Which religion is the most correct?

[The Reality Denialist]

Sheldrake's experiments are replicable at home and I'm under the impression all the parapsychology stuff is supposed to be dialectical-algorithmic anyway. Rupert Sheldrake really doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as socionics. Parapsychology is legit (though it takes a proper degree of spiritual maturity and wisdom not to be confused in what it implies) and socionics is a silly Soviet system trying to force everyone into the workplace, even though unlike some other systems that have been discussed recently (Human Design, Michael teachings, etc.) you at least get to pick the type that seems the most reasonable for you rather than someone trying to force you into the opposite type so you'll pay them more money. Well, people do that too in socionics, it just hasn't been a very successful strategy overall when you look at the success of Gulenko, Aushra, and Jack, who basically let people pick types to a certain degree, vs. people like Alive, Sol, and lavos, who shoehorn everyone into a type that makes no sense for them and who basically no one has heard of. One way to make money on people's egos: actually feed their ego instead of doing the whole original sin type of thing. Also why I don't care about so-called postmodern neo-Marxism aka intersectionality, if it runs on self-flagellation rather than self-congratulation it won't work very well long-term because loving yourself is more accurate than hating yourself, narcissists don't really love themselves as have been pointed out, they're compensatory. Which kind of brings a new light to the whole Aristotelean virtue ethics if you really think about it, the idea that maybe the two extremes just stem from one deficiency and the opposite extreme is equally illusory while the middle is sort of the only reality.

I am happy for you getting involved with Rupert Sheldrake though. Maybe you'll really learn it and then get out of the cult of socionics. Sheldrake's ideas do not constitute a cult, and they have saved me personally from many cults throughout my life. Granted, I still joined this forum, but I was never really pulled into the cult ideologically, I just underestimated the complete lack of security on this site and what kind of ownership it had due to how young I was and thought all forums were super official, but I never bought it, and that's the part that counts. Maybe the one thing that really made me feel invincible enough to come here will pull everyone out. That would be very poetic. I also take real religion more seriously now, even though I didn't then, I just thought parapsychology stuff was cool, even though people like Rupert Sheldrake definitely believe in religion despite also believing in things like telepathy and psychokinesis... Well, Paul N. Temple who co-founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences and Chris Putnam (though I think his books are unreadable) did too, so anyone who thinks all the people looking into psychic phenomena are just doing something demonic like Jack "Dajjal" Parsons is wrong, but as Goethe said, Sagt es niemand, nur den Weisen, though of course, the biggest part of that is restraining your stupid ego. If you want to PM me about his ideas like psychic pigeons, please do, even though I'm not joining the Court of the Red King. All the things you're talking about are actually the things I talked about ages ago. I first heard about Daniel Everett 8 years ago. It didn't mean all that much to me 8 years ago, unlike Rupert Sheldrake. I disagree with Daniel Everett since I've read his ideas now, but 8 years ago it just didn't matter to me even though I heard of him fairly often then. So, great for you! You first heard about it when it actually meant something to you. Your mind will finally be free! Which sounds like something someone who wants to use psi and/or talk to people who supposedly never communicate would say.



As for me, I always sing „Die Gedanken sind frei“ before I break prison bars and walls with my thoughts, and the jailer cries out, "Nooo Coer, that wasn't supposed to be literal! Also, no one cares about German songs!"

Regarding the best religion: the best religion is Truth, but not all the people who run around saying "believe in Truth" because they wanted something exotic like Blavatsky who might have very possibly left the biggest mess ever regardless of her very likely being a spy who was just using her writing to encode her spying activities (hence why she also got rejected by the Russian government when she applied to spy for them, since they probably feared her working as a double agent.) The best religion is the One, the Monad. Surely, we live in the best of all possible worlds, as Voltaire had his fictional character say due to Leibniz. Seeking knowledge without wisdom is always a poor idea, but we really should have both all the knowledge, and all the wisdom, so it's not about excluding knowledge, it's about including wisdom. The fault of what Spengler would call our Faustian civilization, even though Spengler of course saw no fault in Faustian civilization, being Spengler.

#PopLockAndNameDrop

Well, well. I sort of see Gulenko's approach as trying to deal with things that he can not really explain (collapse of the gFunction) so it becomes necessary to study the man himself. So it always feels like you get your beef raw and roasted. Jung says that there is a mystery out there and where it manifests. Sheldrake: there is fluke in our system because something vibes like this and something can be shown to support it.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I'll try answering this based on what I've learned about the psychology of religion so far.

Any religion that gives an adequate expression of the unconscious situation could be said to be a true religion. This of course depends on the person or the culture he lives in.

As the personality develops new unconscious constellations appear, so the religion changes.

In primitive cultures the personality is relatively undeveloped and the unconscious appears in nature as different spirits.

Christianity is an advanced religion where the whole psyche is projected into the drama of God and his son. This illustrates how the ego is linked to and transformed by the greater unconscious.

Truly Christian people are those who feel this on some basic level. But they might not be able to put it into words.

Religions can be ranked from primitive to more advanced. Christianity is relatively high. But Christianity doesn't solve the problem of evil so it can still be developed or replaced by a more advanced religion. Marie-Louise von Franz suggested that alchemy could be such a religion because it also deals with the problem of evil/the feminine. I am not really sure though how that could happen, because then people would have to feel that alchemy gives an adequate expression for unconscious processes, but even if it does so in theory, I am not sure it would appeal to modern people anymore.

Personally I try to study Christianity and learn more about it and develop a better feeling for it, building on what I got in childhood. I've learned it's possible to take it symbolically but still in a genuine way. I think most of us need some kind of religion or way to express the unconscious in order to stay sane. It doesn't necessarily have to be an official religion.

Current great symbols in our culture could for example be the hermaphrodite, or the devouring, dangerous unconscious projected as climate change. Mythologically this is the story how we got too cut off from the unconscious, and it is now threatening to take revenge (projected as natural disasters, sea levels rising). This psychological situation could fit many modern people, so maybe it's a true religion.

There's something unsatisfying to me about this psychologizing type of answer. I'm aware that Jung and Jungians liked this sort of approach, but I can't accept it. If you're a believing Christian, someone saying that you believe what you believe because your beliefs are symbolic of some unconscious process is offensive. The "point" of Christianity relies on your being less than the totality of God, your subconscious mind included. You cannot believe God is nothing more than your subconsciousness and also be Christian. Even if it is true that this is all religious belief boils down to, I don't see how religious belief can be internalized as long as you hold this intellectual understanding, unless you're able to hold a split mind about this.

