They are planning to fake aliens (like they did planet) and shut down the Internet. They are in war and they are coming for our communication! Lucky for us, they don't know about Nietzsche's law: you always become what you are trying to avoid.
Campbell always lost debate from Muslim Scholars same to other christians. Let us watch ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-h2H589trGrM.html
I became a fan of Joseph Campbell within 2 seconds of encountering the Bill Moyers interview on PBS in 1988. There was a presence about him I had never seen before, but that I somehow recognized immediately: this was a spiritual master, and a mentor, of an ancient tradition somehow brought into the modern age -- something I longed for, and I'm not sure if I even realized it at age 20.
Life-affirming master! My "inner boyfriend" aka "animus" according to Jung, appears to be composed of 1/3 Joseph Campbell, 1/3 Alan Watts & 1/3 Leonard Cohen--all 3 going back to 1967 in my life. They surely saved me from radical depression & teenage suicide--Accompanied by Olatunji's Drums of Passion LP beating away in the background. Oh how I love my man Joe's wisdom: "If you find yourself falling, DIVE."
@@eigenlennox ecxqxqcqqxqqqxqxqcqsccxxqcxq wcxcwwqxqxwxqxqqxxq1zw wcw1 sex d swccwwxqx1cxxw w csxs. WC. CD cqwx1xqqd1ssssssssssx CV w s 11cs1x1xc d. BC. S
Is mythology a separate entity from ego? Why doesnt the ego already know how to read it? Where does the innate ignorance or initial lack of understanding come from so that we must learn to understand the myths?
@@TheRaNetwork According to Jordan Petersons lectures on mythology and religion and psychology (and in his debates with Sam Harris), dreams and myths are drama and early not quite conscious prototypes of an understanding. They represent an abstraction, in the same way math is an abstraction, about some aspect of yourself or the world. Once these patterns are brought into consciousness they become stories and even religious myths, and from there they are consciously examined, debated and analyzed and therefore inform philosophy and ultimately our understanding ethics and morality. In a way it's a critique of the idea that we can reach moral systems purely from rationality because in reality our unconscious drives arise into consciousness from unconsciousness in stages over both the lifetime of individuals, and collectively across time, as we struggle to understand the world. I think something that is an example of this, which Tim Pool likes to mention, is Blackstones formulation of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is directly inspired by the Biblical Story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Subconscious =(dreams/unexamined story ideas)=> Consciousness =(myth/drama)=> Philosophy =(detailed examination)=> Morals and Ethics => Laws.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross well said i like to think of everything in terms of "self" and "other". The self is an external identity relating to the internal first person perspective and other is everything else less relevant to the POV. But the external world in total defines the POV. So now in those terms im thinking of "the unconscious" activity as "other", part of the external world. I think there is an external world where your eyes are open and an external world where your eyes are closed. And the first person "self" travels between both and uses both to make sense of each other and to discover order. I think myths are maybe the first stage of understanding a natural order whether your eyes are open or close. I dont think myths come from the eyes closed world and seep over into the eyes open world. I think it is bidirectional which is why we can draw meaning from drama that we watch with our eyes open which we can then take with us to the close eyed world and vice versa. The eyes open then would just be a lensed view of the full external world. A particular lens which specializes in stripping away the myth over time with the power of focus. Myths would provide an initial, vague understanding of the natural order and yet a pertinent understanding because they tie the self with other in a nice concise narrative which brings the whole mind of "things" together.
