Re: Re: Matritism

January 31, 2006

Dear and Dan,

Thanks for answering Dan for me, . I could never understand why it was

not possible for an intelligent source to set evolution on its way and let

it take its course.

maybe this should be in capital letters and cut out:

" In no way does the acceptance of the theory of evolution negate the

> possibility of an objective consciousness. "

I don't see either/or

And why cannot evolution mean that Shakespeare and anyone else cannot

express meaning? All life can have meaning regardless if it started from an

amoeba or from a fully developed man....and dragon too, why not? The answer

may well be, that all Existence is G-d. That everything partakes of the One

being.

I do read your posts Dan, but I naturally assumed every intelligent person

can tell an intelligent theory is better than so called " intelligent

Design " which isn't. You actually believe the world is 6,000 years old?

Tell me why G-d, if he/she /it exists couldn't have found evolution as

easily as Darwin proposed it, please?

, I never thought of " Natural law " flowing down from on high. I

thought Natural law was what made gravity what it is. One doesn't need an

angel messenger to figure out many of the so called " natural laws.

We human beings seem to make rules, and then insist G-d follow them. maybe

we have it backwards???? Just because we don't understand something doesn't

mean it cannot exist, does it?

need or belief...

Those who sense, intuit or feel something which they cannot fit into any

known characterization have a need? to believe in something.? But those who

don't are not needy and can become the masters of their own soul and fate?

is that what you want to say?

Whether each person has a need for meaning in his life, is a good question.

it seems that there are enough people who do, to warrant the assumption that

it fulfills a human need. Whether each person then feels he needs to believe

someone else's explanation for that meaning is a secondary subject.

Human beings are indeed needy. Everyone of us, those who admit it and are

realists, those who refuse to admit it and live their own unreality. I do

not consider it shameful to admit that meaning makes my life worthwhile to

me, and gives me some understanding of human nature, and the world around

me. That is not the problem at all.

It also explains to me, temporarily, that what i experience and therefore

know, is not totally crazy or thought up by me.It is a temporary answer, the

best I can live with, until and if, at some time I will have more ability to

see into mystery.

The problem develops when we actually believe we have the answers to the

mystery of life.

AS long as we assume what we believe and know is exactly what Truth is, we

are on very shaky ground. If we were to admit we can know very little of the

BIG questions in human life, and adopt a possible answer based on our

experience, we are being intelligent, and using what we have, to think about

the unknown.

It is always those who have not had a " world-shaking experience " who deny

they( the experience) exist at all. If Dan has not had it, he could claim

the rest of us " needy " or fools, because he personally has not had that

experience. ( Dan, I am just using you as an example...I take my conclusion

to what you have written for years. If I misconstrued everything, I

apologize))

Other very intelligent people admit they have no idea yea or nay. They at

least have open minds. Those who have personally experienced an event which

convinces them of some truth, will never deny it.

And even those who believe in some sort of evolution can be people of faith

if they expand their UNknowledge of the Source of All to include the ability

to set up such a system if it is His/Her/It's will.

The word " hope " and " trust " are part of most people' s understanding of who

they are, where they are ,How they are and ,how they will be. Even those who

are so all-fired sure they have all the answers, must know deep inside that

there is always a chance they are wrong...or humility is totally absent.

I keep wondering as I get older why intelligent people seem to think they

can and must have all the answers. There are even things evident to many

human beings that I cannot understand, why should I expect to know the

secrets of the Universe? Couldn't it be possible that some Mind, Force,

Source knows Existence and we do not?

I don't want to start a fight, but are all ideas of creation, birth, death

the cosmos, infantile? May they not be the only available truth so far.(

perhaps known as myth)...if true, or what may someday be partially true? or

even false? I resent " infantile " because it is a judgment made by one

imperfect being of another, and I, personally do not think any of us can

make such judgments.

Not one of us imperfect beings has the answers...maybe we just shouldn't

judge the experiences of others, since we have no absolute scale to put it

on.

Didn't Jung say, everything is projection to us? And unconscious at that?

, I await your new article with baited breath.

Toni

Re: Re: Matritism

> Dear , At 06:52 AM 1/31/2006, you wrote:

>

>>Please read my posts before you respond to them. What I said was that, if

>>the evolution narrative is true, *then* the necessary conclusion is that

>>life is a tale told by an idiot. I made a conditional statement. As you

>>know from recent discussion, I am not ready to give the ghost on the

>>evolution fight yet. It can be argued that the whole of life is

>>intelligent. When a leukocyte attacks a cancerous cell, that, at least

>>arguably, is intelligent behavior.

>

> In no way does the acceptance of the theory of evolution negate the

> possibility of an objective consciousness.

>

> What it does do, and this is what frightens most people, is that it

> negates

> most of our infantile ideas of " God out there " and some sort of moral law

> which flows from on high.

>

> The problems with such discussion is that rather than it being held within

> any logical or scientific consensus, it is clouded with endless

> projections

> of need and belief.

>

> Anyway, the whole thing is the subject of a new article by yours truly.

