Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Zodiacal consciousness?

Expand Messages
  • Michael Cecil
    Certainly, all very interesting comments. I guess I just have to wonder, however, at the introduction of yet another term; that is, zodiacal consciousness .
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 31, 2007
      Certainly, all very interesting comments.

      I guess I just have to wonder, however, at the introduction of yet
      another term; that is, "zodiacal consciousness".

      In what way would this consciousness relate to the 'classical'
      consciousness originating in self-reflection?

      Would it be a trivial or peripheral modification of that consciousness
      through the inclusion of new information, for example?

      Or would it consist of an 'expansion' in space of the 'classical'
      consciousness?

      Moreover, what would be its relationship to what is referred to by
      Krishnamurti as the "observing consciousness"?


      --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow" <barron.burrow@...>
      wrote:

      > That invokes synchronicity. What precisely is synchronicity? As I
      wrote in an e-mail of 14 June "Re: Article: A Step Toward a Living,
      Learning Memory Chip":
      >
      > "[Synchronitity is] two (or more) seemingly accidental, but not
      necessarily simultaneous events (Jung 1947) are called synchronistic, if
      the following three conditions are satisfied:
      > * Any presumption of a causal relationship between the events is
      absurd or inconceivable.
      >
      > * The events correspond with one another by a common meaning, often
      expressed symbolically.
      >
      > * Each pair of synchronistic events contains an [RH biased] internally
      produced and an [LH biased] externally perceived component.
      >
      > Atmanspacher and Primas of Gottingen University wrote a v. interesting
      piece on the Jung-Pauli collaboration (it appeared in the Jrnl. of Cns.
      Studies some years back), and they state:
      >
      > Particularly the last one of these criteria makes clear that
      synchronistic phenomena are psycho-physical phenomena, and are
      intractable to any science dealing with psyche or matter alone.

      Precisely.

      In other words, it seems that there cannot be an explanation of this
      unless there is, at some level, a resolution of the Cartesian dualism
      which originates with self-reflection. This is where the existence of
      the "observing consciousness" becomes a crucially important issue.

      >The first criterion indicates a central principle of traditional
      science which has to be re-evaluated if synchronistic phenomena are to
      be studied: causally in the narrow sense of a cause-and-effect relation.

      Causation, of course, depends upon the arrow of time going only in one
      direction; the 'necessity' of which is that 'classical' science cannot
      describe something prior to self-reflection, while self-reflection is
      the very source of the 'classical' consciousness which has created
      science itself on the basis of the thought of the 'thinker'.
      >
      > The second criterion suggests the concept of meaning as a constructive
      perspective into this direction. Since synchronistic phenomena are not
      necessarily "synchronistic" in the sense of "simultaneous",
      synchronicity is a somewhat misleading term. For this reason Pauli
      preferred to speak of meaningful correspondences ("Sinnkorrespondenzen")
      under the influence of an archetypal "acausal ordering". He considered
      both Jung's synchronicity and the old teleological idea of finality (in
      the general sense of a process oriented toward a goal) as particular
      instances of such an acausal ordering which cannot be set up
      intentionally. Accordingly, the concept of chance (referring to
      seemingly accidental events) might also be interpretable in terms of
      meaningful correspondences.

      Such things as the Mandelbrot set and the Julia set, graphic
      representations of chaos theory, are of relevance here.
      >
      > From the viewpoint of the history of science, Pauli suggested to
      regard such an interpretation as the reverse of what happened when
      Darwin introduced the concept of chance in order to model biological
      evolution. In his article "Scientific and epistemological aspects of
      concepts of the unconscious", Pauli wrote (Pauli, 1954a, p. 297): "This
      model of evolution is an attempt to theoretically cling, according to
      the ideas of the second half of the 19th century, to the total
      elimination of finality [synonymous here with teleology, BEB]. As a
      consequence, this has in some way to be replaced by the introduction of
      chance". Pauli suggested that the concept of synchronicity might force
      science to revive the historically repressed concept of finality as a
      complement to causality...

      Interesting.

      >
      > However, the important thing is that in order to remember a
      synchronistic experience such as the one just mentioned, then the two
      events (i.e. me driving with a friend in the underpass and me at 14 in
      that same underpass on a tram) both have to be raised to the
      10th-/4th-dimension complementary (since only in the 4th-dimension are
      events permanently instantiated in the mind-brain [in both cerebral
      hemispheres] in "real" RH space and in "real" LH time)!

      Space or form is a fundamental structure of the 'classical'
      consciousness; which is then maintained over time by the postulation of
      the thought of the 'thinker'.
      >
      > But actually the deepest levels of the mind-brain

      Well, certainly, the existence of the 'mind' must be questioned.

      > What is happening in Sumeria (i.e. modern-day Iraq) today would seem
      to be a meeting of the beginning of time (when zodical imprinting was
      first discovered) ...and the end of time (i.e. the ultimate clash
      between the [Lh biased] West and the [RH biased] West.

      How 'bout a clash between the 'spatial-temporal' consciousness
      originating in self-reflection, and the "observing consciousness" which
      exists 'outside of' or 'prior to' the 'classical' consciousness? (or, in
      another definitional system, the consciousness with which man was
      Created by God)?
      >
      > That is to say, the time when time shall be no more.

