Unconscious/correction if you please...

[Guest guest]

HS

 

Re: 'Unconscious'/correction if you please...

 

Greetings Dharma and Antoine...

 

In your exchange below...

> Antoine <carrea

> Re: Secret Shame ...

>

> Whatever is unconscious is NOT conscious... by definition and

> > in fact.

> >

> > Love,

> > Dharma

>

> So i guess what i called "I" in my experience is unconscious, guess i

> will have to find another name for "I" if i want to be conscious

>

> Antoine

 

The correct use of the term 'the unconscious' is to denote a 'mind' which

_we are unconscious of_.

 

The term does not mean that the unconscioius IS unconscious, it means that

WE are unconscious of IT.

 

Antoine, your remark concerning CG Jung...

 

I offer that Jung constructed a ladder of many thousands of closely spaced

rungs. I have climbed up that ladder, in the days before my

'transcendence'. I have never regreted the work or time that I devoted to

that study... having read the Complete Collected Works of CG Jung (19

volumes) and many adjunct works as well. That was 'accomplished' at year

1977.

 

Since then, I have been able to use my Jungian knowledge as a bridge, to

help connect many others to the higher realms. Sometimes stilts, ladders,

or jet rocket-belts are quite useful. It is needful to remind that one

cannot hover forever, that one will eventually need to depend upon Grace

for support...

 

Just for fun, consider this:

 

The candle and the flame are integral; no candle, no flame. And if no

flame, just a hunk of wax.

 

The candle is the 'unconscious' and 'awareness' is the flame. The flame may

assume that it is independent, but if there is a disturbance in the supply

of wax, it wanes.

 

Similarly, the 'eye in the pyramid'... one small 'I' on top of a vast array

of blocks. It is that structure which supports the 'eye'... as awareness.

The pyrimid itself is the unconscious, usually neglected by the 'I' of

awareness.

 

The 'I' of awareness, looking outward and busy with life's tasks, may

assume that it is independent. But it is supported by a very deep

foundation, of immense stability.

 

The eye... may look 'down within' and find the closest foundational

structures, such as later-life conditioning. But it is unusual for any 'I'

to be able to peer at its own deepest roots. Not impossible, I say, just

rare.

 

These are models of how to think of 'the unconscious'. The unconscious is

not a passive storehouse of past information, etc. It is... a powerful

dynamic (like an Alpha quad-processor server).

 

The ancient Polynesian/Hawaiian 'religion' of Huna states that 'the

unconscious' is 'the low self'... the repository of memory and the

originator of all primal/instinctual urges, similar to the 'id' of Freud.

Later interpreters/practitioners ( Kahuna) state that we may consider the

'low self' to be similar in nature to a very intelligent dog... one which

needs recognition, love, and thanks for the constant work of keeping us

alive and responsive. Alienation of self from body... harbingers the

failure of *memory*, instinct, and eventually immunity...

 

Please do not take anything that I have said here, to indicate that I

'believe' in the unconscious. It is that it happens to be, for many, a very

useful (if later seen to be distracting!) concept.

 

Just for fun... the next time you misplace your car-keys, be still, and

close your eyes and 'ask' your 'low self'... your body/unconscious... to

send you a PICTURE or IMAGE of just where you left your keys. You may be

surprised by what is served to you...

 

25-year 'Jungian' and ex-member of the Society for Analytical Psychology...

 

 

==Gene Poole==

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 08/12/1999 6:43:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, magus

writes:

 

<< Just for fun, consider this:

 

The candle and the flame are integral; no candle, no flame. And if no

flame, just a hunk of wax.

>>

Laughing, I did. And, here's what I got, the Earth is born from the Sun, a

molten ball of wax, she cools, she forms waters, but she is the flame, and

within each of us we carry her flame.

 

Love*Light*Laughter,

a flameseeing rainbo

[Guest guest]

Hi Gene,

 

Good to hear from you again! Thanks for your post... it leads me to a

question:

 

I have seen many models and diagrams of the subconscious and the

superconscious in relation to the conscious and the unconscious... and

they don't all seem to be mutually compatible... or equally usable. You

said the unconscious is low self... but to some of us, low self seems to

be below the level of consciousness... in other words, subconscious. And

the levels of high self and spiritual gurus etc. seem to be above the

conscious level... or superconscious. But that also seems to be normally

in the unconscious.

 

Is there any particular model or understanding of this that seems to you to

be most useful?

