Re: Re naming:

[Guest guest]

Alice and all,

Yesterday I was at Pacifica attending the one class I am taking this

year. It's a good one on the whole, " The New Myth of God, " taught by

one of my favorite instructors, Glen Slater, a gentle and thoughtful

Australian analyst. For class we read Greg Mogenson's God is a Trauma

and we talked about the way the numinous disguises itself in daily

life. We examined the idea of God as symptom, jumping off Hillman's

work, the god image as completely unconscious, false gods, the gods as

processes, of religion as a defense against soulfulness. (Seemed a

little like old stuff to me, having spent the whole fall discovering

the Dove in the Stone.) Somewhere in there, Glen touched briefly on the

ego-self axis, referring specifically to Eddinger, and drawing the

standard small circle connected to a larger one on the board.

My study group just covered the chapter, " Center and Circumference, " in

The Web in the Sea, in which you discuss the ego-self axis and draw it

as the radius of a circle, Self at center, ego circling the

circumference, and I'd been thinking a lot about mandalas, and working

with the kali yantra in meditation. I'd had a powerful dream not long

ago in which I was clearly instructed to " find the axis, " and another,

the night before last, in which I cut my cat who was sitting on my lap

with my nail clippers, letting lots of deep red blood out and at last a

big, darker clump, " Well, that's the heart of it, " I thought in the

dream.

So the elongated image of ego-self jarred. I'd been visualizing the

same concept as a sphere or circle: the feminine version! Sophia!

I was still sitting with those thoughts when it was time for the

evening lecture, Ross Woodman on the Jung-i letters. Through a

singularly delightful set of synchronicities, I'd spent time with Ross

on Saturday at n's workshop, and, because of my teacher, Ganesh

Baba being a physicist, I know the Jung-i letters well. Ross's talk

was on Jung's dilemma of moving from three to four. He worked through

the following, drawing parallels between depth psychology and quantum

physics wherever he could:

1) unconscious, undifferentiated transcendental ground, the zero point

without extension

2) the absolutely essential differentiation of one into two aspects of

the same thing (i.e, psyche and soma), which is the necessary condition

for all knowing

(And here, the Tao you quoted yesterday, " Naming is the origin of

particular things, " would come in, wouldn't it, Alice? Naming is the

process of differentiation, yes?)

3) the known form of differentiation: perfection, the Trinity, the

three person god

and 4) the consciousness of one - ongoing forever

(This morning, this quote form the Rig Veda arrived in my mail:

One God sits hidden in every creature, pervading all, the Inmost

Self of all beings, the Watcher over all acts, abiding in all things,

the Witness, the Heart, the Absolute, attributeless and free.)

Jung thought the longest journey is from 3 to 4, and that the next

level of the evolution of consciousness is a collective move from 3 to

4.

When I woke up this morning a new thought came to me - that the

elongated drawing of the ego-self axis that Glen put on the board

yesterday is part of the the circular drawing in Alice's book, and that

Alice's circular interpretation is part of the elongated one, on and on

ad infinitum. The two representations are two of the infinite number of

dualisms that emanate from the 2. That felt better to me. I moved from

3 to 4, I guess.

Anyhow, that's what I'm thinking about this morning. Who else could I

talk it out to other than you Jung-fire-sitters?

Eve

On Tuesday, February 17, 2004, at 07:15 AM, IonaDove@... wrote:

> " Naming is the origin of particular things. " The Tao teh Ching

>

> Virgo Prunefiddle

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/04 2:30:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,

marshkan1@... writes:

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/D-tet.html

A great site BUT a booboo in 3 priciples Quicksilver n Merc are the same.

That Merc 7 shld be sulphur, I do believe......

Virgo Prunefiddle.

I have corr w/McLennan, who wrote me ab Beejum Book - he got all the hidden

stuff. Sent me his magnificent bk/cards on Pythagorean Tarot! He is a prof at U

of TN knoxville. Great guy.

Have writt him ab booboo - Merc in his Trickster mode.

[Guest guest]

Thanks so much, Greg. This came at such a good moment!

Eve

On Saturday, February 28, 2004, at 01:47 PM, Greg Rieke wrote:

>

> --- Eve Neuhaus wrote:

>

>> Anyhow, that's what I'm thinking about this morning.

>> Who else could I talk it out to other than you

> Jung-> fire-sitters?

>

> Eve,

>

> I appreciate the journey you are on. Sacred geometry

> has helped me (thanks to Alice). Try this too:

>

> http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/D-tet.html

>

> I think ol' Pythagoras has much for us to re-learn.

>

> Greg

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It must be Mercury in trickster mode - if you click on Mercury in the

outline, it is Sulphur that comes up.

lol!

Eve

On Sunday, February 29, 2004, at 07:19 AM, IonaDove@... wrote:

> In a message dated 2/28/04 2:30:15 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> marshkan1@... writes:

> http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/BA/PT/D-tet.html

> A great site BUT a booboo in 3 priciples Quicksilver n Merc are the

> same.

> That Merc 7 shld be sulphur, I do believe......

>

> Virgo Prunefiddle.

>

> I have corr w/McLennan, who wrote me ab Beejum Book - he got all the

> hidden

> stuff. Sent me his magnificent bk/cards on Pythagorean Tarot! He is a

> prof at U

> of TN knoxville. Great guy.

>

> Have writt him ab booboo - Merc in his Trickster mode.

>

>

>