      But what is time in the first place?
      >
      > Cf.,
      >
      > ....psycho-analysis, carried to its logical conclusion and transformed
      into a theory of history, gathers to itself ageless religious
      aspirations. The Sabbath of Eternity, that time when time no more shall
      be, is an image of that state which is the ultimate goal of the
      repetition-compulsion in the timeless id. The romantics inherited and
      secularised the mystic aspiration for Eternity; Hegel envisioned the end
      of the dialectic of history, and humanity's final entry into the eternal
      realm of "Absolute (perfected) Spirit" (Absolute Geist).
      >
      > Psycho-analysis comes to remind us that we are bodies, that repression
      is of the body,

      neurology

      > and that perfection would be the realm of Absolute Body; eternity is
      the mode of unrepressed bodies (Life Against Death, p. 93).

      which results in certain 'difficulties' having to do with the projection
      of the 'spatial' upon the non-spatial.
      >
      > The end of days can presage Armageddon -- or a New Beginning. A man
      shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife
      (Genesis. ii. 24).

      The end of the 'classical' consciousness can result, ultimately, in the
      emergence of a consciousness centered on the awareness of the existence
      of an "observing consciousness" (or, in another definitional system, a
      consciousness originating in the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision
      of the "Son of man"/"Night Journey" of Mohammed and the Revelation of
      the "resurrection"); or it can result in irreversible psychosis.

      Michael Cecil

      http://www.science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/


      >
      >
      >
      > BEB.
      >
    • barron.burrow
      ... I invented the term zodiacal consciousness off the top of my head, and at one level it s a bit of a conceit. My belief is simply that if we fail to be in
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 1, 2007
        --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Cecil" <mececil@...> wrote:
        >
        > Certainly, all very
        interesting comments.
        >
        > I guess I just have to wonder, however,
        at the introduction of yet
        > another term; that is, "zodiacal
        consciousness".
        >
        > In what way would this consciousness relate to
        the 'classical'
        > consciousness originating in self-reflection?
        >
        > Would it be a trivial or peripheral modification of that
        consciousness
        > through the inclusion of new information, for
        example?
        >
        > Or would it consist of an 'expansion' in space of the
        'classical'
        > consciousness?
        >
        > Moreover, what would be its
        relationship to what is referred to by
        > Krishnamurti as the "observing
        consciousness"?
        >
        I invented the term 'zodiacal consciousness' off the top of my head, and at one level it's a bit of a conceit. My belief is simply that if we fail to be in touch with our zodiacal imprinting as mentioned, then we will also be out of touch with our memes -- and so intuition: and so what we ought best to be about in life.
         
        For instance, at nineteen I was an Executive Class civil servant...but it didn't feel like me. So thereafter I got out, and followed my nose. Here's what the only book I have on Astrology (which I bought in a sale for nine dollars  thirty odd years ago) says about my Sun sign, Sagittarius:
         
        They are nattural teachers and philosophers, and find their greatest pleasure in revealing to others the many laws by which the whole universe is governed; true revolutionaries are invariably of this type, as their intention is always to replace unnatural laws by natural ones. [It goes on to mention the downside of Sag, which I'll omit for brevity's sake.] (Horoscopes, Brian Innes (1987), Macdonalds (publishers) Ltd.)
         
        You came to the discussion rather later, Michael (meaning that you subscribed to Mind-Brain on 6 June and began posting the same day). So rather than wrestled with your definitions of consciousness (above), here is a list of the messages I have posted here, if you are interested:

        7187 , 7189 , 7208 , 7229 , 7254 , 7255 , 7375 , 7389 , 7396 ,

        7397 , 7595 , 7624 , 7674 , 7684 , 7689 , 7729 , 7741 ,

        7754 , 7788 , 7803 , 7830 , 7840 , 7847 , 7856 , 7881 ,

        7923 , 7930 , 7953 , 7965, 8016 , 8037, 8039, 8283, 8308,

        8457, 8460, 8565, 8778, 8779, 8788, 8798, 9213,

        9227, 9236, 9270, 9271, 9293, 9312, 9510, 9540, 9646,

        9696, 9703, 9723, 9727, 9742, 9745, 9746, 9965, 10016,

        10018,

        These #messages give a comprehensive picture of my approach to Chalmers' 'hard problem', that of consciousness/everything.
         
        Oh, and in my last I intended to refer to "[LH biased] West and [RH biased] East" (not West), i.e. the top-down linear-historical 'to have' West clashing with the RH bottom-up Intuitive 'to be' East, in the "cradle of civilisation" that is simultaneously (due to action at a distance across space AND time) both ancient Sumeria and modern-day Iraq.
         
        There are many signs that we are entering the end of days, but the phase transition occurs in a moment of inspiration.

        Not a gradual process, but a sudden breakthrough. A reversal of meaning; the symbolism suddenly understood. The key to the cipher: the sudden sight of the real Israel, the real lamb.

        A breakthrough from shadows to reality: daybreak. The day breaks, and the shadows flee away. Suddenly at daybreak; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye (Love's Body, pp 217-18).

        A brilliant mathematical physicist, Jerry Iuliano (there's some reference to his work on my homepage), sent me a paper in 1999 by someone I had not encountered previously, Nick Hoggard (Holma College of Holistic Studies, Sweden), which made a remarkable prediction. Entitled Evolution and the Feigenbaum Number , it said that exponentially increasing information overload would lead to a catastrophe "sometime between 2001 and 2004".

        Whilst watching on television the World Trade Center attacks in New York on September 11th, 2001, I suddenly realised that this phase transition was happening before my eyes.

        Hoggard says that leaps in evolution have taken place at a predictable rate over aeons, and that the length of time between each leap has been decreasing. In other words, evolution has been speeding up at such a rate that it was en route to chaos even at the outset of the new millennium.

        Hoggard's prediction was worded thus. "I discovered," he wrote in 1999,

        ... that the emergence of life, as well as a number of other events, would fit into the pattern. And the factor which seemed to fit the bill was the so-called Feigenbaum number — 4.6692016090 [that same wherein period-doubling leads to chaos, see Chapter * Jung’s Four Functions, Number and the Feigenbaum Constant]. And the pattern appeared to finish around the years 2001-2004 ...