> Details when available.

>

> regards,

February 1, 2006

Dear , at 01:06 AM 2/1/2006, you wrote:

>I agree that this is true about *a* theory of evolution - as I have said

>before, it is pretty clear that complex species are somehow derived from

>simpler - but it is not clear that it is true of Darwin's theory of

>evolution. Darwin's theory require no intelligence, no objective

>consciousness - just random accidents.

Neither does any other - all evolutionary science proceeds from the

materialist standpoint. I was not suggesting that an evolutionary system

requires an inbuilt metaphysical component - but simply that the operation

and function of evolution does not preclude the idea of an objective

consciousness - indeed such a notion stands outside the boundaries of

evolutionary thinking, ie, the two notions are unrelated, the existence or

non existence of either one does not affect the other. No more say than is

the existence or non existence of god implied within the carefully

understood mechanism of genetic replication.

We might argue forever regarding the projected implications of a technical

system which appears out of nowhere. But the point is that it exists, that

it is the way things work. Why it is that way and no other might be

inferred from the physical laws in place, but why it exists at all is a

question outside the bounds of the investigative science. That such

questions " ought " to be relevant to the science is a moot point. Expecting

scientists to also implicate particular philosophical ideals through their

work is the very reason why they do not do so. Such things lie outside

science as a practice.

Then we end up with silly elementary school type questions like: " Would god

create a universe in which atomic bombs were possible? "

I think it is time we started to think a little more sensibly about the

world. Some people are - but their voices are few.

>I had been in the habit of thinking of Darwin as a straight-forward,

>ingenuous scientist. This was naive of me. It has been pointed out to me

>recently that there is every reason to believe that Darwin was in fact a

>political philosopher of sorts, with a political teaching and a political

>agenda. That teaching was eugenics, and that agenda was improvement of the

>race through selection and selective breeding.

Unfortunately for the notion, if selective breeding any more specialised

than what nature has done already brought about further improvements to

anything, then nature would be doing it - would have done it already.

Apparently there is a balance in such things which ought not be tampered

with. In electronics it is a well understood law that selectivity is gained

at the cost of information. Nature seems to be organised to maximise over

the broadest range of its operations. Good housekeeping practice.

> >What it does do, and this is what frightens most people, >is that it

> negates

> >most of our infantile ideas of " God out there " and some >sort of moral law

> >which flows from on high.

>

>Those ideas are archetypal and necessary, and hence will not disappear. In

>America, they are reflected in the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism.

>Europe has chosen a different path, preferring to import its

>fundamentalsim in the form of radical Islamists.

The political effects of knowledge are the problem of the city. If the city

should decide that knowledge is expendable for the sake of political calm -

then yes, we will be back haunting our cellars with our vials and stove.

But that ain't gonna happen and you know it. Regardless of the widespread

discussion of and adoption by the ignorant of such childish systems of

belief - or shall we say, adoption of their childish aspects - the facts

of daily life are overwhelming and such ideas are at best in the minority.

The world might be heading straight down the path towards technological

madness - no... actually it is already there. But to want to swap it for

religious madness is simply blindness, a turning away from the brink our

awareness has brought us to, a turning back to childhood and the demons of

the past.

If there is to be a future - ie, any future I want my descendants to be a

part of - then it damn well better be a future in which truth is paramount,

a future where responsibility is accepted. This means learning to live with

knowledge, not deny its potentials. And that doesn't mean mobile phones for

everyone or anti gravity cars or vacations on the moon. It means a future

in which technology becomes secondary to human truths. But that ain't gonna

happen either. Thus I live as quietly as possible and think only about that

which excites my mind. I told someone many years ago that I would rather be

dead than live in the future. I have found no reason to retract that remark.

>Given that needs are needs, and that the beliefs are among the needs, the

>kind of discussion you call for cannot be held outside the scientific

>community - hence scientists speak up in public, are blindsided by the

>reaction, and retreat in puzzlement. If they would speak to the public at

>large, they better wise up.

On the whole, the problem is that investigative science has reached its

limits in many areas and now stares out across a void which can only be

crossed by accepting certain philosophic principles. Science cannot do this

- thus it idles its time away upon fantasies of science and technological

exploitation of discovered principles. We have come to the end of the road,

you see. In many areas science has finally met the dark spectre of its own

emptiness. Now it too, like the lone man without hope, must discover - and

accept - what lies beneath.

But this does not implicate regression to childhood. It requires much more

than that. Jung knew this.

regards,

February 1, 2006

writes:

>Then we end up with silly elementary school type questions >like: " Would god

create a universe in which atomic bombs were >possible? "

Such a question may be as profound as it appears silly.

