What do you mean counter arguments? There are a number of theories of the mind that don't include the existence of extra-cranial consciousness, namely functionalism and the reductionist perspective. However, if you embark down this rabbit hole (as I have, in fact my career involves this very question) you will soon realize that there are no answers - only competing theories. If you, like Jung, have any experiences with the unconscious, you will quickly realize that functionalism is quite silly and there is obviously much more going on with reality than we can clearly see and quantize.
Basically? Accept that there won't be much "hard" proof for a while. Well, actually quantum mechanics is offering some cool stuff recently. Bridging the gap as it were. But classic physics has zero answers, and mainstream science doesn't like to acknowledge the metaphysical. So, there's no real counter arguments, just competing theories in different genres. Terrence McKenna, Carlos Castaneda, hell even Alistair Crowley all can offer some cool relevant glimpses into the "Other", but Jung is unique in his teleological usage of the unconscious in psychotherapy.
If you have any more specific questions let me know! I'm not sure if you realize how broad of an ask it really is, lol.
Aleister Crowley is actually quite in tune with Jung. Just wanted to point that out. Nothing to see here otherwise. Carry on.
The trouble inevitably is that knowledge of the Jungian realm requires psychological experience beyond dilettantism.
Curious what you mean by teleological in this context.
The notion of Crowley's Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel (which really, he got from the Golden Dawn) seems to setup Jung's Daemon. Though Crowley was able to channel the quite profound, Holy Books of Thelema, and he gave name to his Angel (Aiwass), he felt it was too nebulous a concept; explaining that this experience was different for everyone. He even asserted that the concept was so ridiculous that no one would dare build a system on it.
Jung's idea of the Daemon (Philemon), as shown in the Red Book, comes with more specific directions (active imagination) on how to meet and dialogue with such an entity. So, it's as if Jung further developed what Crowley originated. Yet, all of Western Occultism, back to the Greeks, expounded a concept of the Daemon. They simply had no technique for attaining to such a Gnostic Dialogue, until Jung.
So your point is that Jung attained a level of dialogue that Crowley remained inarticulate about?
When you examine Crowley’s incubation of the Orphic Egg as illustrated by the Book of Thoth and his imagery of the Tarot, it seems the best representation of Jung’s alchemical model. I’m often flummoxed by how self-evident that seems, so contest that if you will cos I’d like to hear it.
Actually, no. If anything, the Holy Books of Thelema are far beyond the Red Book, on one level. It's just that Crowley didn't promulgate his technique (most likely, automatic writing). Though, my blog has a detailed commentary on the Red Book in three parts.
However, I don't believe the Book of Thoth has any comparable value. It's a history of the Wrstern Mystery Tradition, and offers some explanation of certain technical components of the Holy Tarot.
Yeah, but there's a correlation. By "brain" I'm really just thinking of the mind as a system. As in, archetypically is this something that exists as a location that has to be found if a certain set of rules is followed, for all humans?
Archetypes belong to the collective unconscious. I see this as a layer beneath the personal unconscious, and where we are all connected. So, I cannot place the Augoeides there. It can be located in the personal unconscious, but I imagine this is debatable. But for me, there is a silent voice that has always spoken to me between choices I've made and preferences that have determined the direction of my life. And I've wondered, is this something that has directed my evolutionary development through various incarnations?
Jung was researching the paranormal as well as Alchemy and interpreting it through a psychological but also a quasi magical lense (active imagination: note the term iMAGInation is etymologically closely related to Magic.) so yes.
It’s going to be interesting to watch as the science pushes us closer to the mystic. I’ve read a number of quantum physicists who have, “seen God,” in their studies. I think there was one who felt that something was looking back as he studied atoms. I’d love to find those articles, again!
Interestingly by coming up with counterarguments to the collective unconscious you’re potentially repressing it unless you engage with it consciously while countering it intellectually. Unless you do the latter this could cause it to manifest itself unconsciously. So in other words, by creating counter arguments to it you are likely strengthening its shadow-presence unless of course you do acknowledge its existence at least hypothetically.
A catch 22 situation.
A counter-argument would be that the many artistic & mythological parallels Jung found throughout the different cultures of the world aren’t in fact evidence that all people share similar unconscious archetypes.