        Recall my idea in Chapter * that the Feigenbaum number might be located at the interface between matter/mass (in the fourth-dimension) and electromagnetism (in the fifth-dimension).

        The bimodal-psychoanalytical theory leads to the conclusion that the exponential growth of the global LH 'to have' feature via objects in the past century, enhanced by the advent of the World Wide Web and globalisation more recently, must lead to information/overload; and concomitantly temporal overload in people across the planet. As a result, instinctual tension and the return of the repressed cause us to try dissolve this unsustainable relation to an ever-growing surfeit of objects in our mind-brain (in the sixth-dimension) and, through alchemy, insist on transmuting objects back into pure electromagnetism again. Into energy or Eros, in the fifth-dimension.

        Put otherwise, today as the result of cumulatively-accelerating information/temporal overload, both the individual and the global body-politic are beginning to experience chaos, at all scales. Thus, it was an initial shifting of the tectonic plates that presaged the phase transition that Hoggard, in the year 1999, predicted would occur "around the years 2001-2004".

        His theory claimed the likelihood of a world-shattering event such as that of September 11th, 2001, two years prior to it occurring in reality. And the prediction arose as a result of Hoggard's discovery that important events of life on Earth pursue a simple pattern. Plotting these events in relation to the Feigenbaum constant showed that the trajectory of history was headed for chaos:

        Feeding on energy, self-organising processes not only evolve ever more complex organisation, but also ever more complex ways of generating organisation. The evolution of intelligent life on Earth can be seen as just such a process. Furthermore, the history of life has seen significant thresholds being crossed, where the ways of generating new organisation are not merely more complex, but essentially novel. Such thresholds are the emergence of life itself, sexual reproduction, nurture of young, use of tools, making tools, and later on, civilisation and the industrial revolution. Surprisingly, these thresholds follow exactly the same pattern as organisation thresholds (bifurcations) in so-called period-doubling processes. The interval between each threshold decreases by a ratio converging to the Feigenbaum number (4.6692...) ...

        The Feigenbaum number is a remarkable number, discovered in 1976 by physicist Mitchell Feigenbaum. It has been declared a new natural constant, like pi and c. The Feigenbaum number turns up in the mathematics of self-organising systems, and in particular in a common kind of system called a period-doubling system. Such systems show exactly the same kind of pattern which apparently exists in the history of evolution — evolving complexity with significant changes occurring at predictable intervals, and the intervals decreasing in size by the same factor — 4.6692016090 — every time. This pattern is found in all kinds of self-organising systems, from the variation of the population of rabbits in an ecosystem, to the pattern of drips in a dripping tap. As the universe itself can be seen as a giant self-organising system, nothing could be more appropriate than to find the Feigenbaum number in evolution

        Think of the doubling and exponential-redoubling of rabbit populations whenever a surfeit of food makes this possible, and the similar chaos caused by a surfeit of dark energy released in the mind-brain today by the Internet. Hoggard suggests that evolution finds an ever faster way to generate evolutionary solutions, so that evolution itself evolves.

        MacLuhan aphorism: "the medium is the message" applied to the transition from the logical-linear mode of print-based media, to the all-at-onceness of electronic media, with the latter serving as "an extension of the central nervous system".

        However, I contend that with the advent of the Internet everything has changed again -- such that we ourselves now become the message.

        Consequently, technological development -- plus we ourselves now becoming the message! -- is a continuation of evolution beyond the biological level.

        Hoggard continues:

        ... Biological evolution is slow, and animals have to slowly mutate in a process that takes thousands and millions of years in order to gain new survival advantages. But if we look at evolution as not just a purely biological process but a general process of finding new solutions to the problems encountered by living beings, then technological development can be seen as true evolution. The difference is that technological development can happen at a much faster pace...

        Taking the dates of important thresholds in the evolution of intelligence -- such as the emergence of life, sexual reproduction, nurture, the first use of tools, the making of tools, the first civilisation, and the industrial revolution inter alia -- Hoggard notes that the interval between them has been decreasing by a constant ratio; and that the accumulation point (i.e. when the pattern will descend into chaos) is as predicted by the Feigenbaum constant.

        Thus, according to Hoggard's 1999 prediction, a catastrophe would occur "sometime between 2001 and 2004".

        After listing the major events in man's evolution, he argues that event number 10 would have been the emergence of civilisation, "which freed man to indulge in advanced skill specialisation". Event 11 coincided with "the beginning of what historians call the first major technological revolution. It was then that man began to harness wind and water power in a way which began to replace human labour". Next came the industrial revolution and the industrialisation of society. Finally, in the last century, there was the invention of the computer, "which allowed new tools to be developed in software without having to change the hardware, and the invention of cyberspace (the World Wide Web)".

        If all these events in man’s evolution are directly linked, what is the fundamental mechanism at work? Hoggard notes that it is the flow of [LH top-down "observer"] information that is important in each case. Information is vital in the evolution of the mind and in computers alike, he points out:

        The whole process can also be seen as the growth of awareness or the increasing control that consciousness has over matter [sic!]. There may be important clues here about the stages of development of consciousness.

        The role of chance in evolution is normally emphasised to the exclusion of all else. Now it seems as if the overall progress of evolution follows a pattern

        — not dependent upon chance at all. But this does not preclude the influence of chance in the details of evolution...The intervals between events are decreasing at a ratio of 4.6692016090, and eventually these intervals will get so small that they will disappear [my italics]. In period-doubling systems there comes a point called the Point of Accumulation, at which the intervals cease altogether and the behaviour of the system becomes infinitely complex — so-called chaotic behaviour. If this is going to happen in evolution, then it will happen very soon [BEB: surely it began in earnest on 11th September, 2001]. The interval between the last two events — the computer and the world wide web — is about 45 years. That means that the next interval would be 10 years, then 2 and a half years, then 6 months, and so on. At this rate the Point of Accumulation would occur sometime between 2001 and 2004 [my italics].