Another way of saying this, maybe, is that Christianity is ideological. If all you do is meditate on certain symbols while rejecting the message itself, you've rejected something essential which can't be substituted for by psychological speculation. Maybe we need religion to be sane, but this way of thinking seems to prevent your participating in what seems to me the most essential part of it, which is true belief.

[Metamorph]

Well, well. I sort of see Gulenko's approach as trying to deal with things that he can not really explain (collapse of the gFunction) so it becomes necessary to study the man himself. So it always feels like you get your beef raw and roasted. Jung says that there is a mystery out there and where it manifests. Sheldrake: there is fluke in our system because something vibes like this and something can be shown to support it.

Difference: Sheldrake has a hypothesis that isn't "the Teutonic race must return to the Wotanic consciousness to give the world a new deity like Yahweh or Allah" (aren't Yahweh and Allah supposed to be two names for the same one, anyway? Wotan or Odin could conceivably be another name, but then you're in Eru Ilúvatar territory, what some people call "Gnosticism" like the call the Gospel of John the "Gnostic gospel" and what's generally considered part of Islam, not saying that different races in different times and places get possessed by objectively-different beings from the collective unconscious.) Sheldrake's hypothesis seems to be based on thinkers like Goethe, William James, and Nietzsche, basically trying to apply the laws of biology and mind to the cosmos rather than just physics and chemistry and see what happens, when he isn't looking for psychic staring people, psychic pigeons, and psychic dogs. Nothing wrong with looking for psychic staring people, psychic pigeons, and psychic dogs, though.

His hypothesis about how it works is basically it's completely natural, and I find that reasonable as well, since I've observed such things firsthand in ways that I think personally completely surpass his experiments, though he's having enough trouble getting his experiments approved, I doubt mine would be more popular, except for some additional factors that I think might be able to turn the tide. Lots of the thinkers into panpsychism were explicitly into Christianity or other conventional religions of their times and places, so even if a lot of people would associate telepathy, telekinesis, etc., with "the occult" and even "black magic," that feels very much like a double-meaning of "occult," like people calling Isaac Newton an occultist for studying gravity. "Oh no, spooky action at a distance!" I personally have a difficult time seeing how psi phenomena would be inherently evil since it's really not calling on demons beyond the people who think maybe angels and demons maintain every physical law and wonder how many angels dance through the transistor of a microchip, but it's definitely spiritually dangerous to get too caught up in all the flashy stuff without maturity anyway and puff up your ego until it explodes, so people being suspicious seems warranted even if it's fine.

The entire revolution in modern physics, however, can easily be seen as a sort of rejection of materialism (also the primary reason why I reject Marxism) stemming from literally the same thinkers Sheldrake is into. I don't really appreciate what seems like his absolute refusal to work with physicists or mathematicians so the Penrose crowd is off doing their own thing as Penrose gives his Joe Rogan interview, but Einstein was really into Goethe and Schopenhauer, and that's a well-documented fact. Sheldrake's theories might be wrong, but anyone who thinks they're just baseless pseudoscience probably ironically thinks Bill Nye is the epitome of modern scientific work and hasn't read a book in years, much less anything by old Germans.

[Metamorph]

I'll try answering this based on what I've learned about the psychology of religion so far.

Any religion that gives an adequate expression of the unconscious situation could be said to be a true religion. This of course depends on the person or the culture he lives in.

As the personality develops new unconscious constellations appear, so the religion changes.

In primitive cultures the personality is relatively undeveloped and the unconscious appears in nature as different spirits.

Christianity is an advanced religion where the whole psyche is projected into the drama of God and his son. This illustrates how the ego is linked to and transformed by the greater unconscious.

Truly Christian people are those who feel this on some basic level. But they might not be able to put it into words.

Religions can be ranked from primitive to more advanced. Christianity is relatively high. But Christianity doesn't solve the problem of evil so it can still be developed or replaced by a more advanced religion. Marie-Louise von Franz suggested that alchemy could be such a religion because it also deals with the problem of evil/the feminine. I am not really sure though how that could happen, because then people would have to feel that alchemy gives an adequate expression for unconscious processes, but even if it does so in theory, I am not sure it would appeal to modern people anymore.

Personally I try to study Christianity and learn more about it and develop a better feeling for it, building on what I got in childhood. I've learned it's possible to take it symbolically but still in a genuine way. I think most of us need some kind of religion or way to express the unconscious in order to stay sane. It doesn't necessarily have to be an official religion.

Current great symbols in our culture could for example be the hermaphrodite, or the devouring, dangerous unconscious projected as climate change. Mythologically this is the story how we got too cut off from the unconscious, and it is now threatening to take revenge (projected as natural disasters, sea levels rising). This psychological situation could fit many modern people, so maybe it's a true religion.

There's something unsatisfying to me about this psychologizing type of answer. I'm aware that Jung and Jungians liked this sort of approach, but I can't accept it. If you're a believing Christian, someone saying that you believe what you believe because your beliefs are symbolic of some unconscious process is offensive. The "point" of Christianity relies on your being less than the totality of God, your subconscious mind included. You cannot believe God is nothing more than your subconsciousness and also be Christian. Even if it is true that this is all religious belief boils down to, I don't see how religious belief can be internalized as long as you hold this intellectual understanding, unless you're able to hold a split mind about this.

Another way of saying this, maybe, is that Christianity is ideological. If all you do is meditate on certain symbols while rejecting the message itself, you've rejected something essential which can't be substituted for by psychological speculation. Maybe we need religion to be sane, but this way of thinking seems to prevent your participating in what seems to me the most essential part of it, which is true belief.

See: my discussions of modernism and the articles I posted about the topic.

[Tallmo]

There's something unsatisfying to me about this psychologizing type of answer. I'm aware that Jung and Jungians liked this sort of approach, but I can't accept it. If you're a believing Christian, someone saying that you believe what you believe because your beliefs are symbolic of some unconscious process is offensive. The "point" of Christianity relies on your being less than the totality of God, your subconscious mind included. You cannot believe God is nothing more than your subconsciousness and also be Christian. Even if it is true that this is all religious belief boils down to, I don't see how religious belief can be internalized as long as you hold this intellectual understanding, unless you're able to hold a split mind about this.

Another way of saying this, maybe, is that Christianity is ideological. If all you do is meditate on certain symbols while rejecting the message itself, you've rejected something essential which can't be substituted for by psychological speculation. Maybe we need religion to be sane, but this way of thinking seems to prevent your participating in what seems to me the most essential part of it, which is true belief.

