sceptics

[Guest guest]

Thanks Heward for yr measured evaluation of scepticism!

I myself go by "Always keep an open mind and a good crap detector."

Thus wh I aver that I n alerted neighbors have seen UFO's more than 6 xs, I am telling the truth. What they are, I do not know. They may be unspecified manmade inventions or alien ships. I will only state what we saw : a very bright light that playfully would shoot in one direct, stop. defying gravity sudd, and then dart off, over n over, in another direction. One Jan night, Walter n I saw 2 of them as we were driving home. We stopped our car, turned off our lights, n watched them scooting ab for more than 20 minutes. These were circular n pinkish. As far as I, true Scorpio, am concerned they remain Unidentified Flying Objects. To say more wld be speculation. I hope u agree. Now, I know others around here have seen them, too, but were hesitant to admit this. None in the last two years. I found them delightful. Not scary. The first one, was as bright as Jupiter. We were in bed n ready to sleep. I realized that Jup was not sposed to be there. Then it started to move. A plane came by. The bright light went out. As soon as pl was gone, it came on again n the dancing this way n that took place until it soared off.

I hope u agree that my attitude is the correct one. I have witnessed a number of so-called 'miraculous' happenings and have concluded that there are laws that seem supernatural but probably are not. When such things occur, I find I have to move a bit of furniture around in my conscious mind! The ego can sometimes be quite arrogant. Unbelievable synchronicities, wh I call 'Sophia's winks' fall into this category. For me they are glimpses into the unus mundus.

Fortunately, many of them have been witnessed by another person, wh helps avoid a solipsistic approach. I describe a few in my THE DOVE IN THE STONE, and I am reasonably sure that many others on this list cld share similar stories.

I also like a Hindu physicist [can't rememb his name but have it somewhere] who said "The greatest discovery of science in the 20th Cent is that science is not infallible."

Am hard at work prep my JUNGIAN SYNCHRONICITY IN THE AST SIGNS N AGES wh will come out in a new edition, updated, n hopefully titled THE HEAVENS DECLARE w/Blake's 'Ancient of Days' for the cover. Hopefully, it will offer an alternative to The Rapture n the end of the world! It's the end of the Age of Pisces not the world. They got aieion n kosmos mixed up, most likely.

Much love,

ao

ps there is a diff between experiences induced by drugs, I assume, or those of deranged people, as Jung spent his early prof life studying. What do you suppose enables a person to tell the difference? I would venture that the result would be how the person treated other people. Individuation is not a selfish pursuit, it really is washing the windows of yr lamp so the Light cn shine through.

--------------

Interrupted by Beth running in - the bear was back in our driveway, 6' away fr her!! Well, we do live on Beartown Mt. Rd...............!

[Guest guest]

Thanks Heward for yr measured evaluation of scepticism!

I myself go by "Always keep an open mind and a good crap detector."

Thus wh I aver that I n alerted neighbors have seen UFO's more than 6 xs, I am telling the truth. What they are, I do not know. They may be unspecified manmade inventions or alien ships. I will only state what we saw : a very bright light that playfully would shoot in one direct, stop. defying gravity sudd, and then dart off, over n over, in another direction. One Jan night, Walter n I saw 2 of them as we were driving home. We stopped our car, turned off our lights, n watched them scooting ab for more than 20 minutes. These were circular n pinkish. As far as I, true Scorpio, am concerned they remain Unidentified Flying Objects. To say more wld be speculation. I hope u agree. Now, I know others around here have seen them, too, but were hesitant to admit this. None in the last two years. I found them delightful. Not scary. The first one, was as bright as Jupiter. We were in bed n ready to sleep. I realized that Jup was not sposed to be there. Then it started to move. A plane came by. The bright light went out. As soon as pl was gone, it came on again n the dancing this way n that took place until it soared off.