        Now this is, of course, a surprising conclusion. It suggests that, after some 15 billion years, evolution is somehow about to enter a new phase.

        Since electronic media are "an extension of the central nervous system" (McLuhan), then it is the active dark energy of the Internet today (aided by 24-hour rolling TV News and proliferation of digital services) that is creating information overload in the mind-brain, such that top-downism henceforth becomes, on balance, more part of the problem than the solution.

        The globalised human psyche, with its ever more desperate need to gain omnipotent possession of substitutes for the mother, can no longer relate to -- and so is being driven mad by -- "

        the schema of cumulative guilt and cumulative time" (Brown, supra).

        The dark energy that the Internet releases must precipitate a transition to bottom-up functioning. A paradigm shift in which love, rather than organised religion, becomes the new driving force in evolution.

        If all contrarities have their origin in sex, in the Gender Wars, then further chaos as result of interpersonal, ethnic, national. or religious conflict can be resolved only at the level of the individual man and woman. The planet's ecosystem can no longer withstand the onslaught of our species' profligacy. Only regeneration of the institution of the adult love-relationship through the 'Eleusinian' paradigm, can put us back on the path of sustainable development, and optimal evolution.

        It's 6.40 am, I need my zeds. Remember, 'tis not in our stars, dear Brutus, but in ourselves that we are underlings...
         
         
        BEB.
        PS - Thanks for your remarks below, Michael. It would be confusing to try to address them here, but the reply I would give is set out clearly, I think, in the messages of mine listed above.
         
        >
        > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow" <barron.burrow@>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > That invokes synchronicity. What precisely is synchronicity?  As I
        > wrote in an e-mail of 14 June "Re: Article: A Step Toward a Living,
        > Learning Memory Chip":
        > >
        > > "[Synchronitity is] two (or more) seemingly accidental, but not
        > necessarily simultaneous events (Jung 1947) are called synchronistic, if
        > the following three conditions are satisfied:
        > > * Any presumption of a causal relationship between the events is
        > absurd or inconceivable.
        > >
        > > * The events correspond with one another by a common meaning, often
        > expressed symbolically.
        > >
        > > * Each pair of synchronistic events contains an [RH biased] internally
        > produced and an [LH biased] externally perceived component.
        > >
        > > Atmanspacher and Primas of Gottingen University wrote a v. interesting
        > piece on the Jung-Pauli collaboration (it appeared in the Jrnl. of Cns.
        > Studies some years back), and they state:
        > >
        > > Particularly the last one of these criteria makes clear that
        > synchronistic phenomena are psycho-physical phenomena, and are
        > intractable to any science dealing with psyche or matter alone.
        >
        > Precisely.
        >
        > In other words, it seems that there cannot be an explanation of this
        > unless there is, at some level, a resolution of the Cartesian dualism
        > which originates with self-reflection. This is where the existence of
        > the "observing consciousness" becomes a crucially important issue.
        >
        > >The first criterion indicates a central principle of traditional
        > science which has to be re-evaluated if synchronistic phenomena are to
        > be studied: causally in the narrow sense of a cause-and-effect relation.
        >
        > Causation, of course, depends upon the arrow of time going only in one
        > direction; the 'necessity' of which is that 'classical' science cannot
        > describe something prior to self-reflection, while self-reflection is
        > the very source of the 'classical' consciousness which has created
        > science itself on the basis of the thought of the 'thinker'.
        > >
        > > The second criterion suggests the concept of meaning as a constructive
        > perspective into this direction. Since synchronistic phenomena are not
        > necessarily "synchronistic" in the sense of "simultaneous",
        > synchronicity is a somewhat misleading term. For this reason Pauli
        > preferred to speak of meaningful correspondences ("Sinnkorrespondenzen")
        > under the influence of an archetypal "acausal ordering". He considered
        > both Jung's synchronicity and the old teleological idea of finality (in
        > the general sense of a process oriented toward a goal) as particular
        > instances of such an acausal ordering which cannot be set up
        > intentionally. Accordingly, the concept of chance (referring to
        > seemingly accidental events) might also be interpretable in terms of
        > meaningful correspondences.
        >
        > Such things as the Mandelbrot set and the Julia set, graphic
        > representations of chaos theory, are of relevance here.
        > >
        > > From the viewpoint of the history of science, Pauli suggested to
        > regard such an interpretation as the reverse of what happened when
        > Darwin introduced the concept of chance in order to model biological
        > evolution. In his article "Scientific and epistemological aspects of
        > concepts of the unconscious", Pauli wrote (Pauli, 1954a, p. 297): "This
        > model of evolution is an attempt to theoretically cling, according to
        > the ideas of the second half of the 19th century, to the total
        > elimination of finality [synonymous here with teleology, BEB]. As a
        > consequence, this has in some way to be replaced by the introduction of
        > chance". Pauli suggested that the concept of synchronicity might force
        > science to revive the historically repressed concept of finality as a
        > complement to causality...
        >
        > Interesting.
        >
        > >
        > > However, the important thing is that in order to remember a
        > synchronistic experience such as the one just mentioned, then the two
        > events (i.e. me driving with a friend in the underpass and me at 14 in
        > that same underpass on a tram) both have to be raised to the
        > 10th-/4th-dimension complementary (since only in the 4th-dimension are
        > events permanently instantiated in the mind-brain [in both cerebral
        > hemispheres] in "real" RH space and in "real" LH time)!
        >
        > Space or form is a fundamental structure of the 'classical'
        > consciousness; which is then maintained over time by the postulation of
        > the thought of the 'thinker'.
        > >
        > > But actually the deepest levels of the mind-brain
        >
        > Well, certainly, the existence of the 'mind' must be questioned.
        >
        > > What is happening in Sumeria (i.e. modern-day Iraq) today would seem
        > to be a meeting of the beginning of time (when zodical imprinting was
        > first discovered) ...and the end of time (i.e. the ultimate clash
        > between the [Lh biased] West and the [RH biased] West.
        >
        > How 'bout a clash between the 'spatial-temporal' consciousness
        > originating in self-reflection, and the "observing consciousness" which
        > exists 'outside of' or 'prior to' the 'classical' consciousness? (or, in
        > another definitional system, the consciousness with which man was
        > Created by God)?
        > >
        > > That is to say, the time when time shall be no more.
        >
        > But what is time in the first place?
        > >
        > > Cf.,
        > >
        > > ....psycho-analysis, carried to its logical conclusion and transformed
        > into a theory of history, gathers to itself ageless religious
        > aspirations. The Sabbath of Eternity, that time when time no more shall
        > be, is an image of that state which is the ultimate goal of the
        > repetition-compulsion in the timeless id. The romantics inherited and
        > secularised the mystic aspiration for Eternity; Hegel envisioned the end
        > of the dialectic of history, and humanity's final entry into the eternal
        > realm of "Absolute (perfected) Spirit" (Absolute Geist).
        > >
        > > Psycho-analysis comes to remind us that we are bodies, that repression
        > is of the body,
        >
        > neurology
        >
        > > and that perfection would be the realm of Absolute Body; eternity is
        > the mode of unrepressed bodies (Life Against Death, p. 93).
        >
        > which results in certain 'difficulties' having to do with the projection
        > of the 'spatial' upon the non-spatial.
        > >
        > > The end of days can presage Armageddon -- or a New Beginning. A man
        > shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife
        > (Genesis. ii. 24).
        >
        > The end of the 'classical' consciousness can result, ultimately, in the
        > emergence of a consciousness centered on the awareness of the existence
        > of an "observing consciousness" (or, in another definitional system, a
        > consciousness originating in the Knowledge Revealed through the Vision
        > of the "Son of man"/"Night Journey" of  Mohammed and the Revelation of
        > the "resurrection"); or it can result in irreversible psychosis.
        >
        > Michael Cecil
        >
        > http://www.science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/
        >
        >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > BEB.
        > >
        >
      • Michael Cecil
        ... and at one level it s a bit of a conceit. My belief is simply that if we fail to be in touch with our zodiacal imprinting as mentioned, then we will also
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 2, 2007
          --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow" <barron.burrow@...>
          wrote:

