(July 30, 2014 at 11:08 am)Riketto Wrote: One place may be good for something but bad for other things.
Drivers are very good but drinkers are very bad.
In other places may be the opposite so please don't rush in your judgments.

The drivers aren't very good when they've been drinking. That's the problem in Australia - a lot of people drink too much then get into their cars and drive.

(July 30, 2014 at 11:08 am)Riketto Wrote: When you say........objective reality.......you already gone off tracks.
Objective come from object and an object is something material.
What God has to do with something material only.....God....knows.

Objective in this sense has nothing to do with objects or the material. There's no proof that your concept of God or any other deity exist as anything but subjective, psychological experiences. It's all very well saying that the universe is a manifestation of God but this still doesn't automatically mean that God is a real, eternal being that manifests everything.

(July 30, 2014 at 11:08 am)Riketto Wrote: You tend to forget something.
As you try to tune a station before you get the correct tune you experience some static noise.
The same thing happen when you listen to your consciousness.
If your tune is not correct it is obvious that you may experience Apollo or father Christmas but as soon as you get the correct tune all the unreal disappear to let the real appear.
The consciousness can not be blame for send you the unreal.
It is rather you that got to work out how to tune properly.

All these archetypal images come from what Jung called the Self which is nothing to do with the little ego. Others refer to it as the Higher Self although it's not cute and cuddly like the New Age concept.

http://www.trans4mind.com/jamesharveystout/self.htm

Quote:It is the part of the psyche which organizes and directs the rest of the psyche -- the ego, the conscious mind, the personal unconscious, and all other elements of our psychological being.

It is the totality of the psyche, including all of the elements, such as the ego, etc. Because the Self is all of the psyche, its viewpoint contains an objectivity, acceptance, reconciliation, and balance of the "opposites" of ego and shadow, persona and shadow, and our many contradictory feelings and impulses.

It is the center of the psyche (like the nucleus of an atom) to which the other parts of the psyche are connected and subordinate.

It is an archetype.

It is a transcendent, unchanging part of ourselves, in contrast to the ever-varying ego, shadow, complexes, etc.

It is a "God-image" within the psyche. Although Jung was criticized for allegedly implying that the Self is God, he stressed that the Self is not God itself but rather only an image of God, a representation of God as it would be depicted within the psyche (although he did call the Self the "God within us" in Psychology and Religion on page 334). An encounter with the Self feels like a "religious experience" with God; Jung said that the occurrence leaves us vitalized" and "enriched." In addition to being a symbol of God in the psyche, the Self could also be considered a symbol of what the religions call the "soul."

None of this proves that there's anything more than the blueprint for being human. The deepest level of the unconscious thinks in symbols and images and it throws up whatever it wants to be made conscious. If I keep practicing I might end up with the experience which people say is God BUT it will still be a subjective experience. There would be no way of proving that this experience was anything other than something produced by my brain. And I'm not just talking about proving it to others. I couldn't even prove it to myself. This doesn't matter all with Jungian psychology, though, because God or any other deity doesn't have to exist as a real being for it to work.

PS: God in this post is nothing to do with the monotheistic deity of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

(July 30, 2014 at 10:46 am)Riketto Wrote:

(July 29, 2014 at 1:04 pm)Losty Wrote: Hey lover boy, is this the only thread you post in?

Grandma was always saying that the quality is more important than the quantity beside i don't have the time to spend too much time on the net.
Not only in this forum but in most of the forums we got people who spend so much time writing tons of garbage.
Little but good is much better than a lot of garbage.
Ciao bella.

You could have just said no, love. Your grandma is right. Though I'm not really sure how value any posts are on the internet. Sure you provide quality entertainment so there's that.
I like bella, I call my daughters bella sometimes.
It's a lovely nickname.
Laters lover.

Hmmmm. . . I never looked at Riketto that way before. But now that you're showing an interest, I find I want to ravish him (no homo).

I threw up in my mouth a little.

(July 30, 2014 at 2:42 pm)Confused Ape Wrote: Objective in this sense has nothing to do with objects or the material. There's no proof that your concept of God or any other deity exist as anything but subjective, psychological experiences. It's all very well saying that the universe is a manifestation of God but this still doesn't automatically mean that God is a real, eternal being that manifests everything.

Suppose you live in the jungle all your life.
One day i pop up and i give you a radio.
I tell you that inside the radio there is music.
You may say......where the hell is the music?
I say to you.......if you want to get the music you got to tune up the radio to some station.
After you tune up you can listen the music.
The same thing apply to the perception of God.
God is within but you will never know until you tune up and that is not as easy as to tune up a radio.
It require a lot of hard work but God is there.

Quote:All these archetypal images come from what Jung called the Self which is nothing to do with the little ego. Others refer to it as the Higher Self although it's not cute and cuddly like the New Age concept.
http://www.trans4mind.com/jamesharveystout/self.htm

There are and there were in the past a lot of thinkers who have and had great ideas about how the system works.
In the past i have been reading books after books but i found later on that what the practice can give you is a ocean compared to a drop of water of theory so i decided to stick with yoga which is one drop of theory and an ocean of practice.
You can keep on reading and understanding how the system works but until you reduce the distance that separate you the microcosm from the macrocosm all is futile because the progress only happen with a lot of practice not with a lot of theories.