I think I can address some of your concerns but I might not have understood everything correctly. But the things you bring up are actually discussed a lot in jungian literature as far as I know. So it's not like there is a lack of explanations of these things. I think a lot of it is about getting used to a broader understanding of the psyche and also give religion the credit it deserves, beyond simple belief.

The myth gives a representation of the psyche in religious languge. The relation between human and God can psychologically be translated to relation between Ego and Self. It's basically the same thing, even though the mythological languge is not used in psychology. I agree that the vulgar understanding of the unconscious as God would not be enough, but (as understood by Jung) it's bigger than people would normally think. The totality of the unconscious contains everything that can be experienced, whole of reality, and much more.

I think the approach is that you can psychologically trace ideas and experiences of God back to the Self. But you can't go further than the Self. The Self is the God-image and beyond that it's just metaphysical speculation. Humans cannot distinguish bewteen the Self and God. Doesn't matter how much you believe. But I think that ultimately the question what God really is still has to be solved on a personal level. It's maybe more practical, something you live in your life. I'm not really sure how to express this.

Even if it is true that this is all religious belief boils down to, I don't see how religious belief can be internalized as long as you hold this intellectual understanding, unless you're able to hold a split mind about this.

I don't think the intellectual understanding is that disturbing. In many areas of life we can have an intellectual understanding but still relate to it with our heart. But it's of course not enough to just intellectualize. You have to meditate on the symbols, and that's what Christians do when they read about the life of Jesus or take part in communion or mass.

Sometimes a little help from intellectualization is really what we need to get back on track in personal religious matters, it can point in the right direction. But one has to use it in moderation.

I'm not sure if Christianity is ideology at it's core. Christianity has made people possessed by Christ. Isn't that what it is when people try to be compassionate and act like him in other ways. Maybe it is a way to become closer to him, but I don't think you necessarily have to be possessed by Christ in order to be a good Christian. I think it's enough to try to create a relation (by rituals, Bible studies etc).

About true belief. I don't think you have to believe in order to be religious. It's maybe more about an experience. If you have access to the archetype of Christ then what is there to believe anymore? You have seen it. Also, belief has gotten pretty complicated since we gained all scientific understanding of how the world works. People don't really rise from the dead etc.

Then I was also thinking about the fact that even the Bible sometimes talks in psychological concepts, like when Jesus is said to be "the way, the truth, the life". (sounds very much like the spirit of individuation). Or the talk about "the inner Christ". I don't know if that was in the Bible, but anyway. I suspect there has always been religious people who have "rediscovered" Christianity as processes within. But of course Jung goes a step further by expressing it in psychological technical language.

I agree though that the intellectual understanding of religion is not for all, but some people can benefit from it. I might have misunderstood some of the stuff I wrote above, this is still an ongoing process for me.

[Metamorph]

The relation between human and God can psychologically be translated to relation between Ego and Self. It's basically the same thing, even though the mythological languge is not used in psychology. I agree that the vulgar understanding of the unconscious as God would not be enough, but (as understood by Jung) it's bigger than people would normally think. The totality of the unconscious contains everything that can be experienced, whole of reality, and much more.

Ego is the same as Self. Ego is literally Latin for "I."

I think the approach is that you can psychologically trace ideas and experiences of God back to the Self. But you can't go further than the Self. The Self is the God-image and beyond that it's just metaphysical speculation. Humans cannot distinguish bewteen the Self and God. Doesn't matter how much you believe. But I think that ultimately the question what God really is still has to be solved on a personal level. It's maybe more practical, something you live in your life. I'm not really sure how to express this.

...I thought going further than the Self was literally the whole point of religion, and that's a big reason why religion involved other people, among other things.

I don't think the intellectual understanding is that disturbing. In many areas of life we can have an intellectual understanding but still relate to it with our heart. But it's of course not enough to just intellectualize. You have to meditate on the symbols, and that's what Christians do when they read about the life of Jesus or take part in communion or mass.

He never said 'disturbing.' He said can't. As in, how can you earnestly believe in religion and also think it's just a metaphor for you job and your bills and whatever? Surely God is greater than that.

Sometimes a little help from intellectualization is really what we need to get back on track in personal religious matters, it can point in the right direction. But one has to use it in moderation.

I think this is off-track too. I don't think understanding less has ever gotten anyone anywhere, I just don't think understanding is somehow done from outside of experience. How does a scientist understand something? It involves experiments and data. Why would you be able to know everything about God completely a priori? You might be able to know the vast majority a priori, but I don't think the point of being alive is to know everything a priori. Sometimes I think it'd be cool to just exist as a brain in a jar and know everything a priori, but that'd probably get boring. The biggest reward for the brain is probably like the biggest reward for humans in general, that the brain comes up with what's right first, and then the body gets to see what's right. Every reward for humans, as uncomfortable as it often seems to be, seems to come from an opponent process: You go watch a horror movie, ride a roller coaster, eat hot sauce, or anything else scary or unpleasant because the rational part of your mind knows it's not really harmful. And in life that seems like what we all agreed to. In the natural world, the brightest you can get is the pure white available to the eyes, but our intellect filtering all our desires demands more, so we plunge into the deepest black so that once we're done things that would be impossible in the natural world are shown to us, like the self-luminous colors of the impossible colors spectrum, or really all the colors of the impossible color spectrum since they all look beautiful to me. So I don't think religion is supposed to be a metaphor at all.

I'm not sure if Christianity is ideology at it's core. Christianity has made people possessed by Christ. Isn't that what it is when people try to be compassionate and act like him in other ways. Maybe it is a way to become closer to him, but I don't think you necessarily have to be possessed by Christ in order to be a good Christian. I think it's enough to try to create a relation (by rituals, Bible studies etc).

I never read "possessed by Christ" in the Bible, but it doesn't seem too important even if it's intentionally supposed to be similar language to demon possession. You can also say things like "possessed of good fortune" and "possessed of unnatural gifts," though maybe the preposition matters more than I give it credit for. I'm not going to pretend like this is completely usual, but as far as intentionally being obscurantist goes, it doesn't seem problematic in itself. It's what you're implying with other things you say where I see the real issues.

About true belief. I don't think you have to believe in order to be religious. It's maybe more about an experience. If you have access to the archetype of Christ then what is there to believe anymore? You have seen it.