Perhaps I would ask it this way: By creating a world in which the human

occupants on our planet are required to resolve their psychic dilemmas as a

means of their common survival, what could be a greater challenge/opportunity

than that? What a divinely-inspired challenge to us, requiring ALL we have to

resolve. I happen to believe the it is just such an opportunity that we are

rapidly approaching, sad to say. It is facing the ultimate darkness that we find

the seeds of the ultimate (saving) Light. As within, so without. But the

solution to this riddle requires Involution as well as Evolution. The latter is

focused on the material, as you suggest. The former resides in the world of

" sense " but latter much more akin to the world of " non-sense, " ironically, thus

is unattainable to the tyranically rationalist mind characteristic of so many -

including those in positions of great power and influence. What a dilemma; what

a challenge.....thank God. And we can be either

optimists or cynics, the choice is truly our own.

Greg

_______________________________________________

Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com

The most personalized portal on the Web!

February 1, 2006

:"I think it is time we started to think a little more sensibly about the world. Some people are - but their voices are few."

Betty: Thanks for your help in this area.

: On the whole, the problem is that investigative science has reached its limits in many areas and now stares out across a void which can only be crossed by accepting certain philosophic principles. Science cannot do this - thus it idles its time away upon fantasies of science and technological exploitation of discovered principles. We have come to the end of the road, you see. In many areas science has finally met the dark spectre of its own emptiness. Now it too, like the lone man without hope, must discover - and accept - what lies beneath.But this does not implicate regression to childhood. It requires much more than that. Jung knew this.

Betty: Dan, I think in his answer, said this cannot happen with the masses. They need their belief. But progress always comes with the enlightenment of a few, even though progress is slow, it will happen. It is what we do with "the dark spectre of" our "own emptiness" Some will continue to try and understand and not be stopped by conditioning.

I will add an astrology overlay, I think this is an Aquarian characteristic, so it may be in our future even though it may creep in slowly over the next 2000 years. [:-)

love,Betty

Re: Re: Matritism

February 1, 2006

Wouldn't it be possible to admit we have no idea why creation is as it, and

therefore trusting in the universe or the Existence, The Source, that it

will finally result in an Existence as One, with all creators having

attained their highest possibilities. Why try to make a human end to what

was neither established or created by human kind.

Why human beings always succumb to unpleasant ends, makes me think that it

is better, they think, to assume the worst as only a human being would, then

one has no cause for fear...it is then out there for everyone...and we heave

a sigh of relief. Our worst fears were correct.

Things certainly look dark, and we human beings are known for assuming G-d

Almightiness and deciding exactly what the Creator, should there be One has

in mind.WE then assume, there being no Creator, one of the creatures can

stop it all and throw away a universe.

Doesn't that make anyone a little edgy about hubris? And confirm the

universe is not benign?.Does that improve life? Reminds me of " apres moi le

deluge "

It costs no more than to hope for the best and thank whatever Source there

is, that it is not we who must make this decision. Why are so many human

beings so set on violence and destruction, we even mistranslate and

misunderstand Scripture and blame it all on G-d's patience having worn

thin.And if we cannot believe that we can always invent and use nuclear

power.What we resist, persist. Can we by denying the future, help its

destruction? Or are we just stubborn enough not to believe in any future? We

just frighten ourselves with dismal thoughts of DOOM

If anyone who feels this way could sit in my chair, and in my body and mind,

my psyche, they would cancel Armageddon immediately. I, by grace , do not

know despair and see us human beings muddling around for eons until the sun

burns out. I do not deny pain and suffering at all ( I am not crazy, yet)

But the glories of the human spirit and divinity can not be denied either.Or

it really so hard to admit " I do not know "

Weren't there once in more innocent (?) times, virtues called Hope, Trust

and love. Must we tear everything up for the pure hell of it?

one tired old woman who celebrates life.

Toni

Re: Re: Matritism

>

> writes:

>

>>Then we end up with silly elementary school type questions >like: " Would

>>god create a universe in which atomic bombs were >possible? "

>

> Such a question may be as profound as it appears silly.

>

> Perhaps I would ask it this way: By creating a world in which the human

> occupants on our planet are required to resolve their psychic dilemmas as

> a means of their common survival, what could be a greater

> challenge/opportunity than that? What a divinely-inspired challenge to us,

> requiring ALL we have to resolve. I happen to believe the it is just such

> an opportunity that we are rapidly approaching, sad to say. It is facing

> the ultimate darkness that we find the seeds of the ultimate (saving)

> Light. As within, so without. But the solution to this riddle requires

> Involution as well as Evolution. The latter is focused on the material, as

> you suggest. The former resides in the world of " sense " but latter much

> more akin to the world of " non-sense, " ironically, thus is unattainable to

> the tyranically rationalist mind characteristic of so many - including

> those in positions of great power and influence. What a dilemma; what a

> challenge.....thank God. And we can be either

> optimists or cynics, the choice is truly our own.

