Finding My Monkey

[findingblanks]

Monkey, so that I can most richly honor the wonderful conversational space you have cultivated, I'm going to try to re-read (it has been a LONG time) the Seven Sermons later today and then respond. I have a feeling that you and I are both more than happy to take necessary gaps like this. More soon.

Side note, from the link you shared, I love this paragraph:

"In the original journal account of the revelation (Black Book 6) Jung himself is the voice speaking the Seven Sermons to the Dead. In the version transcribed into the Red Book manuscript, Jung gives Philemon as the voice speaking the Sermons. Interestingly, a few pages later, on the last page of the Red Book manuscript, Philemon is identified with the historical Gnostic prophet Simon Magus. When Jung subsequently transcribed the Sermons for printing as an independent text, the Sermons were attributed pseudepigraphically to yet another historical second century Gnostic teacher, Basilides of Alexandria. Thus Jung, Philemon, Simon Magus, and Basilides are all finally conflated together in the voice of the Gnostic prophet who speaks the Septem Sermones ad Mortuos."

Because it makes me deeply curious about the blind of criteria Jung 'used' when he made such decisions. But I think we'll actually get to that way down the road once we pick up the core starting elements.

[maybe_my_monkey]

Monkey, so that I can most richly honor the wonderful conversational space you have cultivated, I'm going to try to re-read (it has been a LONG time) the Seven Sermons later today and then respond. I have a feeling that you and I are both more than happy to take necessary gaps like this. More soon.

Yes, entirely OK with that and actually useful for me as it allows me time to digest things and find out what won't let go of me. Then I know that those are the things that want my attention, if that makes sense.

Side note, from the link you shared, I love this paragraph:

"In the original journal account of the revelation (Black Book 6) Jung himself is the voice speaking the Seven Sermons to the Dead. In the version transcribed into the Red Book manuscript, Jung gives Philemon as the voice speaking the Sermons. Interestingly, a few pages later, on the last page of the Red Book manuscript, Philemon is identified with the historical Gnostic prophet Simon Magus. When Jung subsequently transcribed the Sermons for printing as an independent text, the Sermons were attributed pseudepigraphically to yet another historical second century Gnostic teacher, Basilides of Alexandria. Thus Jung, Philemon, Simon Magus, and Basilides are all finally conflated together in the voice of the Gnostic prophet who speaks the Septem Sermones ad Mortuos."

Because it makes me deeply curious about the blind of criteria Jung 'used' when he made such decisions. But I think we'll actually get to that way down the road once we pick up the core starting elements.

I was contemplating this along similar lines earlier today. I personally favour Jung as the voice speaking as this would be naturally closer to the visceral experiences of the journals (The Black Books) which formed such a significant part, about 50% as I understand it, of The Red Book. I may buy the Black Books, which were just published last year.

Interesting though, how he used different figures at different times. I read once that Jung said if he could go back in time he would rewrite all he had written with one exception, Answer To Job, in which he wouldn't change anything. So there's an arc from the Black Books (beginning of his journey) to Answer To Job (end of his journey). In a sense, for me at least and it's a gut feeling, he starts off with what is revealed (Black Books) in its' 'naked glory' and then spends his time clothing that 'naked glory' until he gets to his preferred attire (Answer To Job).

Therein, I feel, lays at least one description of Jung's unfolding distinctiveness: "When we distinguish qualities of the pleroma naked glory, we are speaking from the ground of our own distinctiveness and concerning our own distinctiveness. But we have said nothing concerning the pleroma naked glory."

[AshvinP]

Therein, I feel, lays at least one description of Jung's unfolding distinctiveness: "When we distinguish qualities of the pleroma naked glory, we are speaking from the ground of our own distinctiveness and concerning our own distinctiveness. But we have said nothing concerning the pleroma naked glory."