Not really. The archetype of Jesus is not Jesus except for some Gnostic cults, and people can be objectively right or wrong about things. If Jesus existed, and I'm strongly inclined to think Jesus existed at this point, those Gnostic cults would be wrong, and "the archetype of Jesus" would not be at all equivalent to Jesus. However, if you believe in Jesus and you believe it's possible for people to have a kind of clairvoyance and see the spiritual world with it, then you can see Jesus, but that's different.

Also, belief has gotten pretty complicated since we gained all scientific understanding of how the world works. People don't really rise from the dead etc.

Yes they do. It's called resuscitation. Ironically, it's primarily done via scientific understanding. However, wouldn't the Creator of the Universe be able to resuscitate whoever He wishes? Regardless of what you think about entropy (I don't think the Universe is a closed system, but that's beside the point in this case) information would never ever be lost from the mind of God. Why wouldn't God be able to do what we can do but better? Honestly, it's fully possible in my opinion we would be the instrument for bringing everyone back ourselves, and that still wouldn't disprove God even if we used technology to bring everyone back after the end of the current world. However, really considering the relationship between miracles and technology seems like a much more involved topic than one I can quickly cover in this post.

Then I was also thinking about the fact that even the Bible sometimes talks in psychological concepts, like when Jesus is said to be "the way, the truth, the life". (sounds very much like the spirit of individuation).

This is a begging the question fallacy. Jesus says he's the life because he was brought back from the dead and brought other people back from the dead. Jesus says he's the truth because, depending on your belief system, he's either God or a prophet of God (though only one of those can really be true, they would both make him "the truth.") Jesus says he's the way because of that whole thing in Revelations and in Old Testament Messiah prophecies where he leads an army of believers at the end of the world and you follow his way, as well as following his way in your life on Earth. None of that is really intended to be a metaphor in my opinion. Yes, plenty of things in the Bible are definitely metaphors, and they generally start with saying things like "this is a parable" and "this is a song." That isn't one of them in my humble non-professional-but-lots-of-skin-in-the-game opinion.

Or the talk about "the inner Christ". I don't know if that was in the Bible, but anyway. I suspect there has always been religious people who have "rediscovered" Christianity as processes within. But of course Jung goes a step further by expressing it in psychological technical language.

The Bible does definitely say that Christ lives in us... as we live in Christ. It's clearly not intended to be all about navel-gazing.

I agree though that the intellectual understanding of religion is not for all, but some people can benefit from it. I might have misunderstood some of the stuff I wrote above, this is still an ongoing process for me.

The ink of the scholar is worth more than the blood of the martyr. In which religions should intellectual understanding be actively discouraged? That's really a rhetorical question.

[FreelancePoliceman]

I think I can address some of your concerns but I might not have understood everything correctly. But the things you bring up are actually discussed a lot in jungian literature as far as I know. So it's not like there is a lack of explanations of these things. I think a lot of it is about getting used to a broader understanding of the psyche and also give religion the credit it deserves, beyond simple belief.

The myth gives a representation of the psyche in religious languge. The relation between human and God can psychologically be translated to relation between Ego and Self. It's basically the same thing, even though the mythological languge is not used in psychology. I agree that the vulgar understanding of the unconscious as God would not be enough, but (as understood by Jung) it's bigger than people would normally think. The totality of the unconscious contains everything that can be experienced, whole of reality, and much more.

I think the approach is that you can psychologically trace ideas and experiences of God back to the Self. But you can't go further than the Self. The Self is the God-image and beyond that it's just metaphysical speculation. Humans cannot distinguish bewteen the Self and God. Doesn't matter how much you believe. But I think that ultimately the question what God really is still has to be solved on a personal level. It's maybe more practical, something you live in your life. I'm not really sure how to express this.


I don't think the intellectual understanding is that disturbing. In many areas of life we can have an intellectual understanding but still relate to it with our heart. But it's of course not enough to just intellectualize. You have to meditate on the symbols, and that's what Christians do when they read about the life of Jesus or take part in communion or mass.

Sometimes a little help from intellectualization is really what we need to get back on track in personal religious matters, it can point in the right direction. But one has to use it in moderation.

I'm not sure if Christianity is ideology at it's core. Christianity has made people possessed by Christ. Isn't that what it is when people try to be compassionate and act like him in other ways. Maybe it is a way to become closer to him, but I don't think you necessarily have to be possessed by Christ in order to be a good Christian. I think it's enough to try to create a relation (by rituals, Bible studies etc).

About true belief. I don't think you have to believe in order to be religious. It's maybe more about an experience. If you have access to the archetype of Christ then what is there to believe anymore? You have seen it. Also, belief has gotten pretty complicated since we gained all scientific understanding of how the world works. People don't really rise from the dead etc.

Then I was also thinking about the fact that even the Bible sometimes talks in psychological concepts, like when Jesus is said to be "the way, the truth, the life". (sounds very much like the spirit of individuation). Or the talk about "the inner Christ". I don't know if that was in the Bible, but anyway. I suspect there has always been religious people who have "rediscovered" Christianity as processes within. But of course Jung goes a step further by expressing it in psychological technical language.

I agree though that the intellectual understanding of religion is not for all, but some people can benefit from it. I might have misunderstood some of the stuff I wrote above, this is still an ongoing process for me.

I forgot to reply to this; apologies.

Of course if you ignore what Christians themselves say that Christianity is, you can say Christianity is anything you want. But I doubt you'll find any priest of any mainstream denomination who will approve your idea that Christianity is about having "access to the archetype of Christ." Christianity is about having access to Christ. It seems to me that you're confusing the symbol with the thing itself.

Other unconscious symbols don't act in the way you're describing. Every man has the archetype of a woman inside him; his anima a particular expression of it, maybe. But the anima isn't a woman herself. She points to women, or "woman," outside oneself. You can say that men pursue women because they are "really" pursuing the women inside themselves, and while that's true in a way, it's absurd to forget that our image of women is a conduit to women themselves, and to explain women as just a manifestation of men's unconscious minds. And in the same way, if men have the image of Christ inside them, it would be just as absurd to explain Christ as a manifestation of the unconscious.

Edit: something you wrote leapt out at me.

The totality of the unconscious contains everything that can be experienced, whole of reality, and much more.

This is mystical thought. It isn't scientific, and I'm sure you have to recognize that at some level. Do you really think that with some technological advance, anything even approximating the whole of reality will be found in the human mind? Or on what basis are you saying this? You're describing God, but calling it "the unconscious." It seems like you're trying to rationalize God and/or religious experience. When you say

Also, belief has gotten pretty complicated since we gained all scientific understanding of how the world works. People don't really rise from the dead etc.

it seems the same way, trying to account for something ineffable in terms of something relatively banal. 2nd century Romans weren't unaware that people didn't rise from the dead; you don't need a modern "scientific" knowledge to figure this out. And yet they believed, and people today believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Science, unless you consider textual criticism a "science," isn't a complicating factor at all in believing this.