>

> Greg

February 1, 2006

Dear Greg, at 01:20 AM 2/2/2006, you wrote:

>Perhaps I would ask it this way: By creating a world in which the human

>occupants on our planet are required to resolve their psychic dilemmas as

>a means of their common survival, what could be a greater

>challenge/opportunity than that? What a divinely-inspired challenge to us,

>requiring ALL we have to resolve. I happen to believe the it is just such

>an opportunity that we are rapidly approaching, sad to say. It is facing

>the ultimate darkness that we find the seeds of the ultimate (saving)

>Light. As within, so without. But the solution to this riddle requires

>Involution as well as Evolution. The latter is focused on the material, as

>you suggest. The former resides in the world of " sense " but latter much

>more akin to the world of " non-sense, " ironically, thus is unattainable to

>the tyranically rationalist mind characteristic of so many - including

>those in positions of great power and influence. What a dilemma; what a

>challenge.....thank God. And we can be either

>optimists or cynics, the choice is truly our own.

I mean no disrespect, but your re-formulation of the question simply begs

the same response.

What I mean is that it continues to formulate within the essentially

childish notion that god is a great father out there and we are his

children who are here to follow his great plan in one way or another.

The fact that you speak of the " human population " reintroduces the old

notion that only people have souls - ie, an implication from the notion of

consciousness being a special or distinctly human acquisition, that it is

an expression of " soul " etc.

Also the quaint notion that there is a progressive metaphysic behind the

universe, rather than the mere " unfolding " of all that is - that this

progressive or purposeful metaphysic has somehow been built in to the way

we work and that this was the work of some external agency.

Now all the dynamics here " might " be true in some way - but see if you can

formulate them minus " god in heaven " - in fact minus god altogether - and

maybe you will see a more mature formulation of things begin to take shape,

or at least the deep question which the sticking plaster of " god out there "

has covered for millenia.

love,

February 1, 2006

The only issue as re "psychospiritual" development seems to me to be the question; "are we growing out of each little self-getting over our 'selves':-) to allow us to become more of our Self?" Traditional theological models presume we do that from the "outside in," while traditional non-theistic ones postulate an "inside-out" approach. Then there are views of an "unus mundus", that see no ultimate inside-outside distinction-Self-ing as simultaneously ground and goal. If the word/concept "God" gets in your way, guess we can always figure out what needs to be released in the moment-the word concept or the internal reaciton to it.:-) Take care, Earl --- G Heyward wrote: Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:12:26 +0800To: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Re: MatritismDear Greg, at 01:20 AM 2/2/2006, you wrote:>Perhaps I would ask it this way: By creating a world in which the human >occupants on our planet are required to resolve their psychic dilemmas as >a means of their common survival, what could be a greater >challenge/opportunity than that? What a divinely-inspired challenge to us, >requiring ALL we have to resolve. I happen to believe the it is just such >an opportunity that we are rapidly approaching, sad to say. It is facing >the ultimate darkness that we find the seeds of the ultimate (saving) >Light. As within, so without. But the solution to this riddle requires >Involution as well as Evolution. The latter is focused on the material, as >you suggest. The former resides in the world of "sense" but latter much >more akin to the world of "non-sense," ironically, thus is unattainable to >the tyranically rationalist mind characteristic of so many - including >those in positions of great power and influence. What a dilemma; what a >challenge.....thank God. And we can be either>optimists or cynics, the choice is truly our own.I mean no disrespect, but your re-formulation of the question simply begs the same response.What I mean is that it continues to formulate within the essentially childish notion that god is a great father out there and we are his children who are here to follow his great plan in one way or another.The fact that you speak of the "human population" reintroduces the old notion that only people have souls - ie, an implication from the notion of consciousness being a special or distinctly human acquisition, that it is an expression of "soul" etc.Also the quaint notion that there is a progressive metaphysic behind the universe, rather than the mere "unfolding" of all that is - that this progressive or purposeful metaphysic has somehow been built in to the way we work and that this was the work of some external agency.Now all the dynamics here "might" be true in some way - but see if you can formulate them minus "god in heaven" - in fact minus god altogether - and maybe you will see a more mature formulation of things begin to take shape, or at least the deep question which the sticking plaster of "god out there" has covered for millenia.love, Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

February 2, 2006

Earl, ,

You said:

"Traditional theological models presume we do that from the "outside in," while traditional non-theistic ones postulate an "inside-out" approach"

This is news to me, and I have been aware of and on "traditional modes" just to an extent. I am not sure, I understand how it can even be done "outside in". If one follows tradition, there are various steps which lead to the unitive, which very few seem to be able to reach, mostly because of the discouragement of the hierarchy...who never really understood either meditation or contemplation available to ordinary people.

In modern theology, I think the light bulb went off, and although dualism cannot be escaped in normal living, In contemplation one has the unitive approach which knows that All is One.

In fact many authors say that one is stuck in the illuminatory stage as long as we carry our ego with us. Ego is what must go,( or the small self) or be subsumed to be aware of the Self. To get from you and me, to us All, to suddenly see no separation, is in my opinion a great grace that we must work on constantly.Christianity and Judaism is often accused of duality, therefore somehow below other religions, but it is a false understanding of traditional teaching. If it remains G-d and me, is right. But many realize that the next step is essential for truth. If G-d is Existence, I am part of that existence and an "outpressing" of G-d. Even the old traditionalists say "we are all One in the spirit"

I also heartily agree that all creation is included...even though Christianity and Judaism first tried "man as master of all he surveyed." We have become somewhat more humble and realize we are only part of creation which we must serve, instead of having all creation bow and serve the human being.

