphael

[Steve Anthony]

Hi all,

Aireal,

I believe that mankind has always been ready for it's next stage. Otherwise, we simply wouldn't be here! The question should be, 'Why do we doubt that we are ready?'

Here is a link to said 'parable', just so those who are wondering can read for themselves...

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/Plato'sCave.htm



Raphael,

Elsewhere in the forum, you write...

"Jung coined the phrase Duality… "

This is not so. Jung was concerned with what he called the 'transcendence of the opposites'.

The inherent 'dualities', recognised for at least the last 5000 years among Humans, are a result of our evolution and necessary survival in hostile environments. We have needed to describe our surroundings to each other so that we could work 'as a team', to overcome difficulties. To do this, we sometimes have to make 'snap' decisions, that others can instantly recognise and act on. The simplest way of doing this is to describe our surroundings from an 'either/or' viewpoint. "Not 'left', therefore 'right'", as an extremely simple example.

As our language becomes more complex, we apply the same 'dualistic' attitude to all things, and assume this to be 'normal'. With the advent of 'religion', we apply the same logic to 'good' and 'evil'. Everything evolves in this way, over time and many generations, building layer on top of layer, so that our languages become the complex and often confusing methods of communication we now have.

All well and good, until we start to discover realities that obviously do not comply with our thinking. Then, we have to have a bit of a re-think, and we deduce that; "Explanatory principles are not to be multiplied beyond the necessary." [Ockham's razor]

We are discovering that Space does not always comply with our 'reasoning', and this is because we have not evolved as beings floating around in 'empty' Space, but simply as part of a subjective element of it. This 'Earth'.

The great 'breakthrough' from a Jungian (also, 'Eastern spiritual') viewpoint is the 'transcendent' element. This implies the 'duality' in things to be no more than a biased judgement by Humans, on things that in Reality cannot be separated. Hence, the 'yin/yang' symbol in 'Taoism' representing two halves of the same thing. - There must be 'light' to create 'shadow'.

The opening part of the above text is again relevant here..

[Gil]

Steve, I'm not trying to be mean to you but I feel I must comment on your above post... Just as Geoff has mentioned, the one and the many is the most difficult to put into words, without causing conflict between science and other... Geoff was correct to point out that when I asked if the electron or wave/matter was spirit or alive, that it was the wrong use of logical philosophy; however the correct point would have been to question whether the grouping of electrons, wave/matter, etc. was, as he stated. Either way you do it, there is still no proof of life or spirit before first biological life; therefore, no proof of eternal spirit or life. Science deals with the one and the many scientifically, i.e., principles and testable logical proofs, and other, i.e., metaphysics deals with the same subjects with an opposite set of rules, principles and logic. When anyone tries to join these opposite sets of rules, principles and logic, they absolutely conflict, as science must not accept anything that is not provable and testable___to be scientific___when anyone does, it is outside true science; therefore, any of Jung's metaphysics that is not provable is not accepted by scientists, and this is not just me, but any true scientist, that applies the rules and principles governing what is scientific. So far, we cannot avoid this___and it has nothing to do with how anyone's mind works___it's just the rules of science.

Now, I agree WSM's concept of infinite space is a scientific absolute fundamental. This is not in dispute; however, tao, god, spirit, eternal life, etc., are absolute scientific unprovables; therefore, any interjection of these ideas into science, without proof, simply destroys the very foundations of science, i.e., leaves the field of science. Unless you can scientifically connect these concepts, they are invalid science and outside the scope of a true WSM reality. Though many of our greatest past scientists, even Einstein were great metaphysicians, they seldom mixed these views with their scientific works of math and logic___they knew better. Scientifically, the dualistic is untranscendable, to be scientific, as dualistic ideas are it's foundation, and must remain so, until someone can scientifically prove the science/spirit connection___neither I, you, Jung, or anyone has done that yet... Dualism rules all science, and monism rules all metaphysics___will the circle ever be___unbroken?

I simply proposed thermo-hydro-dynamics as a way to unite science's dualisms___I surely have no way to unite the science/spirit dualisms with any degree of proof... I know of no-one on earth who even comes close... Maybe in the future, we will cross this barrier... BTW, I think Husserl and Adorno delt with these metaphysical problems the best___they are scientifically/metaphysically much deeper than Jung...

regards,
Lloyd

[Steve Anthony]

[Gil]

[Steve Anthony]

Ah, I'm beginning to see, Lloyd,

However, that is quite a large turn around in the space of a couple of months, considering you've been on this quest for "sixty years", wouldn't you say?

Kind of like you 'seeing the light (of science)'?

A bit of a revelation?

Or am I off the mark here?

Just trying to understand.

All the best,
Steve.

[Gil]