Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
WHereas the thread title reads this: "What Does the Idea of 'God' Signify?"
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What Does the Idea of 'God' Signify?
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 6:12 pmI've not read the whole thread, and would imagine that many may want to ask other questions, but ..waitAverageBozo wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 3:43 pmAmen. That’s what I would have expected.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 5:48 amNeither.AverageBozo wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 6:59 pm Is the purpose of this thread to discuss what God consists of or whether God exists?
Literally, is the idea of God is significant.
It does not assume existence, or of any consistency.
It's about an idea. not an actual thing.
And Someone has managed to change the thread title. - making the thread heretofore pointless
[/quote
] The reason why I am commenting is to explain the title of thread change. I simply messaged Sy Borg, asking her to change it because someone had created a thread title which I thought clashed with mine. As it happened, I had received a number of replies before the title got changed. So, as far as I see, it is the same thread whatever it is called. I certainly hope the new title won't put anyone off, and It still involves the idea or image of 'God'.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
If it causes too much confusion that the title has changed I guess that I could get it altered back to the original one, and as I said in the post above the only reason why I asked for it to be changed was because I felt that the thread question title created after mine was similar. However, I don't wish to mess up any discussion which has begun.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What Does the Idea of 'God' Signify?
Well, in spite of any title change there is still the issue of wisdom and understanding. Wisdom was sometimes described as 'Sophia'. It does come down to whether the idea of "God' helps or hinders understanding in life. In some ways, the term 'God' may be seen as being a mystical term glossing over so much.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 11:29 amWisdom? Understanding?JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 7:05 pm It is about different paradigms and James Frazer, in his, 'The Golden Bough' which is an anthropological text, spoke of the general progress though the stages of magic; religion and science. He also suggested the possibility of one beyond all three and I have wondered what that might entail.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What Does the Idea of 'God' Signify?
One aspect which I wonder about is how the paradox can be looked at. Human beings wonder about the nature of reality and this is reflected in the image which human beings create of the reality beyond oneself. One aspect of this is the idea of 'I and Thou', by Martin Buber in his book called that. It is about subjectivity and beyond. In the context of belief in God the significant other is 'the divine' and, without it, other is about other humans, as the intersubjective domain.Nick_A wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 2:53 pmHi JackJackDaydream wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 12:03 pm I am adding something which just came into my head when I closed my eyes. Part of the reason why I am adding something to mine, to create a new slant to my own, partly as a thread on more or less the same question just after mine, so I am hoping that the two can go off in a little different direction so that the two don't clash.
After writing my thread I lay back on my bed and closed my eyes. In my mind's eye I visualised a spiral curling or swerving in and out of everything. It could be like some kind of energy, almost like some kind of force like electricity. I also wondered whether this is whether this is what is is conveyed in the spirals of spirals in Celtic knots.
I am thinking that it would be worth people thinking of the image or images which come into your mind when you think.of God, including those of childhood if you were brought up as religious. If not, can you visualise the idea of the absence of God, or is that not possible. That can be a starting point for reflection. I may also change the word in the title from idea of God to image of God and will send an email to the administrator, so that the title can actually be a bit different to the other thread. Also, this would tie in with my own reading of Jung on God because he emphasises that it is only possible to 'know' of God in such a way, in religious experiences. So, whether or not you believe in God I invite you to close your eyes and imagine...
Does God create Man or does Man create God? If man creates God then the lower form of didactic reason or dianoia allows us to imagine our own reality. This is sufficient for many. However if God creates Man, it can be felt at the depth of Man's being through higher reason or noesis: (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
A person must decide if their need for meaning, for God, is satisfied through fantasy or reality and practice what leads to what motivates them.
"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©
Also, Jung speaks of how the image of God changed from the Old to New Testament. He is seeing this as being the evolution of the idea of God in the drama of the Judaeo- Christian narrative, as if the relationship between humanity and God is an ongoing development. This is in accordance with the idea which had been central to the Jewish understanding, that human beings have a personal relationship with God.