It is actually the Church which thought dualistically and insisted that it was necessary to interpret G-d to man. The Early writing clearly have no such intent, and says we are all gods, as well as we are all One in G-d. But wait...where would that leave the Church? we would intuit instead of learning dogma and doctrine, and the Church would have much less impact, assigned finally to do ritual and serve the community.

I sure don't see us :

"growing out of each little self-getting over our 'selves':-) to allow us to become more of our Self?"" That takes consciousness and I personally have doubts that all mankind is "there" already. In fact a lot of awareness is necessary if we are to first identify the "I" and then to let it go. That surrender is not a common teaching yet and I doubt many people, even "believers" are prepared to die to self.

I also do not find that easy. Much easier for G-d to be a father out there running things. All I would have to do is obey the law. To take on being One, is a far more mature stage to which we are all still aiming. (well, some are). I don't think we can see ourselves anything but separate, which is of course why our language has subject and object Jung talked of the opposites being united in the transcendent (2 steps, I guess) I could never get that straight, because I then envisioned "the middle". That doesn't sound very exalted, and still very human.

Personally I prefer to think of "I", "me" having to move over , and perhaps "out " to be the glorious end of it all. Creation is One, in my opinion. We individualists have a lot to learn along the way, although I expect one always keeps the essential identity...as an outpressing .

Personally I think "dying to self" as it used to be called, or "surrender" is the greatest job we are in this world for, and that will come when we are conscious enough to know that love is the answer to this and every other so called problem. But that takes a complete turn around, perhaps a number of times for each of us to finally see and admit.

As I see it, we are either all One or we are nothing...Kind of hard to imagine a lone "soul" wandering alone out there in the universe, ...

Toni

Re: Re: Matritism

The only issue as re "psychospiritual" development seems to me to be the question; "are we growing out of each little self-getting over our 'selves':-) to allow us to become more of our Self?" Traditional theological models presume we do that from the "outside in," while traditional non-theistic ones postulate an "inside-out" approach. Then there are views of an "unus mundus", that see no ultimate inside-outside distinction-Self-ing as simultaneously ground and goal. If the word/concept "God" gets in your way, guess we can always figure out what needs to be released in the moment-the word concept or the internal reaciton to it.:-) Take care, Earl --- G Heyward wrote: Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:12:26 +0800To: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Re: MatritismDear Greg, at 01:20 AM 2/2/2006, you wrote:>Perhaps I would ask it this way: By creating a world in which the human >occupants on our planet are required to resolve their psychic dilemmas as >a means of their common survival, what could be a greater >challenge/opportunity than that? What a divinely-inspired challenge to us, >requiring ALL we have to resolve. I happen to believe the it is just such >an opportunity that we are rapidly approaching, sad to say. It is facing >the ultimate darkness that we find the seeds of the ultimate (saving) >Light. As within, so without. But the solution to this riddle requires >Involution as well as Evolution. The latter is focused on the material, as >you suggest. The former resides in the world of "sense" but latter much >more akin to the world of "non-sense," ironically, thus is unattainable to >the tyranically rationalist mind characteristic of so many - including >those in positions of great power and influence. What a dilemma; what a >challenge.....thank God. And we can be either>optimists or cynics, the choice is truly our own.I mean no disrespect, but your re-formulation of the question simply begs the same response.What I mean is that it continues to formulate within the essentially childish notion that god is a great father out there and we are his children who are here to follow his great plan in one way or another.The fact that you speak of the "human population" reintroduces the old notion that only people have souls - ie, an implication from the notion of consciousness being a special or distinctly human acquisition, that it is an expression of "soul" etc.Also the quaint notion that there is a progressive metaphysic behind the universe, rather than the mere "unfolding" of all that is - that this progressive or purposeful metaphysic has somehow been built in to the way we work and that this was the work of some external agency.Now all the dynamics here "might" be true in some way - but see if you can formulate them minus "god in heaven" - in fact minus god altogether - and maybe you will see a more mature formulation of things begin to take shape, or at least the deep question which the sticking plaster of "god out there" has covered for millenia.love,

February 2, 2006

Hey Toni. By traditional "outside-in" approaches, I meant theologies that put "God out there-" a Creator that may be tending its creation tenderly from afar or neutrally indifferent depending on the belief system. A rather mechanistic view. Indeed there are other theological views and if one opts to or "called to" follow a more contemplative, mystical direction within theological traditions even if starting from the "outside-in" direction seems to take on a bit more of the flavor of "inside-out." Then you have approaches like Buddhism that appear to take at the outset an "inside-out" approach in that they don't postulate a "Creator God," but seek to point folks to discover that deep within their very natures lies Absolute Truth. Interestingly there are traditions within Buddhism that actually in a way utilize a bit of an "outside-in" approach-Pureland Buddhism for eg-referred to as "other power" vs. what is often referred to as "self-power" in Zen as Zen emphasizes the efforts of the seeker to find vs. Pureland's tendency to emphasize surrender and tend to use devotional practices. Have seen experienced Zen practitioners discuss the irony that embracing some of the "other" power of a Pureland practice is assistive to them in that at least at a subtle level when one embraces a "self-power" path one can also reinforce the "self" that clings. I see your post in a way pointing to these issues. So, is "the Way" really an "outside-in" approach or an "inside-out" approach? "The Tao that can be described is not the Tao.";-) Take care, Earl --- "vienna19311" wrote: Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:06:59 -0500To: <JUNG-FIRE >Subject: Re: Re: Matritism

