The Subconscious Is My Spirituality

a reply to: BlueMule

The imagination is the only thing we can really be certain isn't imaginary.

You seem to have a simplistic man-on-the-street concept of the imaginal realm, Clark-bot. It's much more than that. 'Active imagination' is a meditation technique wherein the contents of the unconscious are translated into images, narrative or personified as separate entities. It can serve as a bridge between the conscious mind and the unconscious mind, and it includes working with dreams and the creative self via imagination or fantasy.

The 'imaginary worlds' you despise so much in fact do exist, insofar as they are translations of unconscious contents. That is how you can loathe something that doesn't "exist".

I await your automatic rejection and armchair criticism of this meditation technique. Carry out your prime function.

I do hold a common sense view of things, that I will concede. What is hilarious is that it makes much more sense than any number of metaphors you can string together. "Contents of unconscious"? "Bridge between the conscious and unconscious mind?" It's just so empty of any meaning.

I think you mean thinking. Sorry, but everyone thinks—except for perhaps the mystic. If thinking is a meditation technique, then breathing is a yoga exercise. Next you'll try to claim "active walking" as a mystic's technique of spiritual transcendence. But I forgot, mystics rarely leave their cave.

Denial isn't quite the same thing as refuting. You haven't refuted anything, you've simply stuck your fingers in your ears and trolled.

I refuted your attempts at character assassination. These are the only arguments you have been able to put forward. Sadly, I have read everything you have written. So let's add your "fingers in your ears" remark to the refuted pile. Maybe you'll also notice that I've starred your posts. Hey, everyone needs a little pat on the back once and a while.

originally posted by: Aphorism

I do hold a common sense view of things, that I will concede.

Unfortunately for you, a common sense view of things in the age of quantum mechanics simply doesn't work. QM defies common sense at every turn. As a result, many scientists have come to see common sense as an impediment to progress not only in physics but also in other fields. And now, it is an impediment to your inner Superman, Clark-bot.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

-Albert Einstein

You may now consider your entire common sense based worldview refuted.

a reply to: BlueMule

I don't have a world view, nor have I claimed to. I have yet to see the entire world, thus no world view. Anything beyond that is silly and conjecture.

Quantum mechanics has only refuted determinism and the view that the world is a giant machine built by a watchmaker—all views that imply a maker at the beginning and the end. Google it and copy and paste a quote to serve your purposes, but there goes your religious narrative. I've never held any of those views. Besides, it is math refuting math, and still everything runs as it always has.

I don't have a world view, nor have I claimed to.

Oh, yes you do. I find it rather dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

"I do hold a common sense view of things, that I will concede." -Aphorism

A persons 'view of things' is their worldview. A worldview is the way you view things. It's your overall perspective. Everyone has one. I shouldn't have to explain that, you know damn well what a worldview is, and you know damn well you have one. You've talked about your worldview a great deal on ATS. You call it 'common sense', I have called it naïve realism or 'common sense realism'.

Either way, your worldview is refuted.

I have yet to see the entire world, thus no world view. Anything beyond that is silly and conjecture.

It really is amazing how you twist meanings around to avoid losing. Try losing with some grace and dignity for a change.

Quantum mechanics has only refuted determinism and the view that the world is a giant machine built by a watchmaker—all views that imply a maker at the beginning and the end. Google it and copy and paste a quote to serve your purposes, but there goes your religious narrative. I've never held any of those views. Besides, it is math refuting math, and still everything runs as it always has.

Strawman, Clark-bot. You don't have any idea what my religious narrative is, because you haven't been using critical reading skills. You've just been following your knee-jerk denial programming. Here's a hint: it doesn't include a 'watchmaker'.

There is no conflict between mysticism and science. But there IS a conflict between common sense and science.

"The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine."

-James Jeans

Bluemule, would you mind sharing your understanding of active imagination and specifically how you do it and apply it?

a reply to: TheJourney

Perhaps this link might help.

www.jung.org...

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: TheJourney

Perhaps this link might help.

www.jung.org...

Thanks!

a reply to: TheJourney

I apply it most often during the hypnagogic state. I go in and out of that state several times before sleep, to reflect on the imagery.

It requires a familiarity with the way that the unconscious mind speaks through symbolism, so that you can attempt to translate. Jung was very good at that, because of his comparative mythology expertise, especially alchemy. Mythology is the picture-language of the unconscious.

It starts with the intention to give free rein to and to engage with the imagination and the unconscious.

realitysandwich.com...

a reply to: BlueMule

That simply isn't the case. That must be more of your "active imagination" technique at work. Nowhere have I disclosed any sort of world view.