Hey monkey,

Is there a reason why you ignore my responses to your comments like FB also ignores my responses to his comments? Not that it hurts my feelings, but it's a very strange thing to do when the responses are directly addressing what you are commenting re: Jung, don't you think? In all my time commenting on public forums, I have only come across one other person who does this ignoring routine (FB). He purports to do it because he doesn't like the way I try to "pin him down" in my responses and 'speculate' on his personal motives after hundreds of intentionally vague and cryptic 'shadow dancing' comments - is that also identical with your concern too, even though I have never interacted with you before? Again, I am wondering because I just find it very odd for two different people to carry on what appears to be a 100% personal dialogue between themselves about Steiner, Jung, BK and their spiritual ideas (or potentially spiritual for BK) on a public thread in a public forum. I would really appreciate your enlightenment on this issue! I have many more thoughts on what you are writing about Jung, but I feel it may be a waste to post them here if the only two people involved on this thread are not actually reading them.

[maybe_my_monkey]

Hey monkey,

Is there a reason why you ignore my responses to your comments like FB also ignores my responses to his comments? Not that it hurts my feelings, but it's a very strange thing to do when the responses are directly addressing what you are commenting re: Jung, don't you think? In all my time commenting on public forums, I have only come across one other person who does this ignoring routine (FB). He purports to do it because he doesn't like the way I try to "pin him down" in my responses and 'speculate' on his personal motives after hundreds of intentionally vague and cryptic 'shadow dancing' comments - is that also identical with your concern too, even though I have never interacted with you before? Again, I am wondering because I just find it very odd for two different people to carry on what appears to be a 100% personal dialogue between themselves about Steiner, Jung, BK and their spiritual ideas (or potentially spiritual for BK) on a public thread in a public forum. I would really appreciate your enlightenment on this issue! I have many more thoughts on what you are writing about Jung, but I feel it may be a waste to post them here if the only two people involved on this thread are not actually reading them.

Apologies for the delay in responding to you. I needed to ask myself why I haven't responded to your comments, in a way that is as honest with myself as it is with you, as much as I am able.

So yes, there is a reason, because while FB appears to able handle himself both within these subject matters and within himself, I don't think I possess the same capacity. I feel neither smart enough nor sure enough of myself, nor any surety regarding what I 'think' I know. I may try to give the impression that I do but even my tacit conclusions are thinly veiled questions. My buttons can easily be pressed and then I let myself down, defeat my aim and make a fool of myself.

As a sidenote: I bear the 'scars' of conflict where the opponent was 'out there'. It was terrfying and elating but my training informed me what to do and I trusted who was next to me. Life and death. Just like that. It begged a lot of questions 'in here' and 'in here' I am much, much less certain and much, much less sure of my ground. So I 'm not inclined to the adversarial approach in these subjects and as much as philosophy is just that, I can leave it to the experts and take from it what is meaningful to me. I get more out of a 'fireside conversation' and you might say that I am in the wrong place but you never know....

Thankfully no one dies on a philosophy forum.

[AshvinP]

Hey monkey,

Is there a reason why you ignore my responses to your comments like FB also ignores my responses to his comments? Not that it hurts my feelings, but it's a very strange thing to do when the responses are directly addressing what you are commenting re: Jung, don't you think? In all my time commenting on public forums, I have only come across one other person who does this ignoring routine (FB). He purports to do it because he doesn't like the way I try to "pin him down" in my responses and 'speculate' on his personal motives after hundreds of intentionally vague and cryptic 'shadow dancing' comments - is that also identical with your concern too, even though I have never interacted with you before? Again, I am wondering because I just find it very odd for two different people to carry on what appears to be a 100% personal dialogue between themselves about Steiner, Jung, BK and their spiritual ideas (or potentially spiritual for BK) on a public thread in a public forum. I would really appreciate your enlightenment on this issue! I have many more thoughts on what you are writing about Jung, but I feel it may be a waste to post them here if the only two people involved on this thread are not actually reading them.

Apologies for the delay in responding to you. I needed to ask myself why I haven't responded to your comments, in a way that is as honest with myself as it is with you, as much as I am able.