Jung leaves some ambiguity about the objective reality of 'God' and whether human understanding is changing or whether God is evolving through the Biblical drama. He is drawing upon Kant's idea of the difficulty of knowing any 'transcendent' reality directly as well as the Gnostic idea of the importance of knowledge within the human psyche.
-
- Posts: 449
- Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am
Re: What Does the Idea of 'God' Signify?
JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 7:05 pmHumans may have written the Bible, but God has the overall power of editor. We can only read what God intends us to read. If God has the power to create the universe and life, then he also has the power to have scriptures written in the way he intends.The point which I am trying to get to is more about the mindsets of those people who were involved in the creation of narratives in the Bible.
The creation of the universe and life is history. Technical progress in ideas can't change history. There is a 'Truth.Of course, there has been so much technical progress in ideas and I am not against this progress.
Within our life time, we will never understand how the universe and life came to be. At the moment, magic might seem like the best explanation. something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything.The Golden Bough' which is an anthropological text, spoke of the general progress though the stages of magic; religion and science.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: What Does the Idea of 'God' Signify?
EricPH wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 7:32 pmWhat is important here is the element is the mystery of existence, and it is in relation to this that many have spoken of the idea of 'God', to try to explain whatever exists as the source beyond what is manifest in nature and the world.JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 6th, 2022, 7:05 pmHumans may have written the Bible, but God has the overall power of editor. We can only read what God intends us to read. If God has the power to create the universe and life, then he also has the power to have scriptures written in the way he intends.The point which I am trying to get to is more about the mindsets of those people who were involved in the creation of narratives in the Bible.
The creation of the universe and life is history. Technical progress in ideas can't change history. There is a 'Truth.Of course, there has been so much technical progress in ideas and I am not against this progress.
Within our life time, we will never understand how the universe and life came to be. At the moment, magic might seem like the best explanation. something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything.The Golden Bough' which is an anthropological text, spoke of the general progress though the stages of magic; religion and science.
- JJJ
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: September 8th, 2022, 12:59 am
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
Therefore, whatever we come up with is pure supposition.
The important thing is that we believe our own suppositions, not someone else’s. Of course we read and listen and experience, but ultimately we have to come to our own understanding and if that understanding serves us in that it assists us to become the highest ideal of who we see ourselves as being, then it is right for us and no one has the right to say otherwise.
I do not want people to believe as I do except for one thing.
There is no judgment or punishment waiting in some afterlife.
The laws of the universe (god/ source of creation) are in place. They make no moral judgments but there is cause and effect.
Break these laws and there will be consequences. To see those consequences as punishment by some benign super being is pure fantasy.
How can I say that with certainty?
Because the very premise of a benign sentient as understood in human terms completely contradicts the picture that man through religion has painted of this creature. If the ‘god’ that religion portrays exists, either east and west, then we puny humans can teach it a thing or two about love and kindness etc. So, my idea of a creator is cause. Cause to be. Do I know what that cause is? Definitely not. Do I recognize that I am a product of that cause? Most certainly.
I am so I must be. I exist so some process produced me.
Is this cause capable of evil as well as good? This is not a good question because again it comes within the framework of human reasoning and morals that we ‘understand’ and this cause is obviously far more complex than we understand. We are getting there, we have advanced, but in football terms we have only just come on to the field and placed the ball ready for kick off and the field instead of being 100 yards is infinite in length.
So rather than ask is this cause capable of good and evil, I feel the understanding is that within the sphere/realm (I’m not sure what word to use) of being everything is possible, even things that we are not aware of yet. If someone said to you 100 years ago there would be a piece of silicon the size of a fingernail that could perform mathematical computations faster than a human brain everyone (except those with incredible foresight) would have said……impossible.
So good and evil are human constructs and cannot exist within the realm of the absolute where there is no subjective judgment as to ‘wrong and right’. All we need to ask is ‘does my decision serve me? If I want to become a chef and I enroll in a mechanic’s course, is my decision morally wrong? No, but it certainly will not serve me in helping me to achieve my goal of becoming a chef. If you are in a relationship that is holding you back from whom you want to be, is it morally wrong to end it? As with some of the things that we do to each other... do they serve to better mankind? If not then it's not rocket science... we should not do them.