I know plenty about your religious narrative because it seems you love to talk about it. You appear to defend your labels in the utmost fundamentalist manner, and you've been hounding me to accept your views for quite some time. All of them are of the same ilk as any short-sighted religious narrative, where your own hopes become facts.

One fact is, no mystic endeavour has accomplished anything outside of imagination and drug-induced stupors, save for having lined their pockets by preying on the naive.

a reply to: Aphorism

Clark-bot, everyone has a worldview, because everyone has their own perspective and their own interpretive framework. Not everyone, however, is equally aware of having a worldview. One does not need to explicitly state, "the following is my worldview:" in order to express it.

If you really don't know that, I'm shocked at your ignorance.

If you really DO know that, I'm shocked at your dishonesty.

Which would you prefer I be shocked about?

The rhetorical lengths you will go through to protect your worldview and your pride really are amazing. I've learned a lot from you in that regard, you are a fascinating study. Thank you for that much, at least. But I deeply pity you.

"Many have explored the remarkable convergence between the mystical traditions of the world and modern science. However, none of them has done this in a more succinct and convincing way than Einstein and Buddha; this remarkable collection of quotes by famous Eastern mystics and modern physicists is a fascinating contribution to the emerging paradigm."

-Stanislav Grof

a reply to: BlueMule

And I pity you my friend. I fear you have not seen enough of the world to develop an accurate enough view of the real world, and perhaps rely too much on myth and lore for your conclusions about people and cultures you have never participated in, which is apparent from our previous discussions. But this is mere opinion, which I understand you vehemoutly oppose. So much the better.

My world view is me viewing the world. That is it. I don't share any worldview with anyone by virtue of the fact that I am nobody else. Anyone who claims otherwise will forever remain an acolyte and advocate of someone else, a mere follower lead by proverbial carrots on proverbial strings.

a reply to: Aphorism

You share your worldview piecemeal with every thread you make. Here are a few of the beliefs which comprise your worldview:

1. We are not connected
2. You are your body
3. Eternal life is eternal death
4. Spirituality is a lot like politics
5. Divine Love is an empty concept
6. We are all prophets
7. We are all nihilists (but trying to forget)
8. Religion is culture

"Yes. My last thread is called "You are your Body". Naturally, that is what I believe." -Aphorism

For someone without a worldview, you sure have a lot of beliefs. :p

Your beliefs, assumptions, prejudices, etc comprise your worldview, just so you know.

You are caught in a story about reason, logic, cynicism, jadedness, common sense, the "concrete", and I'm sure there's a few other things I'm forgetting.

"Just to make things more difficult, I am not an atheist." -Aphorism

And I might add, to make things more difficult, you will claim you don't have a worldview when you clearly do. I find your rhetorical tactics deplorable. I find your word games childish. I find your worldview easy to discern, despite your obfuscation, and to refute.

You want to create a spirituality in your own image - an armchair spirituality that is trapped in the body, in the senses, in the concrete, in death. A spirituality devoid of spiritual practices, mystical practices, and honor.

You can certainly try. But you should, at least, have the honor to use honest, straight forward rhetoric, instead of trying to make things more difficult than they have to be.

"Every religion takes due care to express their dissatisfaction with the world, the body, the senses, the instincts, desires, worldly attachments, materiality, physicality, and everything animal and earthly about us, rendering themselves, and essentially everything, completely meaningless. “Do not love the world or anything in the world” (John 2:15). What does that say about us?" -Aphorism

What does that statement say about you? It says you don't know nearly as much about world religion and myth as you think you do. Your worldview is full of prejudice, stereotypes, assumptions, beliefs. It is short on science, scholarship, and experience.

You aren't qualified to reorient spirituality. You lack the scholarship, you lack the science, you lack the experience, and you lack the honor. And you lack the grace to admit when you are defeated.

a reply to: BlueMule

Consider me flattered. I never thought that I I would have developed such a fan. But I must ask: is this an obsession?

One quick view of your posts displays to everyone what your version of honor, grace, scholarship, science, refutations, and experience amounts to: name calling, authoritarianism, quote mining, pseudoscience, fallacy, and a refusal to face the real world. That's all it takes is one look. All talk, no action. Contradiction. Lack of an original voice. Bullying. Such irony makes life humorous, and gives us something to continue writing about.

Just to continue the irony, I admit defeat and will forever remain in your spiritual shadow. You are the winner, mule.

My apologies to the OP.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: BlueMule

Consider me flattered. I never thought that I I would have developed such a fan. But I must ask: is this an obsession?

If that's the consolation prize you wish to claim, far be it for me to deprive you of it. No one goes home empty handed.