I hope u agree that my attitude is the correct one. I have witnessed a number of so-called 'miraculous' happenings and have concluded that there are laws that seem supernatural but probably are not. When such things occur, I find I have to move a bit of furniture around in my conscious mind! The ego can sometimes be quite arrogant. Unbelievable synchronicities, wh I call 'Sophia's winks' fall into this category. For me they are glimpses into the unus mundus.

Fortunately, many of them have been witnessed by another person, wh helps avoid a solipsistic approach. I describe a few in my THE DOVE IN THE STONE, and I am reasonably sure that many others on this list cld share similar stories.

I also like a Hindu physicist [can't rememb his name but have it somewhere] who said "The greatest discovery of science in the 20th Cent is that science is not infallible."

Am hard at work prep my JUNGIAN SYNCHRONICITY IN THE AST SIGNS N AGES wh will come out in a new edition, updated, n hopefully titled THE HEAVENS DECLARE w/Blake's 'Ancient of Days' for the cover. Hopefully, it will offer an alternative to The Rapture n the end of the world! It's the end of the Age of Pisces not the world. They got aieion n kosmos mixed up, most likely.

Much love,

ao

ps there is a diff between experiences induced by drugs, I assume, or those of deranged people, as Jung spent his early prof life studying. What do you suppose enables a person to tell the difference? I would venture that the result would be how the person treated other people. Individuation is not a selfish pursuit, it really is washing the windows of yr lamp so the Light cn shine through.

--------------

Interrupted by Beth running in - the bear was back in our driveway, 6' away fr her!! Well, we do live on Beartown Mt. Rd...............!

[Guest guest]

My dear, dear Heward,

You are 100% wrong. I never considered you a skeptic on spiritual matters,, but actually as deeply religious.

, whom I also love tries to be negatively inclined to some of what I believe (like mysticism) but I know him also to be a deeply spiritual person.very much so. all three of us have posted on that very subject.

Besides a skeptic to me is someone who doubts, not someone who denies. I sure must come across dumber than I am, my friend. You are trying to swat a fly with a hammer.

Guess what? I actually do know what some words mean. Why go so far afield ?. I never would think you would need to protect yourself as a serious inquirer...not from me at least. Don't underestimate me, please. As you well know from many previous discussions, One can be a skeptic about some things, but we sometimes feel no skepticism of others. I do believe that, as you wrote;

"Also, are we to say that any experience on the basis of which we may be led to any action is not to be submitted to any kind of ethical test? "

You have known and battled with me often enough not to ask such a question.In fact from someone other than you, I might have considered that insulting.

And this:

"Blake and Keats said something like this. I have much sympathy with it, in certain respects. But, are you sure? ANYTHING? Surely there are implicit criteria about consistency of imaginative experience over time, capacity to submit experience to testing in eg analysis over time, and so on? "

I am following what I believe to be the correct interpretation by a man named Jung. Using his model of psychology, I find myself in agreement. Furthermore, I was not speaking, neither was he, of hard science. That you also well know. Common Heward, what's up?

Heward, i was really surprised. Reread some of our former exchanges, I know you to be a spiritual person and never doubted it. ( your personal history confirms it, doesn't it?)

And, as you probably were unhappy about my claim of "certainty" it was about only one fact. In my world I am certain there is a G-d. I know only that much.I claim no certainty about anything else , none at all.

with love, Heward. I am sorry you have forgotten who you were addressing this to....as if I could ever call you a skeptic...on this subject.