[Finaplex]

I want to be free of ideologies.

[Finaplex]

Also the self is an illusion. There is only empty space masquerading as something, usually the vessel that contains it. Knowing this, I am free, because I never was. Like the moon reflecting on the water's surface.

This is the basis in which I view all other phenomenon from.

[Tallmo]

I forgot to reply to this; apologies.

Of course if you ignore what Christians themselves say that Christianity is, you can say Christianity is anything you want. But I doubt you'll find any priest of any mainstream denomination who will approve your idea that Christianity is about having "access to the archetype of Christ." Christianity is about having access to Christ. It seems to me that you're confusing the symbol with the thing itself.

I am not saying that Christianity can be anything you want. But the whole reason why people have genuine religious experiences and why Christianity has appealed to people is that there is an important archetype involved. Christians don't necessarily have psychological knowledge so of course they wouldn't say that Christ is an archetype. In the Christian myth the archetype has been personified into the saviour figure.

The "person" Jesus is just a mythological figure, and the important thing is the archetype behind it. But when you are a believing Christian and you see the myth from the inside, then you relate to it through the figure Jesus.

Hmm... I don't really see the problem here. Of course mythological figures are archetypes (or personifications of them). What is the real Christ / Jesus then? The physical person who lived 2000 years ago was just a guy who was possessed by the archetype, people projected on him and he accepted the projections and played that role. People do that today too.

Seems our disagreement comes from how to view the myth from without/ within? Maybe it's about language? But I think this might be a pseudo-problem?

Other unconscious symbols don't act in the way you're describing. Every man has the archetype of a woman inside him; his anima a particular expression of it, maybe. But the anima isn't a woman herself. She points to women, or "woman," outside oneself. You can say that men pursue women because they are "really" pursuing the women inside themselves, and while that's true in a way, it's absurd to forget that our image of women is a conduit to women themselves, and to explain women as just a manifestation of men's unconscious minds. And in the same way, if men have the image of Christ inside them, it would be just as absurd to explain Christ as a manifestation of the unconscious.

Ok, but "Christ" doesn't exist as a real person. That's the difference. You have the archetype, and you have the mythical personification. But there's no real person.

About women/ Anima: In real life, in real romantic situations these two are confused all the time, and men have to confuse them in order to live well and experience romantic love. Then when the relationship is stable and they are married and whatever, then both partners have to deal with the task of getting to know the real person and accepting the real woman / man behind the projections. But maybe that's what you said when you said the Anima is a conduit to women themselves. Sorry if I am stating the obvious.

If anything, I've understood the Christ figure and the whole myth as the gateway to the archetype. But this would be true for all myths and dreams also.



Edit: something you wrote leapt out at me.

This is mystical thought. It isn't scientific, and I'm sure you have to recognize that at some level. Do you really think that with some technological advance, anything even approximating the whole of reality will be found in the human mind? Or on what basis are you saying this? You're describing God, but calling it "the unconscious." It seems like you're trying to rationalize God and/or religious experience. When you say

It's not really mystical. There is Ti-reasoning behind it, but I can't describe it very well. There has to be a psychic totality, and that is necessarily something we cannot fully grasp, as we "live" inside the psyche and our view is limited. And we cannot experience anything outside the psyche. That would really be an absurd claim. The Self is necessarily the highest point of reference and the horizon for our possible experience. I know it is a very unusual way of seeing things, one has to really meditate on it.

One can assume there is a reality outside us, but we cannot say what it really is, or where the border between "psyche" and "reality" goes. It's all very dark because we don't have a full view, an outsider's point of reference.

It's pretty hard to explain or understand in detail, and I am not very good at it, but I think the basic concept of the Self shouldn't bee too hard to accept. Maybe Jung can explain it to you better.

You're describing God, but calling it "the unconscious."

What people have talked about when they talk about God would be the Self. That's why the Self is called the God-image. I've understood this as simply stating the facts. You could say that God really is something else though. But how could you get that knowledge?

it seems the same way, trying to account for something ineffable in terms of something relatively banal. 2nd century Romans weren't unaware that people didn't rise from the dead; you don't need a modern "scientific" knowledge to figure this out. And yet they believed, and people today believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Science, unless you consider textual criticism a "science," isn't a complicating factor at all in believing this.

Still, it seems to me that people nowadays have a greater awareness of that myths are "just" fantasies, and fairy-tales. Education, knowledge of other religions, humanistic knowledge, greater knowledge of how the body works and so on.

[godslave]

The Self is necessarily the highest point of reference and the horizon for our possible experience. I know it is a very unusual way of seeing things, one has to really meditate on it.

Yes, according to Jung's Psychology philosophy/theory...

One can assume there is a reality outside us, but we cannot say what it really is, or where the border between "psyche" and "reality" goes. It's all very dark because we don't have a full view, an outsider's point of reference.

Interesting. It is true that our perception of reality is limited by our own biology and Psyche. That said, history (and progress !) has proven over and over again that we as human beings have the capacity to overcome the limits of our natural perceptions and therefore perceive a reality that was previously out of the field of the "psychic" perceptions. For instance by creating new tools. Indeed, any invention that opened knew fields of empirical observations can be considered as transcendent in its own right. To name a few :

The microscope and the reality of "microbes", The telescope and the reality of the cosmos and its structures. Incidentally modern telescopes allows us to perceive spacetime differently allowing us to see beyond its relative reality and towards the distant past. etc..

Imho, we can even see in that a form of progress which transcends our psychic perceptions a form of transhumanism (?) as if it was something we naturally tend towards.

As for where "the border between psyche and reality" I'll quote Jung :

"If you are unconscious of certain things that ought to be conscious then you are dissociated. And then you are a man whose left hand never know what his right hand is doing. Such a man is [...] all over the place."

Dissociation debates: everything you know is wrong

It's pretty hard to explain or understand in detail, and I am not very good at it, but I think the basic concept of the Self shouldn't be too hard to accept. Maybe Jung can explain it to you better.

What people have talked about when they talk about God would be the Self. That's why the Self is called the God-image. I've understood this as simply stating the facts. You could say that God really is something else though. But how could you get that knowledge?

There are the archaic God(s) on the one hand and there is the experience of God on the other hand which is more philosophical and spiritual.