 

Thanks.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hello Gene,

> Antoine, your remark concerning CG Jung...

 

Yes, it was if i remember correctly: "Jung did not think so".

> I offer that Jung constructed a ladder of many thousands of closely spaced

> rungs. I have climbed up that ladder, in the days before my

> 'transcendence'. I have never regreted the work or time that I devoted to

> that study... having read the Complete Collected Works of CG Jung (19

> volumes) and many adjunct works as well. That was 'accomplished' at year

> 1977.

>

> Since then, I have been able to use my Jungian knowledge as a bridge, to

> help connect many others to the higher realms. Sometimes stilts, ladders,

> or jet rocket-belts are quite useful. It is needful to remind that one

> cannot hover forever, that one will eventually need to depend upon Grace

> for support...

>

> Just for fun, consider this:

>

> The candle and the flame are integral; no candle, no flame. And if no

> flame, just a hunk of wax.

>

> The candle is the 'unconscious' and 'awareness' is the flame. The flame may

> assume that it is independent, but if there is a disturbance in the supply

> of wax, it wanes.

>

> Similarly, the 'eye in the pyramid'... one small 'I' on top of a vast array

> of blocks. It is that structure which supports the 'eye'... as awareness.

> The pyrimid itself is the unconscious, usually neglected by the 'I' of

> awareness.

>

> The 'I' of awareness, looking outward and busy with life's tasks, may

> assume that it is independent. But it is supported by a very deep

> foundation, of immense stability.

>

> The eye... may look 'down within' and find the closest foundational

> structures, such as later-life conditioning. But it is unusual for any 'I'

> to be able to peer at its own deepest roots. Not impossible, I say, just

> rare.

>

> These are models of how to think of 'the unconscious'. The unconscious is

> not a passive storehouse of past information, etc. It is... a powerful

> dynamic (like an Alpha quad-processor server).

>

> The ancient Polynesian/Hawaiian 'religion' of Huna states that 'the

> unconscious' is 'the low self'... the repository of memory and the

> originator of all primal/instinctual urges, similar to the 'id' of Freud.

> Later interpreters/practitioners ( Kahuna) state that we may consider the

> 'low self' to be similar in nature to a very intelligent dog... one which

> needs recognition, love, and thanks for the constant work of keeping us

> alive and responsive. Alienation of self from body... harbingers the

> failure of *memory*, instinct, and eventually immunity...

>

> Please do not take anything that I have said here, to indicate that I

> 'believe' in the unconscious. It is that it happens to be, for many, a very

> useful (if later seen to be distracting!) concept.

>

> Just for fun... the next time you misplace your car-keys, be still, and

> close your eyes and 'ask' your 'low self'... your body/unconscious... to

> send you a PICTURE or IMAGE of just where you left your keys. You may be

> surprised by what is served to you...

>

> 25-year 'Jungian' and ex-member of the Society for Analytical Psychology...

>

> ==Gene Poole==

 

I could certainly not say it in better terms than you.

 

Antoine

[Guest guest]

Dear Gene:

 

I enjoyed reading your remarks about Jung and the levels of the conscious,

unconscious and superconscious (when available, as it usually is booked up

solid).

 

I enjoyed the reading of Jung far more than reading Adler or Freud, as I

believe that Jung did not relate everything to guilt, to complex or to

residual imprinting on a psychoanalytical level. His understanding of

patterns, imprinting and even of transference, entrainment and he role of the

subconscious as a powerful instrument of adaptation (even when it is working

in a manner that is distorted) are clear and concise.

 

Jung was no doubt somewhat influenced by many of the experiences of religious

ecstasy and of the writings of the Jains, Buddhists and other mystics on the

topic of "No mind." Jung's practical nature seemed to accept many

fascinating aspects of the power of the mind rather better than many

scientists studying today. I often wonder why.

 

All of this begs the question (Zen question) of who asks "who am I" in the

mind, and if the subconscious which is an 80% stockholder in all of our

actions has been involved in that inner dialogue at all. I am tempted into

accepting the school of thought (big irony here) that we do not in fact

really "think" at all, but merely are machines capable of retransposing

memorized ideas and linking phrases and words to impulses and feelings. This

does not mean that we do not feel, but it indicates that what we say and

think we mean, when we speak or write is not related very closely to what we

are about on an interior level.

 

Many Buddhists would agree, as "right action" is as important as right

"speech" or right "thinking."