          > I invented the term 'zodiacal consciousness' off the top of my head,
          and at one level it's a bit of a conceit. My belief is simply that if we
          fail to be in touch with our zodiacal imprinting as mentioned, then we
          will also be out of touch with our memes -- and so intuition: and so
          what we ought best to be about in life.

          Well, OK. This is certainly a plausible avenue for understanding things.
          >
          > Oh, and in my last I intended to refer to "[LH biased] West and [RH
          biased] East" (not West),

          Sort of figured this; but I was not well enough acquainted with your
          writing.

          > i.e. the top-down linear-historical 'to have' West clashing with the
          RH bottom-up Intuitive 'to be' East, in the "cradle of civilisation"
          that is simultaneously (due to action at a distance across space AND
          time) both ancient Sumeria and modern-day Iraq.

          Sure. Certain parallels with the last two meditations of my Meditations
          on a Science of Consciousness on my web page.
          >
          > There are many signs that we are entering the end of days, but the
          phase transition occurs in a moment of inspiration.

          Sure.

          > Not a gradual process, but a sudden breakthrough.

          More than one sharp discontinuity of consciousness.

          > A reversal of meaning;

          Also a time-reversal to the Origin--in more than one sense.

          > the symbolism suddenly understood. The key to the cipher: the sudden
          sight of the real Israel, the real lamb.

          > ... that the emergence of life, as well as a number of other events,
          would fit into the pattern. And the factor which seemed to fit the bill
          was the so-called Feigenbaum number -

          Feigenbaum in German means "fig tree", of course.

          And the synchronicity with the statements of Jesus in the Gospel, as
          well as the Revelation of John.

          {Remaining commentary snipped for brevity...

          And to suggest its conformity with many of the comments I have placed on
          my web page.}

          Michael Cecil

          http://www.science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/
        • barron.burrow
          ... Yes, this phenomenon occurs in the time-reversible (what I call) pure time of the ninth-dimension -- which (in conjunction with the observer in the
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 2, 2007
            --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Cecil" <mececil@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > --- In
            href="mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com">MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow" <barron.burrow@>
            > wrote:
            >
            > > I
            invented the term 'zodiacal consciousness' off the top of my head,
            > and
            at one level it's a bit of a conceit. My belief is simply that if we
            >
            fail to be in touch with our zodiacal imprinting as mentioned, then we
            >
            will also be out of touch with our memes -- and so intuition: and so
            >
            what we ought best to be about in life.
            >
            > Well, OK. This is
            certainly a plausible avenue for understanding things.
            > >
            > >
            Oh, and in my last I intended to refer to "[LH biased] West and [RH
            >
            biased] East" (not West),
            >
            > Sort of figured this; but I was not
            well enough acquainted with your
            > writing.
            >
            > > i.e. the
            top-down linear-historical 'to have' West clashing with the
            > RH bottom-up
            Intuitive 'to be' East, in the "cradle of civilisation"
            > that is
            simultaneously (due to action at a distance across space AND
            > time) both
            ancient Sumeria and modern-day Iraq.
            >
            > Sure. Certain parallels
            with the last two meditations of my Meditations
            > on a Science of
            Consciousness on my web page.
            > >
            > > There are many signs
            that we are entering the end of days, but the
            > phase transition occurs in
            a moment of inspiration.
            >
            > Sure.
            >
            > > Not a
            gradual process, but a sudden breakthrough.
            >
            > More than one sharp
            discontinuity of consciousness.
            >
            > > A reversal of
            meaning;
            >
            > Also a time-reversal to the Origin--in more than one
            sense.
             
