lorenzop wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 3:14 am
I did (above) grant there could be archetypal ideas as artifacts of the human experience, but I stand by my claim that they are not baked into reality, but are the result of body\mind activity of conscious agents.
I would also tend to believe these archetypal ideas are reflections of human pathologies, failings and unanswered inquiries.
IOW, these archetypal ideas don't apply to everyone, and not everyone needs or is interested in them.
Regarding the bold - would you say that the gravity of the Sun results only from body\mind activity of conscious agents? I'm not speaking about our
intellectual concept of gravity but the fact that we seem to share a common Cosmic context that is more powerful than individual whims and concepts. We experience years, seasons and so on, and can do very little to wish that away. Can we say that these things don't apply to everyone or they apply only if we have interest in them?
Of course, in general we perceive and reason about all this
indirectly, through discovering certain lawfulness
within our bodily perceptions. It's agreeable that such conceptual understanding requires the support of the individual brain. But what in your view is the
true essence of the Cosmic context? Is it only a synchronized, consensual hallucination shared between fully independent conscious agents (like Adur's philosophy)? Something like a multiplayer game where all calculations happen on the individual computer but we only exchange network packets to keep the separate game states on each PC synchronized to one another? Or there's truly something greater than individual minds which serves as the context for our streams of being?
If you opt for the latter, then the question would be whether this living context is of spiritual nature, whether according to the principle of Oneness, human consciousness can expand and know from experiential perspective something of this Macrocosmic context within which our body-bound consciousness is embedded?
If you lean towards the view that there might be such a spiritual context but it is consciously
unknowable, then we arrive at Schop's position. On the other hand, if you conceive of the possibility that because of Oneness, there's no principle obstacle that human-level consciousness can find its nested relations within Cosmic Consciousness, then you may conceive that what is here called archetypes, are precisely these Macrocosmic ideal forces that constitute our Cosmic context. We should clearly distinguish between our
conceptual symbols for these archetypal forces, which indeed are dependent on our individual brain structures - both physical and more subtle - and the
actual Macrocosmically experienced spiritual forces.
So the whole question is whether you conceive as a possibility that the Cosmos is spiritual in nature, whether there are Macrocosmic spiritual perspectives which constitute the inner reality of the Sun, the planets, the kingdoms of Nature and so on, or you lean towards a more agnostic view, where lucid consciousness can emerge only in something like the highly complicated human system, while the inner reality of the Cosmos can be innerly known only asymptotically because the more we expand towards its vastness, the more we discover only the cognitively dark instinctive Will that permeates and moves all, yet can know itself consciously only in human heads.