So yes, we have free will. Yes, we can do whatever we want. There is no punishment from any ‘god’, but there are consequences against one self and society as a whole.
When we discuss ‘god’/creation/first cause, leave morality out of it. ‘It’ (the creative process) has no concern with morality but with creating, creating the gases that formed the stars and planets and us (I leave the technical facts and order of things to those much more informed than I am) but along with the physical creation we have to recognize we have a spiritual side. Part of our problem today is that we have evolved technologically much faster than spiritually. Until we realize that the way we are living now is not in our best interests the problems that plague the planet will persist. Do we need to change the technology or how we apply it? I think the answer is more of a spiritual nature than a physical one.
Can someone (and this is not a challenge I just want to know) answer me this:
Are there any other species on this planet that take their own life? I’m not talking about being sick or facing imminent death, I’m talking about deciding that you do not want to live anymore. Why do we as humans do that when to my knowledge no other species does that, especially in light of evolution’s creed of survival at all costs? (personally, I believe evolution is all part of the creative process but only covers the physical nature of things and neglects the spiritual).
I personally know, not merely believe, that no benign sentient being is watching my every move waiting to pounce upon my death to wreak havoc and punishment. I know that I am made of matter and energy, not just the energy in my cells but another energy that makes me both unique and at the same time one with the universe. I know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted but cannot be destroyed so therefore I know on some level I will never cease to exist.
As such I do not fear death, just as I do not fear life. I am thankful to whatever process caused me to be. We have one goal in this phase of life… live it to the full, be engaged at the highest level of consciousness at all times because this phase of existence is relatively short so make the most of it and to what’s next…..I don’t know but as with this life I look forward to every moment of it.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
Welcome to the forum and I found your post interesting to read. It is curious to know where we fit into the larger processes beyond us. I certainly don't feel that some being is watching mr but I do feel that there is 'something beyond', whether it is some greater underlying aspect of consciousness or unconscious will. I also have a sense of some kind of depth within myself which seems to be a centre, like a 'soul', even involved in my own learning experiences. I often feel that I mess things up and reach deadend. However, I have some very positive experiences too and it like being able to tap into a higher realm.JJJ wrote: ↑September 8th, 2022, 1:21 am I think the starting place in trying to figure out the universe/creation (or 'god' if you prefer) is to appreciate it is beyond human understanding.
Therefore, whatever we come up with is pure supposition.
The important thing is that we believe our own suppositions, not someone else’s. Of course we read and listen and experience, but ultimately we have to come to our own understanding and if that understanding serves us in that it assists us to become the highest ideal of who we see ourselves as being, then it is right for us and no one has the right to say otherwise.
I do not want people to believe as I do except for one thing.
There is no judgment or punishment waiting in some afterlife.
The laws of the universe (god/ source of creation) are in place. They make no moral judgments but there is cause and effect.
Break these laws and there will be consequences. To see those consequences as punishment by some benign super being is pure fantasy.
How can I say that with certainty?
Because the very premise of a benign sentient as understood in human terms completely contradicts the picture that man through religion has painted of this creature. If the ‘god’ that religion portrays exists, either east and west, then we puny humans can teach it a thing or two about love and kindness etc. So, my idea of a creator is cause. Cause to be. Do I know what that cause is? Definitely not. Do I recognize that I am a product of that cause? Most certainly.
I am so I must be. I exist so some process produced me.
Is this cause capable of evil as well as good? This is not a good question because again it comes within the framework of human reasoning and morals that we ‘understand’ and this cause is obviously far more complex than we understand. We are getting there, we have advanced, but in football terms we have only just come on to the field and placed the ball ready for kick off and the field instead of being 100 yards is infinite in length.
So rather than ask is this cause capable of good and evil, I feel the understanding is that within the sphere/realm (I’m not sure what word to use) of being everything is possible, even things that we are not aware of yet. If someone said to you 100 years ago there would be a piece of silicon the size of a fingernail that could perform mathematical computations faster than a human brain everyone (except those with incredible foresight) would have said……impossible.