So yes, there is a reason, because while FB appears to able handle himself both within these subject matters and within himself, I don't think I possess the same capacity. I feel neither smart enough nor sure enough of myself, nor any surety regarding what I 'think' I know. I may try to give the impression that I do but even my tacit conclusions are thinly veiled questions. My buttons can easily be pressed and then I let myself down, defeat my aim and make a fool of myself.

As a sidenote: I bear the 'scars' of conflict where the opponent was 'out there'. It was terrfying and elating but my training informed me what to do and I trusted who was next to me. Life and death. Just like that. It begged a lot of questions 'in here' and 'in here' I am much, much less certain and much, much less sure of my ground. So I 'm not inclined to the adversarial approach in these subjects and as much as philosophy is just that, I can leave it to the experts and take from it what is meaningful to me. I get more out of a 'fireside conversation' and you might say that I am in the wrong place but you never know....

Thankfully no one dies on a philosophy forum.

Monkey (is there another name you prefer?) - thanks, but I am still confused. I suppose my updated question is, do you disagree with what I have written about Jung? I know there are all kinds of interpersonal dynamics going on, but what I am really interested in is keeping the discussion going about Jung and BK (we can leave Steiner out since you requested that earlier). I think there are a lot of fruitful ideas to explore, and it seems you and I are both very interested in Jung's spirituality. If your position is similar to FB on all these issues, then I still don't know what it is

[findingblanks]

"In more poetic terms I might say that it is the 'space' in which the dream can take place but it is not the dream nor the dreamer as they would be effects/distinctions."

I'm with this. I think I'm okay thinking of the Plemora as 'the dreamer' than you are. I'm not sure why. But I fully am with understanding it as the fundamental context in which all qualities do and will emerge.

"But it does appear to me that these excitations are 'instinctive' and 'blind'. I would see these as the foundational 'indefinite' yet 'distinct' expression of all potential forms/images, coming into being/transforming/going out of being/coming into being etc. This also seems to me, in the limited way I understand, to be Schopenhauer's 'blind, instinctive will'. Which to me seems similar to Abraxas "Had the pleroma a being, Abraxas would be its manifestation. It is the effective itself, not any particular effect, but effect in general......It is force, duration, change."

Okay, thanks for that, because now I am seeing more clearly where the interesting question you are circling lies. But first let me put a few more of your comments. Or, rather, Jung comes next

form Jung:
"...but from Abraxas life" Life, death, good, evil, hot, cold etc and even more specifically "It is the life of creatura." (Man) and "It is the operation of distinctiveness." (Images) or as Kastrup would say "What it looks like..."

Monkey, you then said:

"So then it gets interesting for me because Kastrup suggests that at some point there are images that loop back on themselves and in doing so create a reflective surface and it is from this reflective surface that awareness or meta-cognition can arise. But what's really interesting for me is that this arises out of the 'effect' of Abraxas or 'blind, instinctive will', which is not meta-conscious."

Right, I'm in agreement that blind, instinctive will is not meta-consciousness.

"So in a real sense whilst Jung says that we are inescapably bound to 'terrible' Abraxas, "But Abraxas is the world, its becoming and its passing." we are a Creatura of the Pleroma, "Yet because we are parts of the pleroma, the pleroma is also in us. Even in the smallest point is the pleroma endless, eternal, and entire, since small and great are qualities which are contained in it. It is that nothingness which is everywhere whole and continuous...So, for me, M@L is the Pleroma and Abraxas is 'Blind, instinctive will.' Apologies if this isn't entirely all lined up and neat and if my articulation isn't spot on....

Okay, I'm on the same page as much of this.

I want to threw out a couple more Kastrup distinctions and then see if my first response will keep us moving in an interesting direction.

In Kastrup's model we can say that qualities don't exist until a dissociated alter is created. The qualities 'fall out' in the living interaction and interpenetration of M@L and the alter. Before the alter exists, those qualities might be thought of as potentialities of M@L.