Earl, ,

You said:

"Traditional theological models presume we do that from the "outside in," while traditional non-theistic ones postulate an "inside-out" approach"

This is news to me, and I have been aware of and on "traditional modes" just to an extent. I am not sure, I understand how it can even be done "outside in". If one follows tradition, there are various steps which lead to the unitive, which very few seem to be able to reach, mostly because of the discouragement of the hierarchy...who never really understood either meditation or contemplation available to ordinary people.

In modern theology, I think the light bulb went off, and although dualism cannot be escaped in normal living, In contemplation one has the unitive approach which knows that All is One.

In fact many authors say that one is stuck in the illuminatory stage as long as we carry our ego with us. Ego is what must go,( or the small self) or be subsumed to be aware of the Self. To get from you and me, to us All, to suddenly see no separation, is in my opinion a great grace that we must work on constantly.Christianity and Judaism is often accused of duality, therefore somehow below other religions, but it is a false understanding of traditional teaching. If it remains G-d and me, is right. But many realize that the next step is essential for truth. If G-d is Existence, I am part of that existence and an "outpressing" of G-d. Even the old traditionalists say "we are all One in the spirit"

I also heartily agree that all creation is included...even though Christianity and Judaism first tried "man as master of all he surveyed." We have become somewhat more humble and realize we are only part of creation which we must serve, instead of having all creation bow and serve the human being.

It is actually the Church which thought dualistically and insisted that it was necessary to interpret G-d to man. The Early writing clearly have no such intent, and says we are all gods, as well as we are all One in G-d. But wait...where would that leave the Church? we would intuit instead of learning dogma and doctrine, and the Church would have much less impact, assigned finally to do ritual and serve the community.

I sure don't see us :

"growing out of each little self-getting over our 'selves':-) to allow us to become more of our Self?"" That takes consciousness and I personally have doubts that all mankind is "there" already. In fact a lot of awareness is necessary if we are to first identify the "I" and then to let it go. That surrender is not a common teaching yet and I doubt many people, even "believers" are prepared to die to self.

I also do not find that easy. Much easier for G-d to be a father out there running things. All I would have to do is obey the law. To take on being One, is a far more mature stage to which we are all still aiming. (well, some are). I don't think we can see ourselves anything but separate, which is of course why our language has subject and object Jung talked of the opposites being united in the transcendent (2 steps, I guess) I could never get that straight, because I then envisioned "the middle". That doesn't sound very exalted, and still very human.

Personally I prefer to think of "I", "me" having to move over , and perhaps "out " to be the glorious end of it all. Creation is One, in my opinion. We individualists have a lot to learn along the way, although I expect one always keeps the essential identity...as an outpressing .

Personally I think "dying to self" as it used to be called, or "surrender" is the greatest job we are in this world for, and that will come when we are conscious enough to know that love is the answer to this and every other so called problem. But that takes a complete turn around, perhaps a number of times for each of us to finally see and admit.

As I see it, we are either all One or we are nothing...Kind of hard to imagine a lone "soul" wandering alone out there in the universe, ...

Toni

Re: Re: Matritism

The only issue as re "psychospiritual" development seems to me to be the question; "are we growing out of each little self-getting over our 'selves':-) to allow us to become more of our Self?" Traditional theological models presume we do that from the "outside in," while traditional non-theistic ones postulate an "inside-out" approach. Then there are views of an "unus mundus", that see no ultimate inside-outside distinction-Self-ing as simultaneously ground and goal. If the word/concept "God" gets in your way, guess we can always figure out what needs to be released in the moment-the word concept or the internal reaciton to it.:-) Take care, Earl --- G Heyward wrote: Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:12:26 +0800To: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Re: MatritismDear Greg, at 01:20 AM 2/2/2006, you wrote:>Perhaps I would ask it this way: By creating a world in which the human >occupants on our planet are required to resolve their psychic dilemmas as >a means of their common survival, what could be a greater >challenge/opportunity than that? What a divinely-inspired challenge to us, >requiring ALL we have to resolve. I happen to believe the it is just such >an opportunity that we are rapidly approaching, sad to say. It is facing >the ultimate darkness that we find the seeds of the ultimate (saving) >Light. As within, so without. But the solution to this riddle requires >Involution as well as Evolution. The latter is focused on the material, as >you suggest. The former resides in the world of "sense" but latter much >more akin to the world of "non-sense," ironically, thus is unattainable to >the tyranically rationalist mind characteristic of so many - including >those in positions of great power and influence. What a dilemma; what a >challenge.....thank God. And we can be either>optimists or cynics, the choice is truly our own.I mean no disrespect, but your re-formulation of the question simply begs the same response.What I mean is that it continues to formulate within the essentially childish notion that god is a great father out there and we are his children who are here to follow his great plan in one way or another.The fact that you speak of the "human population" reintroduces the old notion that only people have souls - ie, an implication from the notion of consciousness being a special or distinctly human acquisition, that it is an expression of "soul" etc.Also the quaint notion that there is a progressive metaphysic behind the universe, rather than the mere "unfolding" of all that is - that this progressive or purposeful metaphysic has somehow been built in to the way we work and that this was the work of some external agency.Now all the dynamics here "might" be true in some way - but see if you can formulate them minus "god in heaven" - in fact minus god altogether - and maybe you will see a more mature formulation of things begin to take shape, or at least the deep question which the sticking plaster of "god out there" has covered for millenia.love, Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