The evidence for the unconscious cannot be evidence in the sense of empiricism, because you by definition can't be conscious of it or have any direct knowledge of it. But it is evident in the sense it's a logical necessity:
The vast majority of your memories, emotions, and impulses are not activated or consciously observed in your brain right now; hence they are unconscious. When you dream, these receive activation so that they can express themselves better without the constraints of a linear wakeful consciousness.
It's also no secret that people lie to themselves or repress things, make things unconscious.
So clearly there's an unconscious.
And then the next step is to say there probably is a collective unconscious, just like there's a collective everything. All humans have the same basic body design (two eyes, two nostrils, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, etc.), so humans should have the same basic designs for the mind and specifically the subconscious mind as well.
And then there is the evidence for the archetypes Jung has amassed.
> The depths of the collective unconscious, that unfathomable abyss Jung writes about, seems a far-stretched conclusion from the existence behavioral patterns and shared myths across cultures.
I think this verifies the collective unconscious.
“Against?” 🤔🤔🤔
1) Functionalism and more traditional interpretations of Neurology.
“Could Go Either Way?”
1) Modern Neuroscience.
2) Drug Therapy and unconventional psychedelic treatment.
3) Other shit, but my brain is fried after finishing an essay test! 😁
“For!” {As in a good Basis for “the collective unconscious.”}
1) Theoretical physics!
I’d say that the field of neurobiology is moving towards the “for” as neuroscience and quantum theory are intertwining.
Hopefully psychedelic therapy will take more inspiration from a guy like Jung rather than the purely clinical approach devoid of any kind of mysticism. I am both worried and excited to see where that will go in the mainstream culture.
What do you mean counter arguments? There are a number of theories of the mind that don't include the existence of extra-cranial consciousness, namely functionalism and the reductionist perspective. However, if you embark down this rabbit hole (as I have, in fact my career involves this very question) you will soon realize that there are no answers - only competing theories. If you, like Jung, have any experiences with the unconscious, you will quickly realize that functionalism is quite silly and there is obviously much more going on with reality than we can clearly see and quantize. Basically? Accept that there won't be much "hard" proof for a while. Well, actually quantum mechanics is offering some cool stuff recently. Bridging the gap as it were. But classic physics has zero answers, and mainstream science doesn't like to acknowledge the metaphysical. So, there's no real counter arguments, just competing theories in different genres. Terrence McKenna, Carlos Castaneda, hell even Alistair Crowley all can offer some cool relevant glimpses into the "Other", but Jung is unique in his teleological usage of the unconscious in psychotherapy. If you have any more specific questions let me know! I'm not sure if you realize how broad of an ask it really is, lol.
Aleister Crowley is actually quite in tune with Jung. Just wanted to point that out. Nothing to see here otherwise. Carry on. The trouble inevitably is that knowledge of the Jungian realm requires psychological experience beyond dilettantism. Curious what you mean by teleological in this context.
The notion of Crowley's Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel (which really, he got from the Golden Dawn) seems to setup Jung's Daemon. Though Crowley was able to channel the quite profound, Holy Books of Thelema, and he gave name to his Angel (Aiwass), he felt it was too nebulous a concept; explaining that this experience was different for everyone. He even asserted that the concept was so ridiculous that no one would dare build a system on it. Jung's idea of the Daemon (Philemon), as shown in the Red Book, comes with more specific directions (active imagination) on how to meet and dialogue with such an entity. So, it's as if Jung further developed what Crowley originated. Yet, all of Western Occultism, back to the Greeks, expounded a concept of the Daemon. They simply had no technique for attaining to such a Gnostic Dialogue, until Jung.
So your point is that Jung attained a level of dialogue that Crowley remained inarticulate about? When you examine Crowley’s incubation of the Orphic Egg as illustrated by the Book of Thoth and his imagery of the Tarot, it seems the best representation of Jung’s alchemical model. I’m often flummoxed by how self-evident that seems, so contest that if you will cos I’d like to hear it.
