Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remake Cog (essay)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Remake Cog (essay)

    I read yesterday in the book Trance Zero, how Science has contributed virtually nothing to the endeavours of different disciplines, but specifically for this case I mean its relation to Psychology.
    I have been studying psychology mostly under Jung, and have learned a lot through this. I am having a difficulty understanding how his typifying the "collective unconscious", and forming systems of relations within the 'individual' contents, is not science.
    I see it as these forms, archetypes, expressions of the mind, repeat, so that through time we have these systems of dealing with them -- whether we deal unconsciously or consciously, the goal would be to make these forms conscious. Through myself.
    For instance, you have the idea of The Fool. It is plain what this means without getting into meandering definition. We all have experienced "being a fool". While psychology doesn't explicitly have an archetype of the Fool, as that is the territory of the Arcanum, it still can make suppositions on the grounds of "what a fool is".
    Knowledge of the psyche. One becomes wise, through experience, through growth, to undertake the further sight of the "Wise".
    Science is the pursuit of knowledge to understand the world, and to create patterns of working relationships between cause and effect. Our world depends on these relationships to get through each day, so that things work as they are supposed to.
    In psychology, it is less sure ... You cannot consider someone whom you think is a fool, or someone without knowledge, under the aegis of "wanting to make them wise". The natural relationship between inner-psyche and outer-psyche are set up. The mind is alive, and we work through that to contemplate the tenuous relationships of causes and effects. Science deems to "dissect" the world, and form slices of "time dependent" relations of cause and effect, so that it becomes very sure of itself. This is an attraction as well as an impediment of the discipline.
    It can create changes in the relationships of cause and effect which make Science something of an animal, or even a beast.
    I am drawing this out to better understand the two: Science // Psychology.
    From what I have learned about people, and the accrual of knowledge of the darkness and lightness of the psyche, we have to deal with more of the "value-judgments" and stigmas of the mind; we have to work with the raw material, and be humble, knowing we don't understand.
    Of course, with science, the relationships "ideally" are clear cut: You know that carrying out this experiment produces this result, so that you can be sure that this process will happen every time you repeat it.
    In psychology we're dealing with the mind. In science we're dealing with matter. Psych = Air, Science = Earth.
    Our plight is to understand the world through our mind, through our senses, to understand why we suffer: Psychology IS this territory of explanation, science is the body of knowledge accrued towards the end of "what we can know".
    The blind-spot is when we rely on science without understanding ourselves. It has produced a massive amount of suffering, and it is not held accountable.
    Maybe psychology has produced a similar level of suffering, though that would be counter to the aims of "understanding".
    The body of work Carl Jung has written on has included the archetypes of the Collective unconscious, autonomous forms which appear in dealing with the psyche of the individual dealing with the world and themself. God, I am reminded, is obvious to all of us: It exists and has appeared alongside all cultures and traditions in some form or another. It is ubiquitous, it is not so much an idea as it is a Fact of existence. Where ever you go you will find how people relate to this Monadic conglomeration we simplify by calling "God" without ever really understanding what it is. Can you understand in a broad stroke what "darkness" is? God would be the complete motion which is able to break apart its own understanding and "defy". God would be the complete stillness which is able to unify its own misunderstanding and "accord". Science cannot touch the gray areas, due to our own misunderstandings--colossal-- of reality.
    It is well known in psychology that with every 'conscious content' that there is an according opposite, of which make up the gradations between extremes. And it is well known that in the tension between these apparently contradictory elements we find the truth of relativity.
    While God as a psychological content is ever-present within history, psychology asks us to suspend belief and disbelief-- this is the territory of science, then. Empirical science of understanding something without being possessed by its valence.
    Whether we make the choice to personally believe in God, Science cannot experiment upon this. In the realm of the psyche we are not SURE besides what we glean from history, What it was like during times we weren't present. We make stabs.
    We live on a dark slab which has been illuminated by this being of "culture" -- civilization has existed for about 10,500 years, dated by our most persevering "material" artifacts/monuments. Before that for hundreds of thousands of years we know less about 'what was'.
    Our systems of dealing with the world are like the beautiful foam which gives birth to the Goddess of Love Aphrodite. We take for granted that it is all perennial. We are caught within the headlock of our own psychology and science, mutating. We are dealing with "impersonal forces" acting upon humanity, due to, it seems, our own inability so far to realize what we are. We have been corralled in cages -- perhaps to pose the question, generation after generation, what am I, what do I believe, what do I want, is this right?
    Those are questions of psychology, which viewed through the lens of "scientific rigor" we can create a tentative map of "personality", as well of the subtle and cosmic relationship to "non-personality".
    God is not merely an archetype. God is alive within us all. When we reach the point of defining something, we are actually manifesting intentions. You can put any cloth or detritus upon God, and still the 'tabula rasa' of individuals faring through the world of micro and macro, of understanding and misunderstanding, is subject to any infinity of interpretations.
    While this is true the relativity of our subjection to experience, in psychology it is known that we need Both extremes, and knowledge of their polar natures, to have a better understanding of Self, through which we move to gain a better dealing through the world. Science and psychology both implicitly promise to make the world better-- and it is up for question whether this is a reality, rather than a possibility.
    There is a tenuous relationship between science and religion, then, which in the grand frame of history Psychology is needed, to better understand the Impersonality of reality. We can only do this by analyzing with rigor the tenuous relationships, the subtle manifestations of the mind, in which we both participate and observe. "Better" is relative to "whom". In psychology we have to have a firm understanding of ourselves before we go any further beyond, or else it will lead us to large miscalculation and misunderstanding. In science we attempt to unravel from a different perspective these "relationships", and it is also only through the self that we can do science. There is no way you can remove "self"; you can say that one is not themselves, or one is acting from a controlling, selfish "ego", but the act of my writing this is to better see how Man and God relate to one another, through disciplines. Any metaphysical assertion of God can be denied, proven otherwise. This is dealing with the mercurial nature of ourselves, reflecting upon a world which has hosted our little "feelers" for much longer than we can fathom, and has taken our "piercing"--of the collective uinconscious, for instance--and merely remained what it was the entire time.
    So it becomes up to us to blend the disciplines and gain a better understanding of what we are, and what we can possibly be. And where we might have been.
    We might want stability, but we should be able to change when needed. I don't know what Humanity needs. I know that a plant needs only some essential things to grow, however. And to undertake the study of what these are, and what results from these conditions, IS the area of science. Science which dehumanizes us misses Psychology, misses the ideals and commandments of God which He has imposed upon Humanity. Humanity and God are both "singular". But they do not stand for "single" things that we can point to or delineate from something else outside of their differences -- accrued and understood (or misunderstood) through time.
    At the height of human experience, at the apex of all our psychology, you have a culmination in an indivisible unity we call God. It is a placeholder, a reminder of what we are and have been and can possibly be. When you begin splitting God, you have the discipline of science--which needs to be tempered by the fact that an individual can act, and affect us all in many ways,-- it needs to be performed by understanding how the little affects the big, and vice versa.
    We have to be able to See what we are, to better know how to Act in accordance with Truth to ourselves and the world we affect with every thought and action. We have to be willing to suspend the need for belief and understand beyond Self. Everything accords.
Working...
X