This thread.....

More like

(August 1, 2014 at 11:13 am)Riketto Wrote: Suppose you live in the jungle all your life.
One day i pop up and i give you a radio.
I tell you that inside the radio there is music.
You may say......where the hell is the music?
I say to you.......if you want to get the music you got to tune up the radio to some station.
After you tune up you can listen the music.
The same thing apply to the perception of God.
God is within but you will never know until you tune up and that is not as easy as to tune up a radio.
It require a lot of hard work but God is there.

I agree with you about the perception of God being within. Using the example of a radio turning into a station still doesn't prove that God exists as anything but a psychological experience. If you can't prove that the radio station is 'out there' it's existence is nothing more than a belief. Is the radio station supposed to be 'out there' or is it within as well according to yoga?

(August 1, 2014 at 11:13 am)Riketto Wrote: You can keep on reading and understanding how the system works but until you reduce the distance that separate you the microcosm from the macrocosm all is futile because the progress only happen with a lot of practice not with a lot of theories.

I linked to that short article about the Self so you could get an idea of what Jung was talking about. I've been practicing Jungian psychology for over 30 years so it's not a case of me just reading about theory.

Going by Jung's writings he had the God experience himself but he couldn't offer any proof that God exists as anything other than a psychological experience. If I get my own God experience it will be similar to anyone else's but that won't prove that it's anything more than something produced by the human brain. After all, every human has a human brain, including mystics.

(August 1, 2014 at 11:13 am)Riketto Wrote: Suppose you live in the jungle all your life.
One day i pop up and i give you a radio.
I tell you that inside the radio there is music.
You may say......where the hell is the music?
I say to you.......if you want to get the music you got to tune up the radio to some station.
After you tune up you can listen the music.
The same thing apply to the perception of God.
God is within but you will never know until you tune up and that is not as easy as to tune up a radio.
It require a lot of hard work but God is there.

Were you to tell the uneducated jungle-abiding me that the music was in the radio, you would be flat out, factually wrong. The music is not in the radio; the radio merely receives the waves from the transmitter and translates them into impulses which stimulate the magnet in the speaker, causing it to produce vibrations in the cone which are propagated through the air into our ears and eventually deciphered as sounds by our brains, So it would me far more accurate to say the music is in our brain - the radio merely provides the means to deliver the impulses to us.

Where is the equivalent of the radio for "God", and how can you possibly know that it's that character you claim to perceive? I realise you're not actually in the business of forming cogent, or even coherent, sentences, but please don't give me your usual mouldy brand of platitudes and false bonhomie. I just ate.

(August 1, 2014 at 11:51 am)Confused Ape Wrote: I agree with you about the perception of God being within. Using the example of a radio turning into a station still doesn't prove that God exists as anything but a psychological experience. If you can't prove that the radio station is 'out there' it's existence is nothing more than a belief. Is the radio station supposed to be 'out there' or is it within as well according to yoga?

It is within it is outside and is everywhere.
The reason is that everything and everybody is in the mind of the cosmic consciousness according to yoga.
Once you overcome the idea that you are Mrs. Ape or someone separate from everything else then you really understand who you are.
A drop of water is separate from a billion of other drops but as soon as she get in the ocean then the separation end and you are the ocean and everything that exist.

Quote:I linked to that short article about the Self so you could get an idea of what Jung was talking about. I've been practicing Jungian psychology for over 30 years so it's not a case of me just reading about theory.
Going by Jung's writings he had the God experience himself but he couldn't offer any proof that God exists as anything other than a psychological experience. If I get my own God experience it will be similar to anyone else's but that won't prove that it's anything more than something produced by the human brain. After all, every human has a human brain, including mystics.

You can study Jung psychology for 300 or 3000 years but you still can not reduce the distance that separate you the microcosm from the macrocosm unless you are able to raise your kundalini to the pineal gland and that require a lot more than psychology.

---

(August 2, 2014 at 10:05 am)Stimbo Wrote: Were you to tell the uneducated jungle-abiding me that the music was in the radio, you would be flat out, factually wrong. The music is not in the radio; the radio merely receives the waves from the transmitter and translates them into impulses which stimulate the magnet in the speaker, causing it to produce vibrations in the cone which are propagated through the air into our ears and eventually deciphered as sounds by our brains, So it would me far more accurate to say the music is in our brain - the radio merely provides the means to deliver the impulses to us.

There are many many ways to cook an egg so the taste may differ but at the end an egg is an egg.
You can create a myriad of intellectual extravaganza but at the end you still are Mr. Stimbo with your degree of consciousness.
The radio example was all about understanding that until you set up a system in which you can grasp the treasure within you may not know that it exist.

Quote:Where is the equivalent of the radio for "God", and how can you possibly know that it's that character you claim to perceive? I realise you're not actually in the business of forming cogent, or even coherent, sentences, but please don't give me your usual mouldy brand of platitudes and false bonhomie. I just ate.

Luckily you are not a real pistolero otherwise i would already be dead.
There are many many drops of water around but sooner or later they all end up in the big ocean so it is not just me that perceive how the system work in this way.
It is all about the degree of consciousness that allow to perceive how the system works.
With little consciousness it is obvious that nothing is clear.
Why don't you ask yourself why there is a force within that push you to learn more all the time?
It is father Christmas or someone else?