The Archaic Gods genesis is simple : Archaic Men associate Natural Phenomena (Night/Days, Moon, Fire, darkness, thunder, lighething, rain, Wind, Volcanos, Earthquakes etc...) to the will of super powerful entities which became "Gods".

As I understand it, the experience of God is any manifestation of the (Jungian) self brought to consciousness (often by means of dreams). That conception is close to the notion of God in Apophatic theology.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I forgot to reply to this; apologies.

Of course if you ignore what Christians themselves say that Christianity is, you can say Christianity is anything you want. But I doubt you'll find any priest of any mainstream denomination who will approve your idea that Christianity is about having "access to the archetype of Christ." Christianity is about having access to Christ. It seems to me that you're confusing the symbol with the thing itself.

I remember finding out about 20 years ago that a significant number of Anglican\Church of England clergy don't believe that Jesus was divine (which is enough to see them defrocked), and I think it's similar in the Netherlands and likely other similar countries too. The current Archbishop of Canterbury (who is supposed to run the Anglican church) (Justin Welby) has said that he sometimes doubts that God exists (which is probably more acceptable position for Anglican fundamentalists than concluding and saying that Jesus wasn't divine). I would not be surprised to find out that many clergy of small parishes talking in such a way as Tallmo describes at least privately with members of their flock. Also, there have been many writings throughout history even by Popes etc. that talk in very spiritual (what I might call vague or even woo, depending on the content) language. A former Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) for example wrote a book called "Where God Happens: Discovering Christ in One Another".

[RaptorWesNet]

Taoism, but inventing my Bunny religion stands in a grail of physics to ever after summer pools of lush changing torrents to the juice rollercoaster singing with a lion.

[PineappleDuckCurry]

I am an atheist, but I think Buddhism is the most beautiful religion. I also think it is the most interesting in terms of fitting in with science as what it teaches can be applied to oneself even if you're an atheist (ie mindfulness).

[Tallmo]

Interesting. It is true that our perception of reality is limited by our own biology and Psyche. That said, history (and progress !) has proven over and over again that we as human beings have the capacity to overcome the limits of our natural perceptions and therefore perceive a reality that was previously out of the field of the "psychic" perceptions. For instance by creating new tools. Indeed, any invention that opened knew fields of empirical observations can be considered as transcendent in its own right. To name a few :

The microscope and the reality of "microbes", The telescope and the reality of the cosmos and its structures. Incidentally modern telescopes allows us to perceive spacetime differently allowing us to see beyond its relative reality and towards the distant past. etc..

Imho, we can even see in that a form of progress which transcends our psychic perceptions a form of transhumanism (?) as if it was something we naturally tend towards.

I was talking about a more radical criticism of perception. It's not possible to escape the psyche no matter what tools or progress we make. Everything we ever perceive is a hallucination made by the psyche. There can be some basis for this hallucination, but we cannot really know what it is. We can never know what time, matter, space really is. We percieve these things, through the psyche, but we have no way of stepping outside the psyche and looking at things from above. That would be the "perspective of God", but we don't have that. We can postulate that there is an reality beyond perception, but that's something in complete darkness.

The Archaic Gods genesis is simple : Archaic Men associate Natural Phenomena (Night/Days, Moon, Fire, darkness, thunder, lighething, rain, Wind, Volcanos, Earthquakes etc...) to the will of super powerful entities which became "Gods".

I tend to look at it as more fundamental. The Gods are already in the wind, in the daylight etc. (as fundamental psychic experiences) and then they become personified. But it is not as simple as a simple association. What I mean is that daylight for example is numinous in itself. Another way of saying it is that anybody who has had a strong nature experience has witnessed something divine in the natural phenomenon itself and not by association.

As I understand it, the experience of God is any manifestation of the (Jungian) self brought to consciousness (often by means of dreams). That conception is close to the notion of God in Apophatic theology.

It is sometimes a bit unclear because sometimes the Self is called God, and dreams (and myths) are said to come from God, but other times it's just called the God-image and then that's enough and we don't know more. It certainly is the God-image, but my view is that it is then up to the individual to figure out how to relate to this in his life, and what to call it.

[Muira]

Funny how there is not very much evidence to disprove anyone? I'll just say that every religion is man made, with maybe the exception of the one true religion, if there is one. Don't mistake me for being agnostic, but I still can be skeptical.

[I am a frog]

I am an atheist, but I think Buddhism is the most beautiful religion. I also think it is the most interesting in terms of fitting in with science as what it teaches can be applied to oneself even if you're an atheist (ie mindfulness).

Same, I'm an atheist but can sort of respect Buddhism.

[Metamorph]

I was talking about a more radical criticism of perception. It's not possible to escape the psyche no matter what tools or progress we make. Everything we ever perceive is a hallucination made by the psyche. There can be some basis for this hallucination, but we cannot really know what it is. We can never know what time, matter, space really is. We percieve these things, through the psyche, but we have no way of stepping outside the psyche and looking at things from above. That would be the "perspective of God", but we don't have that. We can postulate that there is an reality beyond perception, but that's something in complete darkness.

We can perceive reality, though. The idea that you shouldn't be able to led to a lot of early critique of the idea humans have intelligence, or humans have intuition, but humans clearly have intelligence and intuition. It makes just a little more sense if you think angels were supposed to bow to Adam rather than vice versa, but that's still where the evidence is, regardless.

I tend to look at it as more fundamental. The Gods are already in the wind, in the daylight etc. (as fundamental psychic experiences) and then they become personified. But it is not as simple as a simple association. What I mean is that daylight for example is numinous in itself. Another way of saying it is that anybody who has had a strong nature experience has witnessed something divine in the natural phenomenon itself and not by association.

This just sounds like nature-worship to me. Let's assume an animistic view of the world. If I blow out a candle am I trespassing on the domain of the god of fire? If someone makes something out of metal are they controlling the god of metal? If they play music are they forcing the god of music to do their bidding? If you think so, then you might want to seriously consider the idea the angels were supposed to bow to Adam rather than vice versa. It's not all antagonistic, you're supposed to enjoy the sunrise and the sunset and whatever, but they're still there for you and not you for them, so think about that.

It is sometimes a bit unclear because sometimes the Self is called God, and dreams (and myths) are said to come from God, but other times it's just called the God-image and then that's enough and we don't know more. It certainly is the God-image, but my view is that it is then up to the individual to figure out how to relate to this in his life, and what to call it.