Toni

Sceptics

030705Dear ToniYou write: "I know there are many skeptics here. that's just fine. but don't knock what you haven't tried. Of course, much comes before this usually in the spiritual life.If it is real it will convince you. So says Jung, and most knowledgeable people. Anything we see in our imagination is real, as you all know, according to Jung. It becomes an experience to us....that was why he believed so strongly in active imagination and dreams."I imagine you think of me as one of the 'sceptics'. Here you seem to mean by 'sceptic' someone who denies religious experience. But scepticism more accurately means someone who questions or enquires, according to the etymology:"1587, "member of an ancient Gk. school that doubted the possibility of real knowledge," from Fr. sceptique, from L. scepticus, from Gk. skeptikos (pl. Skeptikoi "the Skeptics"), lit. "inquiring, reflective," the name taken by the disciples of the Gk. philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.), from skeptesthai "to reflect, look, view" (see scope (1)). The extended sense of "one with a doubting attitude" first recorded 1615. The sk- spelling is an early 17c. Gk. revival and is preferred in U.S."In which case the sceptic is NOT one who automatically prefers 'materialism' to 'religion', dismisses UFOs and so on, but rather one who submits all and any claims to genuine enquiry, including their own. Of course, as Descartes and Hume found, that raises all sorts of difficulties about presuppositions, but a genuine 'sceptic' will take as seriously religious and paranormal claims - and methods of enquiry including 'experience' - as they will take questioningly supposedly 'certain' claims of positive science.My problem with many kinds of believers, including Darwinians, is not WHAT they believe, but HOW. So if certain sorts of evidence are ASSUMED to be valid without question then I have a problem, and feel my hackles rising. This applies to the most dogmatic science equally as it does to fundamentalism. "Anything we see in our imagination is real, as you all know, according to Jung."Blake and Keats said something like this. I have much sympathy with it, in certain respects. But, are you sure? ANYTHING? Surely there are implicit criteria about consistency of imaginative experience over time, capacity to submit experience to testing in eg analysis over time, and so on? Or how would you be able to say that someone is inflated or has a mana personality, as you would want to? Surely there have to be degrees of depth and consistency in the relevant imaginative experience?Also, are we to say that any experience on the basis of which we may be led to any action is not to be submitted to any kind of ethical test? Surely, if we are to question Nazizm, or the kind of fundamentalist nihilism of someone like Koresh of the Branch Dravidians who was willing to instigate mass suicide of his followers rather than submit to a hostile world, we have to be able to appeal to some kind of ethical ground?loveHeward

[Guest guest]

Toni, Heward, all,

Thank goodness for sceptics, doubters on spiritual matters. You deny

Heward a respectable position? A mystical sceptical might ride doubt

to its very end. " Strip from me what separates me from You. " (after

Rabi'a, ra)

But Toni you constantly doubt other's experience.

T: If you do, you have no idea what a numinous (not peak) experience is.

I don't tire of reminding you of your tick.

***

Incidentally, I have been encountered by teachers who certainly have

smartly and constructively judged my spiritual gifts, (downgraded

them too!) known me better than I know myself, and, amazingly,

apprehended my experience as it happened, and as if it were happening

to them.

In fact there is an honorable and valuable tradition of such close

readings of another person. However, until one is encountered this

way, scepticism is likely.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni, at 05:13 AM 7/4/2005, you wrote:

>, whom I also love tries to be negatively inclined to some of what I

>believe (like mysticism) but I know him also to be a deeply spiritual

>person.very much so.

It is my -reasonably informed - opinion that certain types of " spiritually

confrontational' or mystical experiences come only to those who are condign

to them, just as certain others can come to anyone.

Whether these experiences can be all considered under one heading is to my

mind doubtful. There is however a unifying factor within all such

experiences worthy of the " mystical " term and that is they are implicitly

unifying and lead into the mystery of universal love - at least to some

degree or within some part of their nature. There are other experiences

however just as extraordinary which whilst they might lack this quality

nevertheless seem to be gifted from the same source, for whilst their

content is different, the structural identity or archetypal stamp seems

consistent.

It seems to me that most of the conscious experiences are in some way

triggered, either by a particularly held attitude or by a perception - and

they can be induced by drugs and - believe it or not - magnetic affects.

Experiences which begin from the sleeping or dreaming state are no less

likely to be " untriggered " , for the state of the unconscious is a factor

which seems at all times able to overrule the conscious attitude, and the

nature and content of those experiences brought on by perceptions - and as

is well known, via drugs etc - rely heavily on the attitude of the

unconscious.

