May existence be a kind of "maturation" process for MAL?

[Ben Iscatus]

And while the spirit of MAL increases in ratio, the instinct automatically has to decrease.
It is this observation, that Thomas Campbell (an ideal physicist) in his BIG Theory of Everything equates to "entropy".

A very interesting reinterpretation of TC's Big Toe. However, his never-ending fight against entropy (he says there will never ever be any rest in the unbounded effort to evolve consciousness) appears to be a fight against fear of dissolution or chaos. And of course the laws of nature are not chaotic, though they are instinctive.

[AshvinP]

What I find interesting are the ideas, that BK raises both in "More than allegory" and "Decoding Jung's Metaphysics" (as far as I get it correctly).

1. In "More than allegory", BK claims that human's mission is to raise questions in order for MAL to get to know itself. However, the answers lie within MAL itself. Correct me if I am wrong, but for me, for answers to exist within MAL, there has to be some form of intention, "likes", "preferences"... within MAL (everything we metaphysically sum up as archetypal patterns).

I think we just need to be careful that we are not setting up any implicit dualisms between our-Self and MAL. The latter is like the eternal potentiality of all possible ideational activity, and the individual human is a differentiated relative perspective which is constellated by all other differentiated perspectives of MAL. It is the integration of all such perspectives who is our true Self (MAL), the shared "I" who projects from the 'Center' through all perspectival beings. The archetypal beings are more 'simple' perspectives, closer to the 'Center', who constellate our more complicated experience on the 'periphery', but "simple" should not be confused with unintelligent, non-reflective, animalistic, or anything similar. Their experience is just way less fragmented and abstract than our own, i.e. it is more integrated and concrete.

2. Furthermore Jung distinguishes between two forms or parts of the psyche: "instinct" and "spirit". While instinct is the primitive one, unfolding by static patterns or laws, the spirit is much more dynamic, relational and wise. It is able to undermine its instincts for the common good.
For me, it is the spirit that holds the "answers", which is why the spirit correlates with the degree of self-knowledge and therefore the questions we humans raise.

Trying to bring 1. and 2. together:
If we use the terms "instinct" and "spirit", MAL might have started with a major ratio of instinct (probably up to 100%), while the spirit only existed in potentiality. It is therefore, that we perceive the universe in the beginning as something, that only unfolds by unchangable patterns, that we call laws of nature.

With the degree of increasing self-awareness by living creatures, the spirit evolves continously and with it, the knowledge of its intentions, preferences and so on. It is this volitional deliberate spirit of MAL, that humans probably call God.

And while the spirit of MAL increases in ratio, the instinct automatically has to decrease.
It is this observation, that Thomas Campbell (an ideal physicist) in his BIG Theory of Everything equates to "entropy".
While matter (the instinctive activity of MAL) tends to lower states of order (= useless energy), consciousness and self-awareness (=spirit) tends to higher states of order (=useful energy). For him this is also the reason why MAL prefers love over fear, unity over division, empathy over greed. They all represent higher states of order and therefore an outpouring of psychic energy, that can be used to elaborate on new possibilities.

This probably also correlates with your kind of thinking, Hedge?

Same caution against dualism applies here, which seems to give rise to the "ratio" language. Also, I would not say the "laws of nature" are "unchangeable" patterns. All perspectival beings who give rise to those principles, laws, archetypes, etc. within eternal MAL potential are evolving. But I think it is correct to say the progression from unknowing to knowing spiritual activity is how we currently perceive the Cosmos "in the beginning" through our evolving relative perspectives. It is not an absolute state of truth - as our perspective evolves, so does our understanding of how MAL's spiritual activity unfolds within and through us. Related, there is the always problematic concept of linear time, which should really be abandoned when trying to understand the essential activities involved. Our experience of time is the phenomenal appearance of the complex interactions between other perspectives of MAL with our own.

[dachmidt]

What I find interesting are the ideas, that BK raises both in "More than allegory" and "Decoding Jung's Metaphysics" (as far as I get it correctly).

1. In "More than allegory", BK claims that human's mission is to raise questions in order for MAL to get to know itself. However, the answers lie within MAL itself. Correct me if I am wrong, but for me, for answers to exist within MAL, there has to be some form of intention, "likes", "preferences"... within MAL (everything we metaphysically sum up as archetypal patterns).

I think we just need to be careful that we are not setting up any implicit dualisms between our-Self and MAL. The latter is like the eternal potentiality of all possible ideational activity, and the individual human is a differentiated relative perspective which is constellated by all other differentiated perspectives of MAL. It is the integration of all such perspectives who is our true Self (MAL), the shared "I" who projects from the 'Center' through all perspectival beings. The archetypal beings are more 'simple' perspectives, closer to the 'Center', who constellate our more complicated experience on the 'periphery', but "simple" should not be confused with unintelligent, non-reflective, animalistic, or anything similar. Their experience is just way less fragmented and abstract than our own, i.e. it is more integrated and concrete.

2. Furthermore Jung distinguishes between two forms or parts of the psyche: "instinct" and "spirit". While instinct is the primitive one, unfolding by static patterns or laws, the spirit is much more dynamic, relational and wise. It is able to undermine its instincts for the common good.
For me, it is the spirit that holds the "answers", which is why the spirit correlates with the degree of self-knowledge and therefore the questions we humans raise.

Trying to bring 1. and 2. together:
If we use the terms "instinct" and "spirit", MAL might have started with a major ratio of instinct (probably up to 100%), while the spirit only existed in potentiality. It is therefore, that we perceive the universe in the beginning as something, that only unfolds by unchangable patterns, that we call laws of nature.

With the degree of increasing self-awareness by living creatures, the spirit evolves continously and with it, the knowledge of its intentions, preferences and so on. It is this volitional deliberate spirit of MAL, that humans probably call God.