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Silly Rainbo:

 

How can there be a "within" if the flame and the candle are one?

 

So once you choose to say "I" you have begun to separate from the unity of

your being, by just being. When you don't say "I" that is when you are truly

you...merged within the light, flame and candle as one...but not when you try

to describe it.

 

Funny about that...

 

Blessings,

Love,

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Dear Melody:

 

Lovely and very wonderful example of the pebble and the water. This analogy

is used both by Socratic scholars as well as many Zen writers to express

exactly your perspective.

 

I agree with this and believe that harmony, balance and the state of non

thought, non resistance is perfectly represented by the image of the object

at rest, prior to creating the first ripple, just as it merges with the water.

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

At 07:18 PM 8/12/99 -0500, you wrote:

>Dharma <fisher1

>

>Hi Gene,

>

>Good to hear from you again! Thanks for your post... it leads me to a

>question:

>

>I have seen many models and diagrams of the subconscious and the

>superconscious in relation to the conscious and the unconscious... and

>they don't all seem to be mutually compatible... or equally usable. You

>said the unconscious is low self... but to some of us, low self seems to

>be below the level of consciousness... in other words, subconscious. And

>the levels of high self and spiritual gurus etc. seem to be above the

>conscious level... or superconscious. But that also seems to be normally

>in the unconscious.

>

>Is there any particular model or understanding of this that seems to you to

>be most useful?

>

 

Hi Dharma,

 

I've been enjoying your sharing this

past week.

 

I'll share a model that I use.

Perhaps Gene could also comment upon it

when he responds to your query?

 

Looking at Consciousness as if we had tossed

a pebble in the water. The point where the

pebble touched the water becomes the center

of the circle...the 'eye' of the circle...

the IAM.

 

Radiating from that 'eye' is a circle, which is

then surrounded by another circle.

 

The circle closest to the 'eye' is the realm of

conscious awareness. This circle also has an

'eye/i.

 

When we are 'centered' we are as in the eye of a tornado... still and

motionless.

 

And when we see the world thru the eye of the ego

centered consciousness, we are easily tossed about

in chaos.

 

A narrow circle surrounds this circle. I see it

as the subconscious . It is filled with repressed,

rejected or forgotten material....kind of like the

dumping grounds of our ego centered conscious awareness.

 

This ring of subconscious material is what *separates*

the conscious from the unconscious - the 'outer space'

of our experience.

 

'Awakening' is then the dropping, or the removal

of that subconscious ring of 'forgotten' material.

 

The unconscious (All That Is) is actually beyond 'mind', though it is

helpful to consider it for a while AS mind,

for those for which the concept of 'no-mind' or

nothingness is simply too frightening.

 

To call it 'mind' would be to give it a

defined diameter....which it doesn't really have

at all.

 

I haven't spent much time with this model, so

would be curious what adaptions might be made

of it.

 

Melody

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 08/13/1999 2:51:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

ZEN2WRK writes:

 

<<

Silly Rainbo:

 

How can there be a "within" if the flame and the candle are one?

 

So once you choose to say "I" you have begun to separate from the unity of

your being, by just being. When you don't say "I" that is when you are

truly

you...merged within the light, flame and candle as one...but not when you

try

to describe it.

>>

Bob and All:

 

Wondering if the "for fun" knew? I think so, eh? It was a silly paragraph

written on a few different levels, Bob. One, was the obvious and simply

scientific, the next was an occult law, and finally it is a cosmic law. In

some traditions of Buddhism, it is given as a tool, a gift, for an aspirant

to work with, to hold the flame, normally given during meditation. On the

merging, I do not stay in a merged, blissed, mystic space, it is a great gift

when it comes...

 

L*L*L

RainboLily

[Guest guest]

Dear Rainbo:

 

:~) Grinning...well said...but I could not resist

the giggle of contradiction implied by your

description.

 

We need not fear the traps of others...we set our own quite nicely.

 

Yes, I am familiar with the traditions and many levels of meaning you

implied...I think that is why I thought I could gently tug your "tail."

 

It's like asking a person who they were when asleep.

 

Blessings

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Dear Melody:

 

I really enjoyed your reply and the thoughts you expressed.

 

Both the concept of spiral consciousness as derived from ripples or waves

(which also resolves the old particle/wave debate of physics) since this is a

concept I used to teach with study groups in California, and the concept of

tapping into the natural universal consciousness to "discover" ideas are

great topics of discussion.