So good and evil are human constructs and cannot exist within the realm of the absolute where there is no subjective judgment as to ‘wrong and right’. All we need to ask is ‘does my decision serve me? If I want to become a chef and I enroll in a mechanic’s course, is my decision morally wrong? No, but it certainly will not serve me in helping me to achieve my goal of becoming a chef. If you are in a relationship that is holding you back from whom you want to be, is it morally wrong to end it? As with some of the things that we do to each other... do they serve to better mankind? If not then it's not rocket science... we should not do them.
So yes, we have free will. Yes, we can do whatever we want. There is no punishment from any ‘god’, but there are consequences against one self and society as a whole.
When we discuss ‘god’/creation/first cause, leave morality out of it. ‘It’ (the creative process) has no concern with morality but with creating, creating the gases that formed the stars and planets and us (I leave the technical facts and order of things to those much more informed than I am) but along with the physical creation we have to recognize we have a spiritual side. Part of our problem today is that we have evolved technologically much faster than spiritually. Until we realize that the way we are living now is not in our best interests the problems that plague the planet will persist. Do we need to change the technology or how we apply it? I think the answer is more of a spiritual nature than a physical one.
Can someone (and this is not a challenge I just want to know) answer me this:
Are there any other species on this planet that take their own life? I’m not talking about being sick or facing imminent death, I’m talking about deciding that you do not want to live anymore. Why do we as humans do that when to my knowledge no other species does that, especially in light of evolution’s creed of survival at all costs? (personally, I believe evolution is all part of the creative process but only covers the physical nature of things and neglects the spiritual).
I personally know, not merely believe, that no benign sentient being is watching my every move waiting to pounce upon my death to wreak havoc and punishment. I know that I am made of matter and energy, not just the energy in my cells but another energy that makes me both unique and at the same time one with the universe. I know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be converted but cannot be destroyed so therefore I know on some level I will never cease to exist.
As such I do not fear death, just as I do not fear life. I am thankful to whatever process caused me to be. We have one goal in this phase of life… live it to the full, be engaged at the highest level of consciousness at all times because this phase of existence is relatively short so make the most of it and to what’s next…..I don’t know but as with this life I look forward to every moment of it.
With your question about whether and species other than humans end their lives sometimes when it gets too much, I would imagine that human beings are the only ones who do it consciously. That is connected to conscious thoughts and language, which is involved in decisions. I have known people who have killed themselves and it probably was in a state of panic or despair. At times, I have thought about doing such a thing but I don't think that I would. I know it would effect those closest to me very badly and, also, it is not the way I would like to die. Often, I see such thoughts as being connected to some kind of change needed, and this being about taking some kind of risks in life in making some changes.
It does seem that there some essential energy to being alive. Some thinkers have also spoken of a daimon, which may like an oversoul which connects to some kind of consciousness which may emerge from the depths of the unconscious like a source. At times, I get stressed out and frustrated. But, it is likely that appreciating the life force and being alive is important. I do try to meditate and find the centre of my being, which is not always easy and I do experience fear, but try to not let it drag me down. I am not sure if my answer is one which you will find helpful and I am trying to keep on topic, and not allow it to all become disjointed.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: What Does the Idea of 'God' Signify?