             
            Yes, this phenomenon occurs in the time-reversible (what I call) 'pure time' of the ninth-dimension -- which (in conjunction with the "observer" in the seventh-dimension) collapses the wavefunction on 'pure space' (i.e. height, breadth, depth as extended throughout the univere) in the opposite psychophysical third-dimension. And, as you say, in more than once sense.
             
            So, this facilitates going backwards in time...to experience synchronicity. Recall my example (in an earlier post): I mentioned that a friend asked me to explain the term 'synchronicity' whilst we were driving down the underpass on the Thames Embankment. After a moment's thought, I remembered that when I was fourteen I used to traverse this same underpass in a noisy old tram.
             
            Thus, the two events were suddenly directly connected -- psycho-physically and so also synchronistically. (Meaning that my psyche Now was collapsing the wavefunction on my physical self Then (when I'd been 14). But simultaneously, my psyche Then was collapsing the wavefunction on my physical self Now.
             
            But although this transaction initially occurs in the ninth-/third dimension complementarity, it is only when the relevant memories are raised to the tenth-/fourth-dimension complementarity, that they are recalled in time, i.e. past, present, future. This is because only when something is raised to the psychophysical fourth-dimension is transformed from virtual holograms to standing waves, or 'matter' in the mind-brain.
             
            Anyhow, the main point is that we *can* go backwards in time...

            >
            > > the
            symbolism suddenly understood. The key to the cipher: the sudden
            > sight
            of the real Israel, the real lamb.
            >
            > > ... that the emergence
            of life, as well as a number of other events,
            > would fit into the
            pattern. And the factor which seemed to fit the bill
            > was the so-called
            Feigenbaum number -
            >
            > Feigenbaum in German means "fig tree", of
            course.
            >
             
            Reminds me of Lawrence's poem, 'Figs', which goes (in part):
             
            ...The fig is a very secretive fruit.
            As you see it standing growing, you feel at once it is symbolic:
            And it seems male.
            But when you come to know it better, you agree with the Romans, it is female.
            The Italians vulgarly say, it stands for the female part; the fig-fruit:
            The fissure, the yoni,
            The wonderful moist conductivity towards the centre...

            > And the
            synchronicity with the statements of Jesus in the Gospel, as
            > well as the
            Revelation of John.
            >
             
            And perhaps the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (one of the Dead Sea scrolls, which I think you've mentioned before). You have probably heard that in the sixties, Oxford scholar John Allegro wrote a famous book suggesting that Christianity arose from a magic mushroom cult. As did the Greeks' Eleusinian mysteries, of course, according to the discoverer of LSD, Albert Hoffman, and others.

            > {Remaining commentary snipped for
            brevity...
            >
            > And to suggest its conformity with many of the
            comments I have placed on
            > my web page.}
            >
            > Michael
            Cecil
            >
            >
            href="http://www.science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/">http://www.science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/
            >
             
            I did read much on your site, on the day you first posted here. Inter alia, you have referred to Ernest Becker's "Denial of Death", which I read way back -- and recall he acknowledges his indebtedness to Norman O Brown's "Life Against Death: the Psychoanalytical Meaning of History" (1959) and Freud's "Civilisation & Its Discontents" (1930). Both of which I thought more profound than Becker's Pulitzer prize winning effort.
             
            The Freud book seeks to answer ultimate questions, of course: What influences led to the creation of civilization? How did it come to be? What determines its course? In this work, he elucidates the contest between aggression, i.e. the death drive, and its adversary Eros. He speaks to issues of human creativity and fulfillment, the place of beauty in culture, and the effects of repression. He argues that the demands of civilization and demands of our instincts are out of sync, positing that humans are haunted by an assortment of powerful unconscious needs.
             
            These hardcore "needs" range from sexual fulfillment to a release of aggression. These primal needs for sexual fulfillment and aggressions were once the tools we used to survive. With the dawning of a new age, we no longer need to use these tools. We turn inwards. Thus, juxtaposed and interconnected we find the other side of the coin, civilization -- a phenomenon that inhibits these primal drives.
             
            But we need civilization to give us a different sense of security. It is a catch-22. Throughout the ages, the constant tug of war between these two forces has caused ruptures in our history with the tension being expressed in frustration. That is to say, in the conflict between RH biased and LH biased individuals at the micro-level and RH biased and LH biased civilisations, at the macro-scale.

            Freud is really informative when he posits that we turn aggression inward. It is how individual men and women and civilization configure good and evil that is causing us to be out of sync (in fact, I argue that the distinction between good and bad is only truly discovered in the 'Eleusinian' love-act betwixt male and female). In an almost sado-masochistic move, the superego is now torturing the ego. It is the collision rather than the confluence that is ruining this forced marriage. 

            Although Freud was a champion for the recognition of our primal urges, he certainly did not advocate a free for all. What is really powerful in Freud is that civilization is not seen as a purely external thing rather it has real consequences on the inside. Our superego -- civilization's handmaiden on the inside -- is now calling the shots. As we internalize what the external is telling us to do, how to act -- like gnawing guilt it invades the psyche to the extent that no matter how we wish to transgress, we become and need the very thing that causes our frustration.