February 5, 2006

At 12:06 PM 31/01/2006, Dan wrote:

I had been in the

habit of thinking of Darwin as a straight-forward, ingenuous scientist.

This was naive of me. It has been pointed out to me recently that there

is every reason to believe that Darwin was in fact a political

philosopher of sorts, with a political teaching and a political agenda.

That teaching was eugenics, and that agenda was improvement of the race

through selection and selective breeding

Can you say more about this, Dan? I'm more than curious, since it

puts the theory in a whole different light.

:-)

Maureen

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who

looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside awakens.

-- Carl

Gustav Jung

February 5, 2006

Dear Earl,

in, out , It makes it all too confusing. Either, the Kingdom of G-d is within or it isn't. Christianity sounds dualistic because of our manner of speaking. In the end it is not. One considers either one's self as part of G-d, or the God is within that person .Myth does establish a god above and beyond, and many people still today "sound" as if they speak to Someone outside themselves. That is because they either cannot or will not see the kingdom of G-d. within.

I see the Buddhists no where in this as they do not believe in a creator G-d as you say.I also personally posit Absolute Truth with G-d and not with or in " human beings", or perhaps we can say, human beings cannot access Absolute Truth separatedly from G-d.

And as far as descriibing what my Image of the Image of G-d, I can do that, until I realize I am speaking of an Image I made. Almost everyone is aware that we have absolutely no way to describe or know G-d, or which some find even more unknowable, the G-dhead. Whatever we say is G-d, the opposite is also true. It is a fact known to all universal religions, but in order to attact those not yet aware, as with those of lesser consciousness, we deal with an anthropomorfic image.(subject and object)

I find it dangerous to believe we human beings can access Absolute Truth, since funamentalists of all stripes acknowledge that...for themselves or their Book/teaching.

And as for mystics of all religions, Mystics know that there is no clinging at all. They all teach the same, and I get restive when one view is disparaged because we then get too close to fanaticism, or "I have the Truth" way of thinking. Christians mystics like those of other spiritual faiths understand the perils of clinging as one of the first lessons taught. Indeed the idea is to lose the self completely or one is again in dualism. It also seems to me, that mystics everywhere must first surrender and continually make that sacrifice or they will never be a "mystic" as the word is commonly used.That usually starts with an "awakening". One doesn't usually just slip or fall into it.

I am not certain, but contrary to what you seemed to say about people getting there themselves, Christian mystics believe everything is grace in those reaches and like contemplation comes only when and if the grace is first given. Human beings do not initiate the contact, they must just be open to it. That has always been tradition teaching, and I feel it is corect.

But you know, this is a subject best left undiscussed, at least by me. Those who are mystics don't wear haloes or signs, and go about their work like of Avila being thoroughly human, even with faults, and unless in a position to teach, seldom indulge in conversations of their intimate relationship with the All or the One.( It is almost impossible for a true mystic to become inFlated because they absolutely know, it is not they, never in anyway, who "accomplished" or was "especially chosen'. It is all G-d's work. There is of course among other good reasons, the fact they will inevitably not be understood or worse. Like with of the Cross, there always seems to be an Inquisition lurking about...if not in fact at least in those around who cannot understand...and therefore resent or envy.

In the end, I know all will find the way, and no one is "one up" by their striving or their own will.

Yes, thank you, I do try to "take care", and you too.

Toni

Original Message -----

From: cyndiandearl@...