I am not speaking here of those ordinary - if any can be called such -

dreams which come to us each night, but those which lead into realms of

experience which cross the boundaries of both normal and sleeping

consciousness and lead towards places hitherto unrealised in either.

To me such experiences are qualitatively different from the induced or

" triggered " mystical experience in one very significant way, and that is

they appear to be deliberately formational, they appear to be significant

to the fundamental direction of psychic life, rather than gifts of grace or

moments of ecstatic celebration or union with oneness or god or whatever

you want to believe such things represent.

I know of a few times - and many in literature - where the appearance of a

UFO has brought on such an experience, and this can be seen as mediated by

a complementary conscious/unconscious attitude, just as much as the drug

experience can bring a " good " or a " bad " trip. Both extremes of eastern and

western contemplative and more intense practices also produce such

experiences, but it seems to me - and this from my own personal life -

that in all such cases these experiences are qualitatively different to the

type I describe above, and I would hesitate to suggest, in fact doubt very

strongly that they spring from the same unconscious conditions.

It seems to me the human mind is programmed for many types of unifying

mystical experience, that such " grace " can be achieved in many ways and

represents through many images and belief systems - whilst the unbidden and

" mercurial " experience seems to me to be something which relates to the

more mysterious transformational and seemingly goal oriented behaviour of

the activated archetype.

.

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

I won't play anymore. My need to always be right is disappearing and I allow you first place.

No intelligent person continues to have to defend herself...my pride can take being accused of whatever suits you.

Think whatever you like about me, for me,or anything I post.

I know who I am and what is truly me.How others judge is not that important.

Toni

From: SC

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:38 PM

Subject: Re: Sceptics

Toni, Heward, all,Thank goodness for sceptics, doubters on spiritual matters. You deny Heward a respectable position? A mystical sceptical might ride doubt to its very end. "Strip from me what separates me from You." (after Rabi'a, ra)But Toni you constantly doubt other's experience.T: If you do, you have no idea what a numinous (not peak) experience is.I don't tire of reminding you of your tick.***Incidentally, I have been encountered by teachers who certainly have smartly and constructively judged my spiritual gifts, (downgraded them too!) known me better than I know myself, and, amazingly, apprehended my experience as it happened, and as if it were happening to them.In fact there is an honorable and valuable tradition of such close readings of another person. However, until one is encountered this way, scepticism is likely.regards,

[Guest guest]

,

First thanks for saying there is such a thing as a mystical sceptic

and for all of the quote below.

" A mystical sceptical might ride doubt

to its very end. " Strip from me what separates me from You. " (after

Rabi'a, ra) "

People need to learn to see this viewpoint and it's merit.

Betty

[Guest guest]

Toni, all,

>T:I know who I am and what is truly me.How others judge is not that important.

Ahh, the beginning of insight I reckon in this. Yes: truly, how

others judge is not important and how each judges is not that

important. To begin to see this is the way to deposing the fantasy

world where our judgments seemingly find their 'reality' and in doing

this also it is possible to understanding the Real is no matter of

judgment at all.

Mileage varies on this of course!

regards,

--

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Sell your cleverness

and buy bewilderment.

Cleverness is mere

opinion. Bewilderment

brings intuitive

knowledge. -Rumi, ra

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

[Guest guest]

>

robert writes:

> It seems to me the human mind is programmed for many types of unifying

> mystical experience, that such " grace " can be achieved in many ways and

> represents through many images and belief systems - whilst the unbidden

> and

> " mercurial " experience seems to me to be something which relates to the

> more mysterious transformational and seemingly goal oriented behaviour of

> the activated archetype.

,

I agree with most of your interpretation of the numinous. Von Franz writes

in " Psyche and Matter " about Zosimos' idea that one must disciminate

carefully the things that come from the spirit. He made a distinction

between the so-called " kairikai baphai " , synchronistic events that came

from a complex, and those that came from the Self.

For me, the things that come from a complex do not seem to flow well into a

painting. They give themselves away by appearing stunted (also not

possessing the ability to grow) in comparison to other contents that have

been revealed.

Carol