Might we that M@L itself is fundamentally the blind, instinctive, eternally inhabiting all of it's living potentialities, but that it isn't until a very special 'kind' of potential is actualized in the form of an alter that M@L has the kinds of qualities Jung is attributing to Abraxas? In other words, M@L would be the fundamental striving that is God. Abraxas is the sudden force of being that precedes and 'causes' all that emerges once we have dissociation.

From Jung:

"We are, however, the pleroma itself, for we are a part of the eternal and infinite. But we have no share thereof, as we are from the pleroma infinitely removed; not spiritually or temporally, but essentially, since we are distinguished from the pleroma in our essence as creatura, which is confined within time and space."

I think language can get really tricky here because it's not always clear what we mean by terms like 'essence', 'infinite,' and 'share'. If Jung is expression a form of Gnosticism and if Gnosticism can be characterized as:

"Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament)[2] who is responsible for creating the material universe." (from Wiki)

Then I think one of our first moves must be to see that Kastrup's is spacious enough to include Gnostic cosmologies and non-Gnostic cosmologies. My personal inclination is non-gnostic in the sense that I think there is a continuous 'thread' of The living Word (or many other metaphors can point to it) running through all manifestation, rather than an abrupt break between M@L and manifestation as world or creatures.

I think I'm happy to explore this on either side of the coin. If we take Abraxas as 'blind, instinctive will', I would want to know what symbols we might use to point to the 'qualitative' (although our Jungian model will definitely rule out that word!) nature of M@L. If we take Abraxas as pointing to the 'force' that comes when there is dissociation, we still will want to explore the relationship between M@L and Abraxas.

But let me stop here to see if you need to ask me questions so that we can see what our next step is....

side note: I'm still slowly going through the sermons. I see at the end of #1, Jung makes clear that God is not to be equated with Plemaora so in our conversation I will try to be conscious not to equate God with M@L which is my typical approach. But it is very interesting to see why and how Jung would want to hold God as distinct, as this first with much of what he is trying to point to in the first sermon.

[AshvinP]

In Kastrup's model we can say that qualities don't exist until a dissociated alter is created. The qualities 'fall out' in the living interaction and interpenetration of M@L and the alter. Before the alter exists, those qualities might be thought of as potentialities of M@L.

Might we that M@L itself is fundamentally the blind, instinctive, eternally inhabiting all of it's living potentialities, but that it isn't until a very special 'kind' of potential is actualized in the form of an alter that M@L has the kinds of qualities Jung is attributing to Abraxas? In other words, M@L would be the fundamental striving that is God. Abraxas is the sudden force of being that precedes and 'causes' all that emerges once we have dissociation.

The issue here is really that the above inevitably lapses into dualism, which of course is what BK wants to avoid, and every consistent idealist should to also avoid. Why does this lapse happen? Because Ideation, for some reason, is left out as the essential driving force of Cosmic evolution in idea-lism. It is only this ideational power of MAL which allows us to have a continuous-contiguous thread running through Creator-creation (creature), Spirit (Mind)-matter, etc. That is the power of the overarching Ideal structure of the Cosmos, which BK used to emphasize more (see his book, The Idea of the World), but does not so much anymore. We could crudely summarize the structure as ever-evolving archetypal Ideas fractally nested within one another, existing in polarly opposed relation, with MAL being the eternal ideal "Unity above all contrasts" (Cusa).

Without that, we basically end up with a materialist account of atomic "qualities" emerging in each "alter" from a primordial soup of MAL. Such an account will face all the same problems as the materialist account as soon as one tries to go from vague abstractions to concrete details about the evolutionary process. After considering Jung's writing, including some of the things you guys recently posted here, there seems to be a deep ambivalence within him when it comes to the nature of the collective subconscious and objective psyche. It seems beyond reasonable doubt that his framework is idealist, but Kantian-Schop tradition is definitely working in his perspective to keep it impersonal and beyond scientific investigation. On the other hand, his own detailed visionary imaginations and intuitions seem to be working in the opposite direction.