I think that's just Jung being an obscurantist. I wouldn't dismiss everything Jung says out of hand, but I'd be careful with it because he admitted he liked to make himself obscure. He thought obscurantism would keep away cranks apparently, but he can't have known that much about psychology if he didn't know obscurantism attracts cranks like flies are attracted to honey. "God-image" I think is an example of such obscurantism. Yes, people can have a mental image that could be God or could not be God which they think is God. Tell me something new.

[Renna]

The originals of Buddhism and Taoism were not really religion. More like self-help philosophy

They only turn into religions later on because people always need some deities to worship/pray …

Found a video talk about Eastern Asia religion and how they are different from the west:

[FreelancePoliceman]

I am not saying that Christianity can be anything you want. But the whole reason why people have genuine religious experiences and why Christianity has appealed to people is that there is an important archetype involved. Christians don't necessarily have psychological knowledge so of course they wouldn't say that Christ is an archetype. In the Christian myth the archetype has been personified into the saviour figure.
...
It's not really mystical. There is Ti-reasoning behind it, but I can't describe it very well. There has to be a psychic totality, and that is necessarily something we cannot fully grasp, as we "live" inside the psyche and our view is limited. And we cannot experience anything outside the psyche. That would really be an absurd claim. The Self is necessarily the highest point of reference and the horizon for our possible experience. I know it is a very unusual way of seeing things, one has to really meditate on it.

One can assume there is a reality outside us, but we cannot say what it really is, or where the border between "psyche" and "reality" goes. It's all very dark because we don't have a full view, an outsider's point of reference.

It's pretty hard to explain or understand in detail, and I am not very good at it, but I think the basic concept of the Self shouldn't bee too hard to accept. Maybe Jung can explain it to you better.

I was trying to avoid this tangent since I don't think it ever leads everywhere ツ

So -- granted that we can't know "objective" reality, or if there's anything existing outside our minds, we generally don't take the attitude that this is the case, thinking that everyone around us is a creation of our minds. It seems doubtful that we can prove or disprove it either way. And if you go that route I'm not sure what the point of any discussion would be. We usually seem to assume that the external world exists, and our senses only sense and interpret them. In that way we would interpret "by means of" the psyche, not only what was "in" the psyche. As far as interpretation -- of course we can only interpret to the best of our limited ability, but this limitation is exactly why the psyche can't be equated with God. We can't experience everything, or know everything, or feel everything.

I would think a calculator is an appropriate analogy. A calculator does not "contain" all numbers in its processor or memory, and on a basic level only "understands" the presence or absence of electricity. But by external inputs and its programming which allows it to "think" abstractly, it can be made to display many numbers. And there is a limit to the number of digits it can store or display at the same time; even so, by further abstraction you can use it to calculate and display greater numbers than it "actually" does. But the calculator isn't God just because it is made to understand logic and can work it out; it doesn't contain everything either, even if it can be made to display anything.

The "person" Jesus is just a mythological figure, and the important thing is the archetype behind it. But when you are a believing Christian and you see the myth from the inside, then you relate to it through the figure Jesus.

If you assume an external reality, then the archetype is the signpost; it's not the thing itself. The internal archetype of Jesus may be the means by which you experience Jesus, but it's not Jesus, any more than the anima is a woman.

Hmm... I don't really see the problem here. Of course mythological figures are archetypes (or personifications of them). What is the real Christ / Jesus then? The physical person who lived 2000 years ago was just a guy who was possessed by the archetype, people projected on him and he accepted the projections and played that role. People do that today too.

Seems our disagreement comes from how to view the myth from without/ within? Maybe it's about language? But I think this might be a pseudo-problem?

I don't happen to believe that a physical man named Jesus or Joshua existed 2,000 years ago who was crucified and became the founder of a religious movement. So I have no problem with saying the character of the Gospels was a fictional creation, and so a psychic one, probably linked to an archetype or several. But if that archetype exists, I would take that as indication that the thing itself exists independently of the psyche and is perceptible by it -- not that the psyche independently created it.

Ok, but "Christ" doesn't exist as a real person. That's the difference. You have the archetype, and you have the mythical personification. But there's no real person.

OK, so Christ isn't a "person," but I would dispute the "real."

About women/ Anima: In real life, in real romantic situations these two are confused all the time, and men have to confuse them in order to live well and experience romantic love. Then when the relationship is stable and they are married and whatever, then both partners have to deal with the task of getting to know the real person and accepting the real woman / man behind the projections. But maybe that's what you said when you said the Anima is a conduit to women themselves. Sorry if I am stating the obvious.

Sure, I don't think I disagree.

If anything, I've understood the Christ figure and the whole myth as the gateway to the archetype. But this would be true for all myths and dreams also.

I understand the reverse: the archetype is a gateway to the thing itself. I've known many people try to interpret myths and dreams to provide insight about reality, but I've never known anyone try to do the reverse.

What people have talked about when they talk about God would be the Self. That's why the Self is called the God-image. I've understood this as simply stating the facts. You could say that God really is something else though. But how could you get that knowledge?

Well, I'm about as sure as I think is possible that I'm not anyone's idea of God. I don't think that takes any great knowledge to understand. I guess there are plenty of mystics who'd equate God and the Self, but I've personally never heard them explain this well; in any case mainstream Christianity doesn't, and I don't think most religions or people who talk about God do. So the "obvious" thing I would think would be to suppose there's a difference between them.

Still, it seems to me that people nowadays have a greater awareness of that myths are "just" fantasies, and fairy-tales. Education, knowledge of other religions, humanistic knowledge, greater knowledge of how the body works and so on.

That's the thing: you say the psyche is God, then that myths are "just" fantasies. I can't help thinking that if you genuinely felt the psyche were God, you wouldn't call public understanding of myths as "just" fantasies "awareness." If you reduce God to a "just," why call it God?

[godslave]

We sure we live in a world of mental representations because of the development of our psyche. Most animals live in a world of instinctive interpretation of reality.

That said, the human psyche regardless of the main orientation of consciousness has a connection with reality, with the objective empirical world. To deny that very basic fact would be a nonsense. Indeed, if objective reality didn't exist then nature would not have provided us with the organs to perceive it. If one is not conscious of the fact that objective reality exist really (and incidentally that this sounds like a pleonasm !) then one is disassociated.

We are intrinsically equipped or made to experience reality as it is through our sensory organs, that's the basic and most archaic common thing we share we the rest of the homo genus in particular and terrestrial mammals in general. However, our sensory perception is not as sophisticated as that of most mammals. indeed most of them have super developed sensory capacities compare to human being. Humans however have the power of the psyche, that of super developed cognition as a compensation. All this is very basic 101 biology !