And while the spirit of MAL increases in ratio, the instinct automatically has to decrease.
It is this observation, that Thomas Campbell (an ideal physicist) in his BIG Theory of Everything equates to "entropy".
While matter (the instinctive activity of MAL) tends to lower states of order (= useless energy), consciousness and self-awareness (=spirit) tends to higher states of order (=useful energy). For him this is also the reason why MAL prefers love over fear, unity over division, empathy over greed. They all represent higher states of order and therefore an outpouring of psychic energy, that can be used to elaborate on new possibilities.

This probably also correlates with your kind of thinking, Hedge?

Same caution against dualism applies here, which seems to give rise to the "ratio" language. Also, I would not say the "laws of nature" are "unchangeable" patterns. All perspectival beings who give rise to those principles, laws, archetypes, etc. within eternal MAL potential are evolving. But I think it is correct to say the progression from unknowing to knowing spiritual activity is how we currently perceive the Cosmos "in the beginning" through our evolving relative perspectives. It is not an absolute state of truth - as our perspective evolves, so does our understanding of how MAL's spiritual activity unfolds within and through us. Related, there is the always problematic concept of linear time, which should really be abandoned when trying to understand the essential activities involved. Our experience of time is the phenomenal appearance of the complex interactions between other perspectives of MAL with our own.

I get your point that we as multiple perspectives evolve in our knowledge and wisdom. However, how do you then understand the concept of MAL evolving? Does it evolve at all?

[Hedge90]

And while the spirit of MAL increases in ratio, the instinct automatically has to decrease.
It is this observation, that Thomas Campbell (an ideal physicist) in his BIG Theory of Everything equates to "entropy".

A very interesting reinterpretation of TC's Big Toe. However, his never-ending fight against entropy (he says there will never ever be any rest in the unbounded effort to evolve consciousness) appears to be a fight against fear of dissolution or chaos. And of course the laws of nature are not chaotic, though they are instinctive.

"Fight" implies something to be fought against though, but I'm not ruling out that MAL is striving against chaos / enthropy (but this implies that MAL has certain internal limitations). Well, I hope MAL wins. Black holes are probably really painful from MAL's perspective

[AshvinP]

What I find interesting are the ideas, that BK raises both in "More than allegory" and "Decoding Jung's Metaphysics" (as far as I get it correctly).

1. In "More than allegory", BK claims that human's mission is to raise questions in order for MAL to get to know itself. However, the answers lie within MAL itself. Correct me if I am wrong, but for me, for answers to exist within MAL, there has to be some form of intention, "likes", "preferences"... within MAL (everything we metaphysically sum up as archetypal patterns).

I think we just need to be careful that we are not setting up any implicit dualisms between our-Self and MAL. The latter is like the eternal potentiality of all possible ideational activity, and the individual human is a differentiated relative perspective which is constellated by all other differentiated perspectives of MAL. It is the integration of all such perspectives who is our true Self (MAL), the shared "I" who projects from the 'Center' through all perspectival beings. The archetypal beings are more 'simple' perspectives, closer to the 'Center', who constellate our more complicated experience on the 'periphery', but "simple" should not be confused with unintelligent, non-reflective, animalistic, or anything similar. Their experience is just way less fragmented and abstract than our own, i.e. it is more integrated and concrete.

2. Furthermore Jung distinguishes between two forms or parts of the psyche: "instinct" and "spirit". While instinct is the primitive one, unfolding by static patterns or laws, the spirit is much more dynamic, relational and wise. It is able to undermine its instincts for the common good.
For me, it is the spirit that holds the "answers", which is why the spirit correlates with the degree of self-knowledge and therefore the questions we humans raise.

Trying to bring 1. and 2. together:
If we use the terms "instinct" and "spirit", MAL might have started with a major ratio of instinct (probably up to 100%), while the spirit only existed in potentiality. It is therefore, that we perceive the universe in the beginning as something, that only unfolds by unchangable patterns, that we call laws of nature.

With the degree of increasing self-awareness by living creatures, the spirit evolves continously and with it, the knowledge of its intentions, preferences and so on. It is this volitional deliberate spirit of MAL, that humans probably call God.

And while the spirit of MAL increases in ratio, the instinct automatically has to decrease.
It is this observation, that Thomas Campbell (an ideal physicist) in his BIG Theory of Everything equates to "entropy".
While matter (the instinctive activity of MAL) tends to lower states of order (= useless energy), consciousness and self-awareness (=spirit) tends to higher states of order (=useful energy). For him this is also the reason why MAL prefers love over fear, unity over division, empathy over greed. They all represent higher states of order and therefore an outpouring of psychic energy, that can be used to elaborate on new possibilities.

This probably also correlates with your kind of thinking, Hedge?

Same caution against dualism applies here, which seems to give rise to the "ratio" language. Also, I would not say the "laws of nature" are "unchangeable" patterns. All perspectival beings who give rise to those principles, laws, archetypes, etc. within eternal MAL potential are evolving. But I think it is correct to say the progression from unknowing to knowing spiritual activity is how we currently perceive the Cosmos "in the beginning" through our evolving relative perspectives. It is not an absolute state of truth - as our perspective evolves, so does our understanding of how MAL's spiritual activity unfolds within and through us. Related, there is the always problematic concept of linear time, which should really be abandoned when trying to understand the essential activities involved. Our experience of time is the phenomenal appearance of the complex interactions between other perspectives of MAL with our own.

I get your point that we as multiple perspectives evolve in our knowledge and wisdom. However, how do you then understand the concept of MAL evolving? Does it evolve at all?

The totality of evolving perspectives of MAL are not other than MAL, so yes all is evolving. To stop evolving would be to stop experiencing Time, and we have no idea whether that can or will ever occur.