[maybe_my_monkey]

I'm with this. I think I'm okay thinking of the Plemora as 'the dreamer' than you are. I'm not sure why. But I fully am with understanding it as the fundamental context in which all qualities do and will emerge.

OK, fair enough and thanks. I hope to be able to put more flesh on why I might feel the Pleroma isn't the dreamer as it is quite important for me to establish a good sense of what I see as the 'ground'. I've been circling this for a while now and I feel like I need to get my base in some kind of order before I can step forwards. A starting point as it were. Would also be good to hear what it is you aren't sure of.

I want to threw out a couple more Kastrup distinctions and then see if my first response will keep us moving in an interesting direction.

In Kastrup's model we can say that qualities don't exist until a dissociated alter is created. The qualities 'fall out' in the living interaction and interpenetration of M@L and the alter. Before the alter exists, those qualities might be thought of as potentialities of M@L.

I'm not sure about the first part and partly perhaps due to language (as you highlight later), in the use of 'qualities'. In Kastrup's terms would that be 'excitations'?

I think language can get really tricky here because it's not always clear what we mean by terms like 'essence', 'infinite,' and 'share'. If Jung is expression a form of Gnosticism and if Gnosticism can be characterized as:

"Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament)[2] who is responsible for creating the material universe." (from Wiki)

I've read a several articles and commentaries, here and there, where one of things about Jung is his ambiguity when it comes to pinning him down, whether 'Gnostic' or 'Alchemist' or 'Mystic', apparently he's even been called a 'Cult Leader'. All the things Jung didn't want to be known as. Two things stand out for me, once where he said basically 'Don't mistake Gnosis for Gnosticism' and the other is that Jung didn't believe the World was evil nor was it a mistake, which are key tennets of Gnosticism. It feels more to me that Jung employed Gnosis, in approach, in the same way he employed Alchemy, in practice. It feels to me like Jung is seeking an embodied truth. In that sense I'd say he's an alchemist, as much as his notion of 'Principium Individuationis' is just that, alchemy, and what unfolds out of that process is Gnosis. Rather than Gnosticism. So the characterisation you suggest is one I've heard myself use but have since considered it some more and I don't feel that it may be as sound as it appears. For me Jung is pointing towards something that is not dissimilar to something idealism points towards.

Then I think one of our first moves must be to see that Kastrup's is spacious enough to include Gnostic cosmologies and non-Gnostic cosmologies. My personal inclination is non-gnostic in the sense that I think there is a continuous 'thread' of The living Word (or many other metaphors can point to it) running through all manifestation, rather than an abrupt break between M@L and manifestation as world or creatures.

I'm with you here and I think the word for me would be 'continuum', though again my starting point would be one that I can't say anything much about as it would have no distinction. I would only really be able to start once distinction arises/unfolds or however we term it.

Might we that M@L itself is fundamentally the blind, instinctive, eternally inhabiting all of it's living potentialities, but that it isn't until a very special 'kind' of potential is actualized in the form of an alter that M@L has the kinds of qualities Jung is attributing to Abraxas? In other words, M@L would be the fundamental striving that is God. Abraxas is the sudden force of being that precedes and 'causes' all that emerges once we have dissociation.

Well I guess this is the very start point I am circling. I have a struggle to see M@L in this way, not just because of Jung but also in how Kastrup posits it in the way I understand or see it. I would ask the questions 'Why would M@L be (a) God and (b) 'fundamentally striving' and (c) striving towards what?' To strive suggests a quality of consciousness, as distinct from 'not striving' and it suggests a desired telos, so are we already assuming and ascribing 'qualities', to this ontological primitive, which we have no way to establish, as far as I can tell? This is a very important question for me as everything else proceeds from it and I could lead myself into a kind of affirming the consequent. I've read that in any philosophical enquiry regarding an ontological primitive that we can't avoid making one assumption, so I feel cautious about it.

