In this thread, we rank the different religions. In your opinion, which religion is closest to the truth?
Which religion is the most correct?
In this thread, we rank the different religions. In your opinion, which religion is closest to the truth?
Happy Science of course. Nobody but communists would dispute this.
Which imagination models would give more of useful objective results.
Science and religions are different.Originally Posted by IndomitableKingOfGnomes
Science is based on objectivity. It's about what exists independently from a human.
For religions is common partly the opposite principle of magics - subjective faith, where to get something is important to believe is this.
A variant of both principles can be joined by supposing the existence of several time dimensions. And that a human mind has the abbility to change the shifting between them by own wish. By believing the shifting happens closer to a variant of the reality with the wished or believed concrete events, what arises the probability of those events to happen.
In quantum physics theories of additional dimensions are among taken seriously.
> Nobody but communists would dispute this.
Among communists should more of reasonable people than among hithleristic and satanistic liberals, to point on inappropriate mixing of opposite terms.
Communistic parties mainly supported rationality and opposed to religions. As religions by supporting the irrationality often were used to help fooling the majority people to worsen their life in the exploitation by higher classes. USSR had among best mass educations in the world because of positive approach to rationality, besides giving max possibilities for people to use their abbilities.
Religions themselves are important part of human minds work and dealing with the unconsciousness, so those can be useful when are used appropriately. To use some mind possibilities an imagination may help, where its secondary what exoterical models/symbols are used for this.
Among T types, unlike your F, people should better understand the term "science" in its modern usage.
You even using emotional term "happy" with the term "science".As among arguments for your F type.
Google: Happy ScienceWhich imagination models would give more of useful objective results.
Science and religions are different.
Science is based on objectivity. It's about what exists independently from a human.
For religions is common partly the opposite principle of magics - subjective faith, where to get something is important to believe is this.
A variant of both principles can be joined by supposing the existence of several time dimensions. And that a human mind has the abbility to change the shifting between them by own wish. By believing the shifting happens closer to a variant of the reality with the wished or believed concrete events, what arises the probability of those events to happen.
In quantum physics theories of additional dimensions are among taken seriously.
> Nobody but communists would dispute this.
Among communists should more of reasonable people than among hithleristic and satanistic liberals, to point on inappropriate mixing of opposite terms.
Communistic parties mainly supported rationality and opposed to religions. As religions by supporting the irrationality often were used to help fooling the majority people to worsen their life in the exploitation by higher classes. USSR had among best mass educations in the world because of positive approach to rationality, besides giving max possibilities for people to use their abbilities.
Religions themselves are important part of human minds work and dealing with the unconsciousness, so those can be useful when are used appropriately. To use some mind possibilities an imagination may help, where its secondary what exoterical models/symbols are used for this.
Among T types, unlike your F, people should better understand the term "science" in its modern usage.
You even using emotional term "happy" with the term "science".
Your inability to use such basic research functions as Google before writing a nonsensical essay cements you as an F type I'm afraid, at least according to your own "logic" of what constitutes an F type
Tell that to the mountains of dead within and without the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and so on, that were all brutally butchered and subject to genocide, which I'm sure you conveniently justify somehow, like you do with Russia's current acts of genocide. Communists running the USSR were far more talented at killing Russians than Hit ler ever could have dreamed at being lol. Feels so good to live in a country where typing the word "war" or shit talking my leadership won't get me thrown in prison for several yearsGo shout "Putin sucks and the war in Ukraine was a mistake" out of your window. Start a timer and let me know how fast the police come for you before you get thrown in prison
Happy Science seems like something a crackhead would come up with. After all, the religious leader made a fricking anime about the religion
I seemed to troll people here and hurt their delicate heterosexual feelings ((I'm honest it wasn't my intention)) when I told them they are much more likely to have a truly religious experience looking extreme internet porn than they are going to church, but that's because the real God hangs out with outcasts and rebellious weirdos as they are always more closer to being uniquely true religious than the Karen who wears the cardigan and goes to church, even though that person of course would definitely think they are being more righteous naturally. And maybe the Karen is more naturally righteous and the weirdo perv is just a weirdo perv and not a hidden occultist witch, but the thing is you never really know, only God knows and only God can judge that, there is no rules, there is only the magic and power and not power Oneness of the Power of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ we Gay, Gay Men!
Gaslightza aka @Eliza Thomason - how is life treating you?
@IndomitableKingOfGnomes BTFO by FACTS and LOGIC.
Not as blown away as your asshole after taking in bus loads of Russian cocks
I think if they're making religious claims, they're all equally false.
Of the so-called Abrahamic (I'm not convinced that adherents of each would necessarily agree with the designation of all three with that label) religions though, if I ranked their religious and supernatural claims by levels of plausibility, it's be Judaism > Christianity > Islam
There are religions like Zoroastrianism and Taoism that are basically equivalent to Star Wars religions. They make claims about nature that are either patently false or which are value judgement claims. They are possibly more plausible to me than Judaism because I've seen the historical evidence that shows core Jewish beliefs to be man-made fictions, and I'm not so knowledgeable about them.
What puts Islam behind Christianity in terms of plausibility of its claims? Why put Zoroastrianism in the same category as Taoism instead of with the Abrahamic faiths?