@@TheRaNetwork I am not sure I followed all of that, although I tried to set aside preconceptions to follow your train of thought. Acknowledging that I perhaps didn't understand you fully, I might challenge your concept of self. You seem to associate it with only your conscious focus, leaving subconscious and the rest of everything as "other." But as Jonathan Haidt points out, Buddha's metaphor of a human being something like the combination of a rider and an elephant seems to directly correlate with the fact that not only is your subconscious also you, in some sense there is way more of it that your conscious mind. In fact the part of the brain believed to be responsible for consciousness is rather tiny compared to the rest of it. This is to say nothing of the fact your gut supposedly has about as much computation complexity as your brain. Also if you consider the views and perspectives of Allan Watts, it could be argued that the real you is the totality of everything, and your separateness from "other" is entirely an illusion, or an artifact of the calculus of the mind which builds models by cutting everything up into discrete parts. In reality a tree IS the earth, it's made of the earth and will die and fall down to be the earth again. You likewise ARE the universe, and what you identify as self is merely what the universe is doing in the place we call here and now, in the same way that a wave is not a seperate "thing" (outside the mind), rather it's an action, it's the movement of water that appears on the surface of a lake or an ocean, but IS the lake or ocean. In these ways of thinking, the concept of the self is extremely broader than your definition of self and other. For whatever that is worth. I will grant you that we absorb stories and myths, and there is truth in the bidirectional aspect that you mentioned. However myths only seem to function because and to the degree they are compatible with our hardware/wetware. Why does our creation mythology involve gardens and fruits, tree's and snakes? Well.. probably because our prehuman ancestors lived in trees and further developed consciousness primarily by massively expanding vision in order to recognize snakes, and also color visions to recognize fruit. Primates instinctively fear snakes and snake like things. This appears to be hard wired into us lower than consciousness or culture. Dragons, which are fictional, exist in some form in pretty much every culture, even historically disconnected ones. Why? Well it appears that a Dragon is a projection of the subconscious category of predator. It's a snake-cat-bird. A dreamlike hybrid of everything that hunted our prehuman ancestors. It's something you might find if you could look at the layers of our minds like we look at layers of an artificial neural network that has fragmented pattern recognition signals burned in that match little sections of dogs or architecture or cars, depending on what you trained them to detect. And if you reverse the flow and use these neural networks to generate images rather than recognize them, you get a psycadellic like projection or dream of impossible patterns of dogs or architecture or whatever, quite similar to what your mind my generate if you ingest enough of the right kinds of chemicals that are equivalent to or the same as certain neurotransmitters... DMT, Psilocybin, etc etc. I think it's possible to train the subconscious mind. But you probably need to know the rules of The Matrix in order to bend them or break them.
@TheJeremyKentBGross your responses are always so eloquent and deep however the preconception that you forgot to set aside is your objectivist paradigm. Im coming from a solipsistic direction so I am trying to make sense of everything as being internal to the mind in the first place. Even the things of the eyes open world exist subjectively and the things of the eyes closed world would be no less valid than the things of the eyes open world From a solipsistic model of reality, everything of an objective nature is noumenal and unscientific to believe in. Instead, reality is strictly subjective phenomena. The mind is implicit oneness and explicit togetherness. Everything is on a spectrum of self-other and self and other are just categories. The things of the explicit mind are just descriptors of the implicit mind. Everything works in tangent to contribute to an overarching definition of one mindedness which is assimilated by the first person perspective. The first person perspective is not the self however but the self is an identity of the first person, so is other. But self and other describe the mind in degrees of relevance. The self and the things associated with the self are more relevant and the things of other are less relevant. But both the major and minor details contribute to a full contextual definition of mind. And those details exist both where eyes are open and where eyes are closed. So the entire mind is described by the things of the mind and myths speak to the initial, vague understanding of those things in relation to each other. From a solipsistic POV i would have to refute the notion of personal subcnscious activity as subconscious and regard