May I present you with your armchair ribbon.

you are both correct

and you are both wrong

correct in the way that what you believe to be true, is true only to you, because truth is what your being currently accepts as what is

this is the beauty of life, and with a smile, life accepts both answers, because they all exist within it, and cannot exist without it

wrong however, in the way that you believe what you can know is what is the entirety of existence, and within this is found your limitations, with limitations how can you be liberated and free to be happy and content no matter the truth of the existence you currently face

you two share much more in common than you think, but it is not in your knowledge of the world, it is in you conviction about your view of it, and your love of life

I've stated this in another thread, but I'll post it again here to show some Buddhist (mainly Mahayanist) ideas on these kind of arguments- hopefully someone finds these thoughts to be of interest or help to them in their studies.

The first idea is that of the Two Truths Doctrine. This Doctrine explains that there are ultimately 2 Truths about the Universe - one Relative and one Absolute. The Absolute Universe is objectively true for everyone but devoid of meaning (thus 'empty' in Buddhist terms); the Relative is true for only the individual and contains all meaning for that person (it is my belief that this is the place that people go when they Astral Project, Dream, take certain chemicals, or meditate deeply - basically whenever your senses are confused and you cannot check your "Internal Universe" with what is being seen in Ultimate Reality). It would seam that Aphorism leans towards the Absolute, while BlueMule follows the Relative as Truth; in reality both are equally true and false.

Absolute Reality is the objective world described by science. This reality exists independently but can never be fully experienced or comprehended since all experiences are the result of an internal projection of what is picked up through the senses (thus turning it into a Relative perception). This would be close to the Kantian 'Thing in Itself'. Buddhists say that the Absolute Universe is empty - this doesn't mean that you are creating the physical objects in the Universe or that physical reality is an illusion, but rather that the Absolute Universe has no intrinsic meaning in itself (science assigns values to things but not meanings - meanings have no objective reality). The closest you can get to experiencing the Absolute Reality (according to Buddhism) is through Shunyata.

Relative Reality is the 'Internal Universe' program (arranged in layers) that each of us is constantly building (and rebuilding) inside of ourselves. This is a rough copy of everything we know about the world based solely on our own experiences. This is created by us and exists only in our heads - this causes some people to claim that they create the entire Universe and that they are God (they actually are God, but just the God of their own "Internal Universe", not Ultimate Reality). This "Internal Universe" is created based on the meaning (token, emotional relationship, importance) assigned to each object that you think of as a separate symbol. These individual symbols are then arranged in roughly the place that your mind believes these symbols to be (so when you Astral Project, you might see things in places where you subconsciously think they are whether they are there in Ultimate Reality or not). This "makes the world" around you because you can only experience the world in your own mind - this does not however mean that you can effect other people's "Internal Universe" by just believing something, and it also does not mean that you can change "Ultimate Reality" with thought alone.

2 Quotes on this from here explain why it is important to cultivate both:

"One tradition distinguishes between Relative and Absolute (or Ultimate) Bodhicitta. Relative Bodhicitta is a state of mind in which the practitioner works for the good of all beings as if it were his own. Absolute Bodhicitta is the wisdom of Shunyata (Sunyatā, a Sanskrit term often translated as "emptiness", though the alternatives "openness" or "spaciousness" probably convey the idea better to Westerners). The concept of Sunyatā in Buddhist thought does not refer to nothingness, but to freedom from attachments and from fixed ideas about the world and how it should be."

"Without the Absolute, the Relative can degenerate into pity and sentimentality, whereas the Absolute without the Relative can lead to nihilism and lack of desire to engage other sentient beings for their benefit."

As to the discussion about worldview, I believe that Buddhism has extensively thought that out and call it 'Right View' (part of the Noble Eightfold Path). The Buddha (who had attained Nirvana or an 'Unconditioned Mind') is said to have had no worldview at - 'Wrong View' is to have any worldview at all. Stated here:

"The 'four erroneous views' are to apprehend impurity as purity, to apprehend selflessness as self, to apprehend suffering as happiness, and to apprehend impermanence as permanence."

Just some (possibly) new ideas to get people thinking.

originally posted by: preludefanguy
you both have more in common than you think, but it is not in your knowledge of the world, it is in you conviction about your view of it, and your love of life

Wow, I was thinking the same thing. You nailed it!

Unfortunatley we are only animals... what you experienced was nothing more than the perfect mind manipulation...
everything is pretty much a romance scene and im sure you played your part perfectly...
the effects you are exeriencing have side effects such as obsession and your chakra will never be completley alligned because you feel guilt because of the circmstances.




reply to: TheJourney