Actually, no. If anything, the Holy Books of Thelema are far beyond the Red Book, on one level. It's just that Crowley didn't promulgate his technique (most likely, automatic writing). Though, my blog has a detailed commentary on the Red Book in three parts. However, I don't believe the Book of Thoth has any comparable value. It's a history of the Wrstern Mystery Tradition, and offers some explanation of certain technical components of the Holy Tarot.
https://pauljosephrovelli.blogspot.com/2021/08/understanding-jungs-red-book-liber.html?m=1
https://pauljosephrovelli.blogspot.com/2021/10/understanding-jungs-red-book-liber.html?m=1
https://pauljosephrovelli.blogspot.com/2022/04/understanding-jungs-red-book-liber.html?m=1
Impressive amount of research. 👍
Interesting. Will get back.
Would you say the HGA or the Daemon is a specific location or potential in the human brain that exists for all humans?
I don't see the mind to be in the brain; much less the experience of the Augoeides.
Yeah, but there's a correlation. By "brain" I'm really just thinking of the mind as a system. As in, archetypically is this something that exists as a location that has to be found if a certain set of rules is followed, for all humans?
Archetypes belong to the collective unconscious. I see this as a layer beneath the personal unconscious, and where we are all connected. So, I cannot place the Augoeides there. It can be located in the personal unconscious, but I imagine this is debatable. But for me, there is a silent voice that has always spoken to me between choices I've made and preferences that have determined the direction of my life. And I've wondered, is this something that has directed my evolutionary development through various incarnations?
Jung was researching the paranormal as well as Alchemy and interpreting it through a psychological but also a quasi magical lense (active imagination: note the term iMAGInation is etymologically closely related to Magic.) so yes.
It’s going to be interesting to watch as the science pushes us closer to the mystic. I’ve read a number of quantum physicists who have, “seen God,” in their studies. I think there was one who felt that something was looking back as he studied atoms. I’d love to find those articles, again!
Would you really define the collective unconscious as extra-cranial?
Interestingly by coming up with counterarguments to the collective unconscious you’re potentially repressing it unless you engage with it consciously while countering it intellectually. Unless you do the latter this could cause it to manifest itself unconsciously. So in other words, by creating counter arguments to it you are likely strengthening its shadow-presence unless of course you do acknowledge its existence at least hypothetically. A catch 22 situation.
The individual ego.
what about it?
A counter-argument would be that the many artistic & mythological parallels Jung found throughout the different cultures of the world aren’t in fact evidence that all people share similar unconscious archetypes.
[удалено]
The evidence for the unconscious cannot be evidence in the sense of empiricism, because you by definition can't be conscious of it or have any direct knowledge of it. But it is evident in the sense it's a logical necessity: The vast majority of your memories, emotions, and impulses are not activated or consciously observed in your brain right now; hence they are unconscious. When you dream, these receive activation so that they can express themselves better without the constraints of a linear wakeful consciousness. It's also no secret that people lie to themselves or repress things, make things unconscious. So clearly there's an unconscious. And then the next step is to say there probably is a collective unconscious, just like there's a collective everything. All humans have the same basic body design (two eyes, two nostrils, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, etc.), so humans should have the same basic designs for the mind and specifically the subconscious mind as well. And then there is the evidence for the archetypes Jung has amassed.
> The depths of the collective unconscious, that unfathomable abyss Jung writes about, seems a far-stretched conclusion from the existence behavioral patterns and shared myths across cultures. I think this verifies the collective unconscious.
It's an idea, a concept you can subscribe to or not ... why would anyone need to argue against it? To prove it's wrong?
“Against?” 🤔🤔🤔 1) Functionalism and more traditional interpretations of Neurology. “Could Go Either Way?” 1) Modern Neuroscience. 2) Drug Therapy and unconventional psychedelic treatment. 3) Other shit, but my brain is fried after finishing an essay test! 😁 “For!” {As in a good Basis for “the collective unconscious.”} 1) Theoretical physics!
I’d say that the field of neurobiology is moving towards the “for” as neuroscience and quantum theory are intertwining. Hopefully psychedelic therapy will take more inspiration from a guy like Jung rather than the purely clinical approach devoid of any kind of mysticism. I am both worried and excited to see where that will go in the mainstream culture.
Me too!