            Again, as Noman O. Brown reminds us, "Culture originates in the denial of life and the body, and the impossibility of denying life in the body is what makes all cultures unstable defusions of life instinct and death instinct. It follows that the recovery of life in the body is the hidden aim of all history, in the sense that the recovery of life in the body would put an end to the dynamic disequilibrium…" (Life Against Death (1959), pp. 296-97).

            My approach adduces neurophysiological and (Kleinian and Freudian) data to show *why* individuals and then civilisations end up with a particular brain hemisphere bias. And it's a bias that makes it v. difficult to understand people with the 'opposing' bias -- hence the incomprehension and hostility that 'both sides' (i.e. LH biased coalition forces and RH biased insurgents) are currently exhibiting in Iraq.

            CJL mentioned Gauquelin's work on Astrology, which I also read in the eighties, and found pretty convincing. He was a French psychologist/statistician, and because in France every birth certificate has to register the time and place of birth (under the Code Napoleon), he and his co-workers were able to draw up horoscopes for tens of thousands of people (they later did the same in the USA and elsewhere). Briefly, he claimed his findings showed that men and women who became famous in sports and in the military had a greater preponderance of Mars in their charts, whilst among the 500 members of the Academie de Medicin  many had a greater than chance preponderance of Neptune in their charts, I think.

            Trouble is that because 'hard science' will not acknowledge that we live in a psychophysical universe (and I can't recall your own site mentioning this either), and insists on empirical data for astrology (i.e. based on quantum gravity by top-down "observation" only -- which simply isn't possible), a lot of critics came out of the woodwork and dismissed Gauquelin's findings as nonsense.

            The result was that he became isolated, his long-term girlfriend left him, and in the end he committed suicide.

            La lutte continue...

             

            BEB. 

             

            BEB.

          • Chris Lofting
            ... ... A feature of symmetric thinking, and so lacking in precision thinking, is that the converse of IF...THEN is considered to be true - thus time
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 2, 2007
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
              > Behalf Of barron.burrow
              > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2007 11:26 AM
              > To: A Group MindBrain
              > Cc: barron.burrow
              > Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: Zodiacal consciousness?
              >
              <snip>
              >
              > Yes, this phenomenon occurs in the time-reversible (what I call) 'pure
              > time' of the ninth-dimension ......

              > So, this facilitates going backwards in time...to experience
              > synchronicity.

              A feature of symmetric thinking, and so lacking in precision thinking, is
              that the converse of IF...THEN is considered to be true - thus time going
              'forwards' has its converse as true - time going backwards.

              This logic is called bi-logic and is a property of symmetric thinking (some
              even call it 'female' thinking!). The more precision we invoke so the more
              we move from the symmetric to the asymmetric where our interactions with
              reality 'as is' is through asymmetry. (Pattern matching needs symmetry and
              so the bias we see in statistics as they try to pattern match - but
              expressions of uniqueness are not matchable due to that uniqueness -
              symmetric thinking has issues in dealing with this)

              As an emotion-dependent species, we use self-referencing to derive
              categories of emotion to describe reality through use of metaphor - as such
              our communication system is symmetric at the level of the 'every day' where
              as we get more precise so we develop specialist languages that include
              unique terms to bring out the asymmetric.

              The focus therefore on time 'reversal' is a demonstration of symmetric
              thinking, symmetric logic, that manifests lack in training/comprehension of
              fine details where they include, for example, awareness of thermodynamics
              and its relation with time.

              For more on symmetric thinking see the work of Matte-Blanco "The unconscious
              as infinite sets" and some work on symmetric logic in:

              http://www.scispirit.com/matteblanco5web.htm

              The development of a life form dependent upon instincts/habits, and so
              history, ensures the development of symmetric points of view operating at
              the 'every day' level of thought - and with that comes its own, symmetric,
              logic, being a vague, approximations, form of formal, asymmetric, logic.

              If you do not have the training in the asymmetric, as in exposure and use of
              formal logic then one can be prone to trying to interpret the universe from
              a symmetric perspective. The essential differences are in our preference to
              symmetry reflects a preference to working off history whereas nature
              includes the random, the asymmetric. We try to convert difference
              (asymmetry) to sameness (symmetry) but in doing so simplify the difference
              to fit into some symmetry-focused categorisation system that makes things
              approximate (this is where stereotyping comes from). This simplification
              includes the imposition of symmetric logic and so IF...THEN becomes IF and
              only IF!

              BB and Michael are showing lack in education/consideration covering the
              realm of the asymmetric, they show lack in training in Science and so touch
              on borders of science research but they thinking style is symmetric and so
              offering a distorted point of view that might be fine for the 'everyday' but
              not for the realms of high precision detail, full logical thinking.

              Chris.
            • Julienne
              ... Actually, Gauquelin found that sports champions tended to have Mars in specific sectors of an astrological chart, and with similar patterns with Jupiter
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 2, 2007
                At 02:26 AM 8/3/2007 +0100, barron.burrow wrote:
                 
                The Freud book seeks to answer ultimate questions, of course: What influences led to the creation of civilization? How did it come to be? What determines its course? In this work, he elucidates the contest between aggression, i.e. the death drive, and its adversary Eros. He speaks to issues of human creativity and fulfillment, the place of beauty in culture, and the effects of repression. He argues that the demands of civilization and demands of our instincts are out of sync, positing that humans are haunted by an assortment of powerful unconscious needs.
                 
                These hardcore "needs" range from sexual fulfillment to a release of aggression. These primal needs for sexual fulfillment and aggressions were once the tools we used to survive. With the dawning of a new age, we no longer need to use these tools. We turn inwards. Thus, juxtaposed and interconnected we find the other side of the coin, civilization -- a phenomenon that inhibits these primal drives.
                 