it as activity of "other". So there is no "iceberg" with consciousness at the top. All there is is consciousness. But that consciousness is distinguishable by known knowns and known unknowns. All is knowledge but all knowledge is measured by degree of confidence from logical consistency via myths and causal narratives. So, in my opinion, mythology is not separate from the ego but rather is a product of the egoic process of thingification, if you will. The mind processes the things arbitrarily and then discovers relative and contextual logical consistency across all things of reality - a reality where fiction and fact are only different in degrees of certainty, the relative context that thing is found to be in (or arbitrarily placed in by the egoic process). So, to answer my own question as to why there is a lack of understanding of the myths in the first place, well I can only surmise that ignorance is baked into the matrix and that reality is fundamentally vague. The universe is informational, and it would not exist subjectively if there wasn't an intrinsic separation between things that would allow the ego to compare and contrast. Essentially, my point of view is that separation is not an illusion but is in fact the very basis of subjectivity and thus a fundamental feature of a conscious reality. Oneness, instead, is the abstract. But both oneness and separation are real at different levels of confidence, as different myths. Rather than saying mythology is when the self speaks with the ego system, the ego system is instead what produces myths like self and other and the oneness of self and other. All subjective experiences are ego induced. Myth is just what we call less contextually consistent phenomena because unlike scientific theory, there is less available to verify the consistency of the myth with rest of reality. What I'm really describing is a contextual landscape of truth. Fact and fiction are on a sliding scale and it is up to the ego to decide which context the self will feel most anchored in, i.e. relative relevance. All truths are valid just in different contexts. I'm sitting still on my bed while also soaring through the solar system. One truth is explicit, one is implicit. Myth is truth and truth is Myth. What matters is the context. Separation is not an illusion. It's real. But so is oneness. One is xplicitly true, one is implicitly true. The self will find itself in the most subjectively utilitarian of options every time. Anyway, i write a lot in my fb group "the essence of reciprocity". We should continue discussing there.
"The unconscious, as Jung has suggested, may be likened to an ocean, of which all individual unconsciousnesses are the inlets. Like the ocean, it rarely speaks. It is, for the most part, silent. But when it speaks, it is as if it spoke all of us all of us. For if it is our separation into selves that makes communication necessary, it is our basic oneness that makes it possible." -- Joseph Wood Krutch.
Did he also tell you about rebirth and being a good person in one life and a bad in the next or was that conveniently left out for the sake of paying the mortgage?
This is So True!!! Resonates so deeply. No wonder why everything has been so screwy. We’ve mostly forgotten this special language, arguably the first language we ever spoke
@Joanna d'Arc says who? you, miss delusional? Joan of d'arc?? Get a life, please or not, who cares but throwing daggers to a learned man is just a cheap shot and not even nearly true.
Atman is simillar. Its not just a random whole self. The idea of Jung is stage 1 Atman. Whenthe connection between ego and umconscious is so seemless then it becomes Atman. In general all philosophies will find their starting point and culumination (which the second hand philosophers of Greece or likes of Jung pursue to refine using hindu concepts as base) both lies in hindu tradition. ( and this is not due to any superiority but almost in cintrary due to enirmous length of the history of unbroken civilisation)
..so.. correct me of im wrong.. But when we are in "Atman mode"...we contextualise every one of our actions in terms of a mythology?(about our lives)? Our own "personal myth"
Such an important concept for our times. For me, greater Love is what needs to be brought forth to stand next to Ego, each reflecting the other and each just as worthy of reflection.
Michael Gellert a Jungian psychologist, in his book, Modern Mysticism, goes even further (which accords with some reports of mystical and near death experiences) that God, or the Source resides in the unconscious. Moreover, in R M Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness, one of his subjects, CYE, in her mystical experience finds that the Source is inextricably a part of her and of everything. And in a modern mystical experience, via a motor bike accident, he relates "in the three days that I was comatose, I was shown the unity of all life, all life all matter was of the same substance, all life all matter is Divine; Divinity does not exist outside of us, but within us, within all life. The accident happened for a reason, everything happens for a reason...the path to true Divinity is within."