 

The idea of gathering ideas (like Edison and Tesla both believed, ironically

enough) from the great universal "ether" is also something that is related to

in the more recent and documented ability of animals and people to make

simultaneous discoveries of the same thing or to learn new skills at the same

time even though they are physically distant from one another. Although,

with inventions, this is due to "state of the art" progression allowing a new

idea to be practically arrived at, that up to that time was not feasible

(i.e., the airplane), radically different concepts of nature or physics have

been developed in totally isolated human communities, such as mathematical

theories or formulas that in reality could not have been spurred by outside

events.

 

When mathematicians were seeking to resolve some very advanced problems in

number set theory, a poor and relatively uneducated student in India solved

these complex equations, and bizarrely sought to publish his findings in the

British journal that was managed by the very mathematicians that were

struggling with the problem! They were astonished and shocked that half way

around the world, someone should happen to solve these impossible problems

and in order to do so had created operational rules that had yet to be found

in western number theory.

 

So, your ideas are most fascinating and certainly

worthy of future discussion!

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Hi Zenbob,

 

you said:

>Lovely and very wonderful example of the pebble and the water. This analogy

>is used both by Socratic scholars as well as many Zen writers to express

>exactly your perspective.

 

Isn't that funny? I usually draw the dot for the

'eye' and add circles around it to explain my model of consciousness.

 

But I couldn't draw a circle here, and had to find

an analogy people could 'picture' in their minds...

hence the pebble in the water....which you say is

used by othres? Cool. :-)

 

That is the picture I see looking down upon it.

 

Look at it from the side, and you see a spiral.

 

(Consciousness as spiraling was 'taught' to me

though). :-)

~~~~~~~~~~~

 

This reminds me that there is a school of thought

that says there are no new discoveries....only

concepts (or pictures) to be tapped into.

 

(Like Thomas Edison and other 'inventors' and

scientists slipping into 'twilight' states to

access their discoveries, or find solutions to

their questions.)

 

I wonder.

 

Melody

[Guest guest]

Hi Melody,

>>Lovely and very wonderful example of the pebble and the water. This analogy

>>is used both by Socratic scholars as well as many Zen writers to express

>>exactly your perspective.

>Isn't that funny? I usually draw the dot for the

>'eye' and add circles around it to explain my model of consciousness.

>

>But I couldn't draw a circle here, and had to find

>an analogy people could 'picture' in their minds...

>hence the pebble in the water....which you say is

>used by othres? Cool. :-)

>

>snip<

>This reminds me that there is a school of thought

>that says there are no new discoveries....only

>concepts (or pictures) to be tapped into.

 

Jung's theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious came after

clinical experience as a psychologist, in which he found that the same

symbols arise in people's minds in dreams, fantasies, etc., in many times

and many lands, even though the person who sees the symbol may have no

conscious knowledge that it has appeared elsewhere. For instance, a

patient was seeing a woman's torso with a face in the belly. Later Jung

found this same figure in the statue of a very early Greek goddess... her

name was Baubo, as I recall.

>(Like Thomas Edison and other 'inventors' and

>scientists slipping into 'twilight' states to

>access their discoveries, or find solutions to

>their questions.)

 

Or dreams... like the double spiral of DNA.

>...the pebble in the water....

>That is the picture I see looking down upon it.

>

>Look at it from the side, and you see a spiral.

>

>(Consciousness as spiraling was 'taught' to me

>though). :-)

 

One day my mother lay dying... she did not die that time, but she was very

near it that day... the nurses told me she was dying.

 

I sat beside her bed, and occasionally she spoke... I couldn't always

understand the words.

 

Once she said, "Open... open..."

 

I said, "Open what, Mom?"

 

She said, "It's like a cocoon... and I can't get out."

 

Later she was looking at the opposite wall and pointed. I looked, but

there was nothing to see... no door or window.

 

She said, "Look out the back door - our garden is full of reincarnation.

Reincarnation all over. It goes like this -" and she drew a spiral in the

air with her finger.

 

(For those who are not native English speakers - "carnation" is a flower.)

 

Mom never talked much about religion and never talked about reincarnation,

although I had told her that I remember other lives. She did not remember

this later, and when I told her what she had said - I had written down the

exact words - she said, "Really?" and just smiled.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Dear Dharma:

 

Lovely...touching...and true.

 

Blessings,

Love,

 

Zenbob