SO what are we talking about?JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 6:48 pmThe reason why I am commenting is to explain the title of thread change. I simply messaged Sy Borg, asking her to change it because someone had created a thread title which I thought clashed with mine. As it happened, I had received a number of replies before the title got changed. So, as far as I see, it is the same thread whatever it is called. I certainly hope the new title won't put anyone off, and It still involves the idea or image of 'God'.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 6:12 pmI've not read the whole thread, and would imagine that many may want to ask other questions, but ..wait
And Someone has managed to change the thread title. - making the thread heretofore pointless
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
I can only ask, that is there was already a thread with a similar title then why not address your questions there rather than strat yet another thread about "god"?JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 6:55 pmIf it causes too much confusion that the title has changed I guess that I could get it altered back to the original one, and as I said in the post above the only reason why I asked for it to be changed was because I felt that the thread question title created after mine was similar. However, I don't wish to mess up any discussion which has begun.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
I had just written my thread when the other one was written but I wanted to develop my own. It may be that this thread has become disjointed as a result of the title change. I would still like some useful debate to take place within it, so I am trying to keep it focused and see how or whether the discussion can follow through. It is hard to know at this stage and the idea and image of God is still the central basis, and I am seeing it as one which is not simply being about whether there is proof of God or not, because there have been so many threads on that previously.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 8th, 2022, 4:36 amI can only ask, that is there was already a thread with a similar title then why not address your questions there rather than strat yet another thread about "god"?JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 7th, 2022, 6:55 pmIf it causes too much confusion that the title has changed I guess that I could get it altered back to the original one, and as I said in the post above the only reason why I asked for it to be changed was because I felt that the thread question title created after mine was similar. However, I don't wish to mess up any discussion which has begun.
Yesterday, I was out reading and had ideas which I wished to explore in this thread. However, I will see what happens here and if this discussion falls apart, I may start a new thread, but with a different angle, and maybe not with the main issue being 'God'. I just wish to generate some worthwhile discussion, but I am flexible about what may emerge in this one while it still active.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
The idea of rebirth and its belief is being one in congruency with substance dualism. How is the Jungian idea of archetype rebirth compared to the Descartes idea of dualism? In the idea of Descartes, the physical and the mental are two different things connected by the forms. Forms are immaterial and the intellect have an affinity with the Forms. It is what Frege called concepts. Although Jung archetype of rebirth include metempsychosis, reincarnation, resurrection, he was mostly interested in psychological rebirth or individuation by ritual or forum experiences.
Frege: “The behavior of the concept is essentially predicative, even where something is being asserted about it; consequently, it can be replaced there by another concept, never by an object. Thus, the assertion that is made about a concept does not suit an object. Second level concepts, which concept fall under, are essentially different from first-level concepts, which objects fall under. The relation of an object to a first-level concept that it falls under is different from the (admittedly similar) of a first-level to a second-level concept. (To do justice at once to the distinction and to the similarity, we might say: An object falls under a first-level concept; a concept falls within a second level-concept). The distinction of concept and object thus still holds with all its sharpness.”
The main thesis of Frege is that fruitful definitions involve comprehension, and that logic is informative, and comprehension is a part of pure logic. Then:
Second-level concepts are quantifiers.
Zero is a number
Zero is nor the successor of another number
Every number is the successor of another number.
Ex: In modern physics there is an object (Universe) with zero mass and first-level concepts originating second-level concepts (quantifiers).
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
I haven't read Frege. As far as Jung is concerned, he does speak of the possibility of reincarnation in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections. However, he is speculating and contemplating just like most of us do at times. The greatest Jungian text on the topic is, 'Many Lives, Many Masters', by Brian Weiss. In working as a hypnotherapist, with no prior thinking on reincarnation, he was working with a woman and uncovered past life. They were not just sketchy memories but really detailed. It certainly made him wonder about the possibility of reincarnation, although he was uncertain whether they were 'real' memories or based on tapping into the collective unconscious.The Beast wrote: ↑September 8th, 2022, 10:08 am Hi.
The idea of rebirth and its belief is being one in congruency with substance dualism. How is the Jungian idea of archetype rebirth compared to the Descartes idea of dualism? In the idea of Descartes, the physical and the mental are two different things connected by the forms. Forms are immaterial and the intellect have an affinity with the Forms. It is what Frege called concepts. Although Jung archetype of rebirth include metempsychosis, reincarnation, resurrection, he was mostly interested in psychological rebirth or individuation by ritual or forum experiences.
Frege: “The behavior of the concept is essentially predicative, even where something is being asserted about it; consequently, it can be replaced there by another concept, never by an object. Thus, the assertion that is made about a concept does not suit an object. Second level concepts, which concept fall under, are essentially different from first-level concepts, which objects fall under. The relation of an object to a first-level concept that it falls under is different from the (admittedly similar) of a first-level to a second-level concept. (To do justice at once to the distinction and to the similarity, we might say: An object falls under a first-level concept; a concept falls within a second level-concept). The distinction of concept and object thus still holds with all its sharpness.”