Disjointed, hacked up, out of context bits and pieces of Campbell"s message? The world needs, for example, the full Moyer / Campbell interviews uncut, But this foumdation is instead hacking Campbell's core messages up into tiny little disjointed hacked up bits and pieces. They are doing that as teasers to commercially monetize Campbel's work. The very nature of Campell's works must remain freely available, intact, in context, and sui- generis on a "giving foot forward" monetization model, which primarily is not the JC Foundation monetization model. Does this greedy foundation have copyrights on these works? Why can't anyone post these works up on IE. You Tube etc. free uncut unedited? For instance the full uncut Campbel / Moyers series. Why is Moyer not acting to counter this outrage? How to obtain these works intact & unedited now like when Campbell was alive without profiteering? That would be Campbell's will. The Campbell Foundation, in the guise of proliferating Campbell's body of work, is instead fragmenting it for commercial monetary motives. So aggravating! Seriously any effort to keep Campbell's work free, and free of being hacked up, and free of being exploited by the world system, then count us in. Metaphorically speaking: God was out for a stroll one day with the devil following along & imitating God. God was carrying something "he" had picked up along the way. The devil runs up and asks. "whatcha got there God?" God replies, "I got the truth." The devil then says," give it to me & I will organize it for you!". JC Foundation you need to stop "money changing on the temple steps".
Plato had a problem , a 2D problem , couldn't figure out flower of life , its printed 2D , but its 3D , hence Plato is wrong , Soul is not a Circle , Circle is 2D , Consciousness is a Spiral , now we talk something going in circles but it has Z axis , and that Z axis is the most important , Dogs know how to love , but its on lower level of consciousness , people know how to love but on higher level , how are you going to show that in a circle , you cant , and then we come to Genius like TESLA , oh he is much above average as they say human , way higher on Z axis , and by the way , there is no Self , Self is ID , Ego is represented good , but SuperEgo is not even mentioned . Again 2D , Ego and Self , no Soul is 3D , what did Tesla say 369 , are those 3 numbers , 3x3 is 9 , 3+6 is 9 . 3D . Light does not propagate in 2D , it has Magnetic and Electric field one on X axis , one on Y axis , and it goes in 3D third axis , Z axis , if it were not for that light would be a circle . Since all comes from light , so does your , ours , everything's consciousness and its not a Circle its a Spiral , and not just any kind of spiral , one with nodes , based on frequency , its not higher or lower frequency its the purity of it , and when in most pure form , its hexagonal . 7 Ancient planets , Stars on the sky , heavenly bodies , but one is the Sun , God , you don't count that , like you don't count dot in a circle , its just a reference point , so 6 , hexagonal . Love the talk , but its pure 2D , dont live your life in 2D , you are missing the point its 3D universe , plus time if you want to call that dimension you can then its 4D but time is no dimension since you cant move trough it as you wish , its a vibration . So 3D plane filled with vibration , everything that exists must take form , and all forms are gematrical , why , because that is stable , otherwise you are unstable . There are unstable people , and what are they , self destructive as well as destructive . So that is what we call Evil the opposite of Good , something that destroys the Good , but you see , in order for the universe to have free will , there must exist Evil . Evil is the source of all beauty because it forces Good to most stable best vibration , bringing it closer to perfection . So Evil is what , improving us . Hardship improves a man , as long as its not too much ,and then it can destroy . Shit im better then this guy . Another dimension , that much better . A LOT better , like VR compared to FLAT display is how much better i am. And this is your Philosopher .Cant evne realize things are 3D , one would expect that too me common knowledge .
The Unconscious is a product of the Ego. The Unconscious is much more than just bodily sensations. I (😄) think and thus, creates the circle. The eye of the storm. The point as the interface between ‘that which/ who cannot even be conceptualised’ and everything else including the Unconscious. Think of a black hole (the alchemical sun as circle with the dot, in its black phase aka the sun after it implodes) as the point from which matter comes into existence and in which all returns. Maybe each black hole in this universe is a sun on the other side of the brane. The I is a cultural, relational product, The Eye that/ who created whilst seeing/ observing. The question is whose eye. The Eye of Ra, obviously, The Sun. My Beloved ☺️
Everything I know worth knowing can in one way or another be traced back to this man. Including the influence of who he read and recommended. I was pastoring a church when the Bill Moyers interview first aired and (given that I was in the right place mentally), that series turned my life upside down..... or perhaps inside out!