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:56 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Matritism

Hey Toni. By traditional "outside-in" approaches, I meant theologies that put "God out there-" a Creator that may be tending its creation tenderly from afar or neutrally indifferent depending on the belief system. A rather mechanistic view. Indeed there are other theological views and if one opts to or "called to" follow a more contemplative, mystical direction within theological traditions even if starting from the "outside-in" direction seems to take on a bit more of the flavor of "inside-out." Then you have approaches like Buddhism that appear to take at the outset an "inside-out" approach in that they don't postulate a "Creator God," but seek to point folks to discover that deep within their very natures lies Absolute Truth. Interestingly there are traditions within Buddhism that actually in a way utilize a bit of an "outside-in" approach-Pureland Buddhism for eg-referred to as "other power" vs. what is often referred to as "self-power" in Zen as Zen emphasizes the efforts of the seeker to find vs. Pureland's tendency to emphasize surrender and tend to use devotional practices. Have seen experienced Zen practitioners discuss the irony that embracing some of the "other" power of a Pureland practice is assistive to them in that at least at a subtle level when one embraces a "self-power" path one can also reinforce the "self" that clings. I see your post in a way pointing to these issues. So, is "the Way" really an "outside-in" approach or an "inside-out" approach? "The Tao that can be described is not the Tao.";-) Take care, Earl --- "vienna19311" wrote: Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:06:59 -0500To: <JUNG-FIRE >Subject: Re: Re: Matritism

Earl, ,

You said:

"Traditional theological models presume we do that from the "outside in," while traditional non-theistic ones postulate an "inside-out" approach"

This is news to me, and I have been aware of and on "traditional modes" just to an extent. I am not sure, I understand how it can even be done "outside in". If one follows tradition, there are various steps which lead to the unitive, which very few seem to be able to reach, mostly because of the discouragement of the hierarchy...who never really understood either meditation or contemplation available to ordinary people.

In modern theology, I think the light bulb went off, and although dualism cannot be escaped in normal living, In contemplation one has the unitive approach which knows that All is One.

In fact many authors say that one is stuck in the illuminatory stage as long as we carry our ego with us. Ego is what must go,( or the small self) or be subsumed to be aware of the Self. To get from you and me, to us All, to suddenly see no separation, is in my opinion a great grace that we must work on constantly.Christianity and Judaism is often accused of duality, therefore somehow below other religions, but it is a false understanding of traditional teaching. If it remains G-d and me, is right. But many realize that the next step is essential for truth. If G-d is Existence, I am part of that existence and an "outpressing" of G-d. Even the old traditionalists say "we are all One in the spirit"

I also heartily agree that all creation is included...even though Christianity and Judaism first tried "man as master of all he surveyed." We have become somewhat more humble and realize we are only part of creation which we must serve, instead of having all creation bow and serve the human being.

It is actually the Church which thought dualistically and insisted that it was necessary to interpret G-d to man. The Early writing clearly have no such intent, and says we are all gods, as well as we are all One in G-d. But wait...where would that leave the Church? we would intuit instead of learning dogma and doctrine, and the Church would have much less impact, assigned finally to do ritual and serve the community.

I sure don't see us :

"growing out of each little self-getting over our 'selves':-) to allow us to become more of our Self?"" That takes consciousness and I personally have doubts that all mankind is "there" already. In fact a lot of awareness is necessary if we are to first identify the "I" and then to let it go. That surrender is not a common teaching yet and I doubt many people, even "believers" are prepared to die to self.

I also do not find that easy. Much easier for G-d to be a father out there running things. All I would have to do is obey the law. To take on being One, is a far more mature stage to which we are all still aiming. (well, some are). I don't think we can see ourselves anything but separate, which is of course why our language has subject and object Jung talked of the opposites being united in the transcendent (2 steps, I guess) I could never get that straight, because I then envisioned "the middle". That doesn't sound very exalted, and still very human.

Personally I prefer to think of "I", "me" having to move over , and perhaps "out " to be the glorious end of it all. Creation is One, in my opinion. We individualists have a lot to learn along the way, although I expect one always keeps the essential identity...as an outpressing .

Personally I think "dying to self" as it used to be called, or "surrender" is the greatest job we are in this world for, and that will come when we are conscious enough to know that love is the answer to this and every other so called problem. But that takes a complete turn around, perhaps a number of times for each of us to finally see and admit.

As I see it, we are either all One or we are nothing...Kind of hard to imagine a lone "soul" wandering alone out there in the universe, ...

Toni

February 5, 2006

If I were less cyber-illiterate could cut right to the specific comments you made, Toni, to which I wanted to respond as re that whole inside-outside thing. But, it was your discussion at the end re grace that gets at what I was trying to say. A traditional theistic Christian does indeed speak of "opening to Christ" & a form of "inviting in" something that is fundamentally "other" than oneself and achieve at best a "union" or "marriage." of "2 things." A panentheist of course might view it more as an opening to realizing what our very nature/ground might be and view it a bit more then as an "inside"-out search. Could make the same distinctions between the zen buddhists who view the search as all essentially self-generated effort, (all "inside"), vs. Pureland Buddhists, who in devotion to Amida Buddha as one who has already discovered "The Way" and can offer them "grace" in finding it within themselves, take on a bit more of an "outside" flavor. I could though drone on re how I see psychospiritual paths as ultimately a constant interweaving though between what we believe is inside & what we believe is outside and between effort and surrender/grace. But think I'll save more of that babbling for another day. Would say from the tone of your words though you certainly look for "God" to be as much "in you" as "out there." Have a good one, Earl --- "vienna19311" wrote: Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:58:29 -0500To: <JUNG-FIRE >Subject: Re: Re: Matritism