The main thesis of Frege is that fruitful definitions involve comprehension, and that logic is informative, and comprehension is a part of pure logic. Then:
Second-level concepts are quantifiers.
Zero is a number
Zero is nor the successor of another number
Every number is the successor of another number.
Ex: In modern physics there is an object (Universe) with zero mass and first-level concepts originating second-level concepts (quantifiers).
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Gnosticism, Mysticism and the Idea or Imagining of 'God': How May Religious Experience be Understood?
I had considered the electromagnetic force as fundamental in the structures of the brain. It is a possible mechanism for linking the mind to the brain. It is the electromagnetic involvement in the physiological processes that is responsible for the brain waves. An electromagnetic method of affinity to the Forms. An evolutionary metaphysical embrace. Yet, it is the quantum mechanical connection bringing together the physical phenomena and the mind. It is the mind of the observer complicated by the morphing of new processes and methods which in the words of Frege mean new concepts replacing old concepts. It is like this: If consciousness cannot be measured and it is non-physical then new methods ought to be concepts or/and quantum forces shaping new methods by the habit and in DNA. Actions forging as quantum forces or forces morphing old structures into new ones. Is it by living that we reach the onset of consciousness and of our unlimited potential. The testing of conscious activity has yielded methods like the Zap and Zip so to indulge in the “unpacking” and the integrating information theory assigning the quantifier ᵩ to conscious activity. The latter has determined that consciousness cannot be programmed but needs to arise in the system.JackDaydream wrote: ↑September 8th, 2022, 1:08 pmI haven't read Frege. As far as Jung is concerned, he does speak of the possibility of reincarnation in his autobiography, 'Memories, Dreams and Reflections. However, he is speculating and contemplating just like most of us do at times. The greatest Jungian text on the topic is, 'Many Lives, Many Masters', by Brian Weiss. In working as a hypnotherapist, with no prior thinking on reincarnation, he was working with a woman and uncovered past life. They were not just sketchy memories but really detailed. It certainly made him wonder about the possibility of reincarnation, although he was uncertain whether they were 'real' memories or based on tapping into the collective unconscious.The Beast wrote: ↑September 8th, 2022, 10:08 am Hi.
The idea of rebirth and its belief is being one in congruency with substance dualism. How is the Jungian idea of archetype rebirth compared to the Descartes idea of dualism? In the idea of Descartes, the physical and the mental are two different things connected by the forms. Forms are immaterial and the intellect have an affinity with the Forms. It is what Frege called concepts. Although Jung archetype of rebirth include metempsychosis, reincarnation, resurrection, he was mostly interested in psychological rebirth or individuation by ritual or forum experiences.
Frege: “The behavior of the concept is essentially predicative, even where something is being asserted about it; consequently, it can be replaced there by another concept, never by an object. Thus, the assertion that is made about a concept does not suit an object. Second level concepts, which concept fall under, are essentially different from first-level concepts, which objects fall under. The relation of an object to a first-level concept that it falls under is different from the (admittedly similar) of a first-level to a second-level concept. (To do justice at once to the distinction and to the similarity, we might say: An object falls under a first-level concept; a concept falls within a second level-concept). The distinction of concept and object thus still holds with all its sharpness.”
The main thesis of Frege is that fruitful definitions involve comprehension, and that logic is informative, and comprehension is a part of pure logic. Then:
Second-level concepts are quantifiers.
Zero is a number
Zero is nor the successor of another number
Every number is the successor of another number.
Ex: In modern physics there is an object (Universe) with zero mass and first-level concepts originating second-level concepts (quantifiers).
“Gnostic philosophy joined “Mater Alchimia” and repeats the Gnostic myth of the Nous, who, beholding his reflection in the depths below, plunged down and was swallowed in the embrace of Physis “
Are you proposing a new kind of dualism to account for a female spirit having phenomenal experiences of the male body? 'I propose the philosophy of the transgender dualism'
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023