[AshvinP]

Might we that M@L itself is fundamentally the blind, instinctive, eternally inhabiting all of it's living potentialities, but that it isn't until a very special 'kind' of potential is actualized in the form of an alter that M@L has the kinds of qualities Jung is attributing to Abraxas? In other words, M@L would be the fundamental striving that is God. Abraxas is the sudden force of being that precedes and 'causes' all that emerges once we have dissociation.

Well I guess this is the very start point I am circling. I have a struggle to see M@L in this way, not just because of Jung but also in how Kastrup posits it in the way I understand or see it. I would ask the questions 'Why would M@L be (a) God and (b) 'fundamentally striving' and (c) striving towards what?' To strive suggests a quality of consciousness, as distinct from 'not striving' and it suggests a desired telos, so are we already assuming and ascribing 'qualities', to this ontological primitive, which we have no way to establish, as far as I can tell? This is a very important question for me as everything else proceeds from it and I could lead myself into a kind of affirming the consequent. I've read that in any philosophical enquiry regarding an ontological primitive that we can't avoid making one assumption, so I feel cautious about it.

Hello monkey,

I think it's important to take heed of our intuitions here. They are not always automatically correct (certainly they do not present us with the complete reality behind them without much more further reasoning), but they give us genuine experiential data that we must account for. This is one of the biggest struggles of nearly all modern philosophies, especially those based in materialism or nondual tradition - their unwarranted assumptions necessitate a view that our deepest intutions, of the sort you refer to above, are illusory mental fantasies, the "stories we like to tell ourselves" but nothing more substantial than that. It is especially tragically ironic for the nondual traditions, because such a view can only be the result of dualist thinking. We intuit that these qualities of self-aware cognition cannot arise from essentially "instinctive" machinations of MAL, either from a strictly philosophical perspective or, more importantly, from that of our immanent experience and the experience of ancestors encoded in the myths and spiritual traditions that Jung studied in detail. These intuitions must be accounted by logical reasoning, rather than simply written off as "illusory" without any logical arguments in support.

[findingblanks]

Monkey,

I really appreciate your distinction between viewing Jung in the alchemy frame as opposed toward the specific 'evil-world' Gnosticism frame. I agree 100%.

I think the reason I can think M@L as the dreamer is just in the way that my 'mind' is generating whatever bizarre qualities arise as dreams...I'm the dreamer in that context and yet I don't identify with any of those arising qualities. But I don't need to think of it that way. I'd be curious what inclines you away from thinking of the ultimate source as being that within which anything arises...

" I would ask the questions 'Why would M@L be (a) God and (b) 'fundamentally striving' and (c) striving towards what?' To strive suggests a quality of consciousness, as distinct from 'not striving' and it suggests a desired telos, so are we already assuming and ascribing 'qualities', to this ontological primitive, which we have no way to establish, as far as I can tell?"

I love how clearly you put this. My first response is that a fundamental intuition: there is something it is like to be fundamental reality. Actually, this intuition might be exactly where you and I stand apart enough to generate these delightful questions! I wonder if you are agnostic on that? Actually, maybe you are more inclined to say that it does not make sense that fundamental reality would be experiencing anything because that would be qualities and qualities are distinctions. I'm starting to see how that logic implies a ground-floor that is 'nothing'.

I guess I'm just more comfortable with fundamental reality being a Being that comes in a very specified 'shape' and this is why, for me, a certain kind of creative yearning could be fundamental without causing too much of a problem. But for me to even understand that 'yearning', I have to start thinking in terms of something like the Trinity, three divine Persons in the One.

"This is a very important question for me as everything else proceeds from it and I could lead myself into a kind of affirming the consequent. I've read that in any philosophical enquiry regarding an ontological primitive that we can't avoid making one assumption, so I feel cautious about it."

I agree. So here, in this context, I take M@L as my primitive and this necessitates that there is something it is like to be this fundamental Consciousness.

I think we are starting to find focus (both as ideas and linguistically) on where we are starting. I look forward to hearing from you