For a start, Christianity and Islam are built up on top of Judaism, so can only be less plausible.
Further, Judaism historically didn't consider Heaven and Hell to be an essential part of its doctrine.
But I also don't think that Jesus and Muhammad existed, so Islam having those two as prophets is only going to decrease its level of plausibility from my perspective.
Zoroastrianism and Taoism both believe in a "good" force and a "bad" force, and possibly formed independently of each other. Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Judaism, which I think only makes it more plausible, if I was to do a religious ranking.
In science, it doesn't matter when a discovery was made, but with religious claims, if you were trying to establish which is timeless and perhaps existed before humanity, then earlier religions that were apparently not influenced by anything else would be more credibly be timeless and outside human influence, if you had no way of establishing if claims are actually true or false.
Some people would argue that Abrahamic religions are one, just different branches of each other.
Problem with religion is that it starts off by having a purpose to confine and restrict people in order to function on a basic society, a tool to transition from small tribes to larger communities with principles and it's own customs.
There are not many thorough ways of proving or disproving religion.
So how can we say for sure which religion is right.
If there is one god, it would be infinite gain for believers and infinite or near infinite loss for disbelievers according to Christians.
It's also tricky, and there is so much hate between people of different religions.
It makes sense why atheists dislike religion, it's really tricky to navigate because we tend to only see what we want to see.
Muslims might commonly believe the so-called Abrahamic religions are one, I'm not convinced practicing Jews and Christians commonly do.
Christians vary in their beliefs just as Muslims do.
Religious claims are beyond the realm of the observable realm, so none of their claims can have evidence for them. However, many if not all religions can be shown to be false in some way in other claims they make.
this one
dont @ me
@Grendel
If you are going to worship something at least make sure it's not genuinely ugly and unfuckable
Exactly why I left Christianity. As much as it pains my ex-evangelical soul to admit, the Catholics were getting the right idea with Mary...but the fact that she's a perpetual virgin is a major downer. Jesus OTOH, NO WAY.@Grendel
If you are going to worship something at least make sure it's not genuinely ugly and unfuckable
A transcendent, humanly incomprehensible One...OK, fine. But a fucking DUDE? Worshiping a fucking GUY is the gayest thing imaginable! Why don't any of the religions offer hot chicks to worship?
@Grendel please find an egirl to simp for like a normal man instead of whatever that is
This is just fucking hilarious, I don't even know if this is serious or not.
You should maybe look into making your own religion...I don't see much religions worshiping women.
Come and worship the greatest of all the Gods: The Goddess Athena!!!
Again. The virginity thing is kind of a downer.
I prefer Hecate. Shadowy, three-faced, honored by gods and Titans, clever enough to, by masquerading as Libertas, become the patron goddess of our country. Her intentions are murky and probably terrifying, but that's why I want to be on her side!
Idc which one is the most correct. I want to join the one that’s the most fun
It only matters which is most true to you.
What kind of question is this other than to create controversy?
True, but people like to argue and defend their ego or seek truth.
Simping is a sacred duty!
Nawcissism
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
Christianity, but you have to ignore the rules and logic and contradictions - it's all meant to gaslight you or make you so angry you have a truly Christ-like experience anyway. Christianity is true because it represents the Oneness beyond ego, Christ consciousness is the realization we all are from the same fabric of humanity. It can obviously be taken into abusive ways where people's own goals and identities no longer matter and they are now some creepy cult. It's more of a physical subtle real thing though. More of a power, but also more of the true ultimate divine realization that only Oneness and non duality is true and everything else is an illusion designed to trap you. It's just interpreted by fools. Really foolish people tend to think they are the most religious the same way very poor people are obsessed with money yet if they ever came across money they'd lose it the same day as they wouldn't know how to invent or handle it responsibly or turn it into even more money, the true meaning would just be completely lost on them and they'd go back their bigoted and lost ways etc.
The other two religious aren't as true because they mistake religious liberation for lustful power and thrist- Christianity in it's pure form actually doesn't do this even though of course you are going to get some tyrant Karen who thinks she's a "Christian" doing unimaginable things to innocent gay newborn babies. But the difference between lust and momentarily lust is it makes you feel like a God in the moment but then the after burn is guilt and punishment of the sin, or realizing you can never meet up with the desire anyway- that's where Judaism and Islam both fail. Christianity is true spirit is that it really uniquely liberates you from the bondage of control and self-obsession and self-lust and narcissism.
i think this quesiton is impossible to answer. theres a quite a few belief systems that don't believe in correctness in its common sense.
at some point the line between correct and incorrect ceases to exist , or there are multiple truths at the same time. To say that there IS a correct answer is the answer in itself.
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.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
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.
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.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.
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.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Ego is the same as Self. Ego is literally Latin for "I."
...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 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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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).
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.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 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.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.
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 sayThe totality of the unconscious contains everything that can be experienced, whole of reality, and much more.
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.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.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 05-28-2023 at 11:29 AM.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.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
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.
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?You're describing God, but calling it "the unconscious."
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.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.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
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".
I feel like holographic panoramic things such as Jungianism, Gulenkonism and Sheldrakeism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrqBDnd64Do) require lots of faith. So far Sheldrakeism seems to be morphologically resonated super set of Jungian stuff, so I'm rolling with it now.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
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.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