Now, yes the Psyche is God ! Of course it is ! I'm starting a new religion : the cult of the Psyche !

We are the divine light we're looking for !

[RaptorWesNet]

But we can transcend our biology, look for the collective spring of a rich and vibrant oasis of joy and wonder to capture the cosmos.

[Metamorph]

We sure we live in a world of mental representations because of the development of our psyche. Most animals live in a world of instinctive interpretation of reality.

Animals have mental representations as well even if they can accurately be described as much more primitive. The institution of pet ownership should be abolished. Some people need animals, but animals people need aren't pets/companion animals, they're service animals or livestock of various stripes. Harming an animal is not on the same level as harming a human, but you shouldn't harm an animal or a human without necessity. There are a few cases where you can control or harm a human, and a few more when you can control or harm an animal, but "because I feel like it" is never a good reason, no matter how much the modern language of self-care is now appropriated to try to justify the archaic institution of slavery.

We are intrinsically equipped or made to experience reality as it is through our sensory organs, that's the basic and most archaic common thing we share we the rest of the homo genus in particular and terrestrial mammals in general. However, our sensory perception is not as sophisticated as that of most mammals. indeed most of them have super developed sensory capacities compare to human being. Humans however have the power of the psyche, that of super developed cognition as a compensation. All this is very basic 101 biology !

I disagree. Often throughout history, and especially in connection with the whole idea of Scholasticism, it's been argued that humans don't have intellect because intellect is only for angels, or humans don't have intuition because intuition is only for God. But I think humans have intellect and intuition even more than we have sense perception. Our sense perception is mostly not that sophisticated because we have better things, and not only do we have better things (which I think you conceded,) I don't think that's a defect, I think that was intentional from the start. Why else did angels bow to Adam? Because angels are so much smarter and better? No. Humans have been controlling angels and demons since the Stone Age, often unintentionally. For example, making a stone tool is controlling the spirit of stone. Sorcery! But people today have lost that kind of understanding, which to be fair, is probably a good thing, since in the past people generally tried to control the spirit of stone or whatever other concept by appeasing it through worship, but people who don't believe everything is inhabited by spirits animistically don't do that. Granted, they often worship it unconsciously anyway, but I still feel like people not building altars to Baal and Moloch is at least a step in the right direction.

[Sisyphean]

Classical Theism as Catholic Divine Simplicity.

[godslave]

Animals have mental representations as well even if they can accurately be described as much more primitive. The institution of pet ownership should be abolished. Some people need animals, but animals people need aren't pets/companion animals, they're service animals or livestock of various stripes. Harming an animal is not on the same level as harming a human, but you shouldn't harm an animal or a human without necessity. There are a few cases where you can control or harm a human, and a few more when you can control or harm an animal, but "because I feel like it" is never a good reason, no matter how much the modern language of self-care is now appropriated to try to justify the archaic institution of slavery.

Absolutely, I said that most animals live in a world of interpretation i.e. they live in world of instinctive reaction/action to sensory stimuli and obey an archaic program acquired through phylogenetic memory as a result of process of adaptation to a given environment. As you know, significant changes in the environment itself being the major determinant factor of "update" or evolution of any species, as long as there is a symbiosis of some sort, the update doesn't need to occur.

That said, all mammals have several "layers" of brain that attest of their evolution or "update". When we talk about archaic brains we talk about the brain structure under the cortex which all mammals possess. I personally think that all mammals have a different degree of self-awareness, the very fact that some of them developed languages or communication devices attest of their relative awareness of an inner world and an outer world which is imho enough to presume that there is at least the presence of a more or less developed "psyche" in those animals. The fact that they dreams, the fact that they can be traumatized etc... All these points to the presence of a" psyche" for those of us who want to see it. That said, Suda changed everything :

Indeed I suspect a direct correlation between the neocortex and consciousness, therefore all mammals that have it more or less are self-aware depending on the development of the neocortex.

I disagree. Often throughout history, and especially in connection with the whole idea of Scholasticism, it's been argued that humans don't have intellect because intellect is only for angels, or humans don't have intuition because intuition is only for God. But I think humans have intellect and intuition even more than we have sense perception. Our sense perception is mostly not that sophisticated because we have better things, and not only do we have better things (which I think you conceded,) I don't think that's a defect, I think that was intentional from the start. Why else did angels bow to Adam? Because angels are so much smarter and better? No.

Interesting ! Of course here we are assuming he existence of an almighty God creator of everything (namely Allah Azza wa Jal !). I didn't say that human being don't have intuition, we can all perceive what is not physically present by means of intuition, for instance If I say "banana with a snake face eating a lion" your mind will picture it even if it's not physically present or even possible, that's an instance of intuition. Seeing with the mind eyes at will i.e. imagination is the privilege of humans and again, I suspect certain mammals can do it to a certain degree.

Humans have been controlling angels and demons since the Stone Age, often unintentionally. For example, making a stone tool is controlling the spirit of stone. Sorcery! But people today have lost that kind of understanding, which to be fair, is probably a good thing, since in the past people generally tried to control the spirit of stone or whatever other concept by appeasing it through worship, but people who don't believe everything is inhabited by spirits animistically don't do that. Granted, they often worship it unconsciously anyway, but I still feel like people not building altars to Baal and Moloch is at least a step in the right direction.

 

As a side note, In Islam all animals and even insects have a "Nafs" which I think is the equivalent of the Freudian "Id". Some of them even have an Ego like for instance the Hoopoe with which Prophet Sulayman (King Solomon) had a conversation with in the Quran. Incidentally I found out that the Hoopoe and the Magpie have a certain affinity. In the video above the Magpie is among the animals that pass the mirror test and are considered to be self-aware. Coincidence ? Nah !!

[Metamorph]

Interesting ! Of course here we are assuming he existence of an almighty God creator of everything (namely Allah Azza wa Jal !). I didn't say that human being don't have intuition, we can all perceive what is not physically present by means of intuition, for instance If I say "banana with a snake face eating a lion" your mind will picture it even if it's not physically present or even possible, that's an instance of intuition. Seeing with the mind eyes at will i.e. imagination is the privilege of humans and again, I suspect certain mammals can do it to a certain degree.

Oh, have you heard of Plato's tripartite theory of consciousness? This is largely where the Freudians (I don't say Freud because it wasn't all him, for example the term id/das Es in German was created by Georg Groddeck and not Sigmund Freud, the term id itself was created by an English translator) got their idea of id, ego, and superego.

[Socionics Is A Cult]