This man is a Genius. He is right about all this, as german I agree that the self means "das Ich/the self" and I also can say that the "Atman" is a Sanskrit word which means the spirit, the soul, the goast, the mind, the absolute mind and so on wich means der Geist, die Seele, die Psyche, die Vernunft, der Verstand, der absolute Geist. Generally we can compare the Atman with the Greek words Logos, Nous, Psyche and so on and with the Latin word Genius.
_"The business of the Ego isn't to overwhelm the Self and the Subconscious, but to try to bring the impulse system of the Self and Subconscious' into the environment which Ego has constructed. And Mythology is the language of the Self, 'speaking' to the Ego."_ Brilliant stuff... thx much! And what a simple, but terrific illustration of Jung's essential 'POV'. Though I was also intrigued by Joe's introduction re: Jung, and what he might've meant by describing Jung's ideas as 'suggestive' and 'unfinished'?
@@liveuser8527 Good question, and perhaps that's the rub, finding some kinda 'integration' between the Ego's narcissistic need for 'control', and all the repressed, and _unexpressed_ stuff lurking in our Shadow.
I watched this series several times at the age of 17. Another good series is "Bradshaw On". Those were the days of Phil Donahue when we began to discuss everything.
not a soul that is permanent never changing. What people call soul is aggregate cluster of habit...mostly bad habits. In order for much of that to change if you wanted it to would apparently take lifetimes.
Most of these people still think that somehow there's more profit in DVD than tens of millions of RU-vid views. The funny thing is, if they uploaded the full lectures, they would probably also sell more DVDs. But try explaining that to vicious soul-sucking copyright lawyers. "My precious IPs...my preciousssss"
My take from it is that our egos are trying to obtain what the body needs but usually, as for my case, want it without putting the work behind it so its constantly struggling until action is made, nothing changes if nothing changes
Joseph Campbell spoke to me as a child limited by lack of experience d interactions that brings about unearned knowledge wondering how does that become words explainable to myself and others without experiencing that to bounce radar off of to know what it is and it isn't so truth has to be accepted that as we evolve so does truth otherwise truth not evolving acceptance wise society says so we could be limited ourselves and don't know it and becomes a law or a trend or the accepted Norm that brings about chaos to be experienced misunderstanding that is above us until we understand it and all this I learned I seen similarities within the moral knowledge of the Cain and Abel scripture biblically
I love this stuff but I have to say except perhaps the imagination I am not sure that this stuff has any benefits at all for anyone..... over the last 70 years or more...are there plenty of mentally ill or lost people who have become somehow whole and healthy by Jungs ideas. I dont hear many miracle stories...I still love the stuff because it gives me more ammunition to deal with downs and getting old...perhaps thats enough
I found it curious that he suggested that we might all like to be blond with blue eyes. Yet quite beautiful but not ultimately beautiful. I just thought it's an exclusive opinion but almost offensive in it's presentation to all as a standard for opinion.
Don't think he was presenting it as a standard, just saying that wishing to be other than you are is folly. (He was about 6' with light brown hair and brown eyes as a young man, so he may have been tweaking himself.)
@@DavidKudler I didn't either but he used the words so i couldn't shake the thought. Your point (great point) would mean more had he not said it. He is very aware of the significance of the distinction. It just makes me think deeper. It certainly brings up a number of questions regarding psychology of the viewer.
@@donovanjones4175 I think it is one of the many dreams in the human psyche. Just one piece of the puzzle. I think living in peace is the true dream. Being blond and blue eyed is one of safety and fitting into a society that protects and yearns for this description of human beings. Centuries of psychology moving towards white beauty. I'm Mexican and my family sees beauty in white features. Light hair fair skin and green or hazel eyed.
MechanicalValve TimeTraveler , I can see what you mean vis a vis colonial/ technology in a white culture. Yet as a white male, I have always loved the ideas of other cultures and how they might be living in their peace. It seemed better to me somehow. Go figure.
Over lunch the deacon explained that he had studied at the University of Chicago under Campbell’s friend, the anthropologist Mircea Eliade. The deacon informed me that on his deathbed Joseph Campbell asked for a Catholic priest and was reconciled with the church of his childhood.