                But we need civilization to give us a different sense of security. It is a catch-22. Throughout the ages, the constant tug of war between these two forces has caused ruptures in our history with the tension being expressed in frustration. That is to say, in the conflict between RH biased and LH biased individuals at the micro-level and RH biased and LH biased civilisations, at the macro-scale.

                Freud is really informative when he posits that we turn aggression inward. It is how individual men and women and civilization configure good and evil that is causing us to be out of sync (in fact, I argue that the distinction between good and bad is only truly discovered in the 'Eleusinian' love-act betwixt male and female). In an almost sado-masochistic move, the superego is now torturing the ego. It is the collision rather than the confluence that is ruining this forced marriage. 

                Although Freud was a champion for the recognition of our primal urges, he certainly did not advocate a free for all. What is really powerful in Freud is that civilization is not seen as a purely external thing rather it has real consequences on the inside. Our superego -- civilization's handmaiden on the inside -- is now calling the shots. As we internalize what the external is telling us to do, how to act -- like gnawing guilt it invades the psyche to the extent that no matter how we wish to transgress, we become and need the very thing that causes our frustration.

                Again, as Noman O. Brown reminds us, "Culture originates in the denial of life and the body, and the impossibility of denying life in the body is what makes all cultures unstable defusions of life instinct and death instinct. It follows that the recovery of life in the body is the hidden aim of all history, in the sense that the recovery of life in the body would put an end to the dynamic disequilibrium…" (Life Against Death (1959), pp. 296-97).

                My approach adduces neurophysiological and (Kleinian and Freudian) data to show *why* individuals and then civilisations end up with a particular brain hemisphere bias. And it's a bias that makes it v. difficult to understand people with the 'opposing' bias -- hence the incomprehension and hostility that 'both sides' (i.e. LH biased coalition forces and RH biased insurgents) are currently exhibiting in Iraq.

                CJL mentioned Gauquelin's work on Astrology, which I also read in the eighties, and found pretty convincing. He was a French psychologist/statistician, and because in France every birth certificate has to register the time and place of birth (under the Code Napoleon), he and his co-workers were able to draw up horoscopes for tens of thousands of people (they later did the same in the USA and elsewhere). Briefly, he claimed his findings showed that men and women who became famous in sports and in the military had a greater preponderance of Mars in their charts, whilst among the 500 members of the Academie de Medicin  many had a greater than chance preponderance of Neptune in their charts, I think.

                Actually, Gauquelin found that sports champions tended to have Mars in specific sectors
                of an astrological chart, and with similar patterns with Jupiter for actors, and with
                Saturn for scientists.

                Trouble is that because 'hard science' will not acknowledge that we live in a psychophysical universe (and I can't recall your own site mentioning this either), and insists on empirical data for astrology (i.e. based on quantum gravity by top-down "observation" only -- which simply isn't possible), a lot of critics came out of the woodwork and dismissed Gauquelin's findings as nonsense.

                The result was that he became isolated, his long-term girlfriend left him, and in the end he committed suicide.

                La lutte continue...

                Nevertheless, Gauquelin's work was replicated and not found
                faulty, which enraged, for instance, the Skeptics. They
                replicated his results, were unable to disprove his findings,
                though they tried to discredit them, having to eventually
                admit to them. He committed suicide a long time after.

                He did, by the way, write more than one book on astrology. "Cosmic
                Clocks" is a compendium of studies done in a number of fields
                which impact astrology.

                References

                    * Michel Gauquelin The Scientific Basis of Astrology. Stein and Day Publishers. New York, 1969. Paperback version: Natl Book Network, 1970 ISBN 0-8128-1350-2.
                    * Michel Gauquelin The Cosmic Clocks. Henry Regenery Company, Chicago, 1967. Paperback version: Grafton Books, 1998 ISBN 0-586-08158-5.
                    * Michel Gauquelin Neo-Astrology : A Copernican Revolution. Arkana, Penguin Group. London, 1991 ISBN 0-14-019318-9

                   1. ^ http://www.comitepara.be
                   2. ^ Michel Gauquelin Neo-Astrology : A Copernican Revolution. Arkana, Penguin Group. London, 1991 ISBN 0-14-019318-9. Pg. 24.

                    * Michel Gauquelin Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior. [tr. from the French by Joyce E. Clemow.] Aurora Press. Santa Fe, NM, 1994.
                    * Michel Gauquelin Planetary Heredity. French edition, 1966. English edition: ACS Publications. San Diego,CA, 1988.
                    * Michel Gauquelin Birth-Times: A Scientific Investigation of the Secrets of Astrology. [tr. from the French by Sarah Matthews.] Hill and Wang. New York, 1983. (Published in England as The Truth About Astrology)
                    * La Cosmopsychologie - Les astres et les tempéraments (Cosmopsychology -- Stars and Temperament), Centre d'Étude et de Promotion de la Lecture, Paris, 1974
                    * Les personnalités planétaires (Planetary Personalities), Guy Trédaniel editor, 1992 - Exhaustive list of publications p. 301 à 307

                I think that one of the reasons there is so much resistance
                to astrology, apart from ignorance, is that it is not easy to
                learn, and, once learned, transforms one view of reality.

                Julienne
              • Michael Cecil
                ... time of the ninth-dimension -- which (in conjunction with the observer in the seventh-dimension) collapses the wavefunction on pure space (i.e.
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 3, 2007
                  --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow" <barron.burrow@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Cecil" mececil@ wrote:

                  > >
                  > > > Not a gradual process, but a sudden breakthrough.
                  > >
                  > > More than one sharp discontinuity of consciousness.
                  > >
                  > > > A reversal of meaning;
                  > >
                  > > Also a time-reversal to the Origin--in more than one sense.
                  >
                  >
                  > Yes, this phenomenon occurs in the time-reversible (what I call) 'pure
                  time' of the ninth-dimension -- which (in conjunction with the
                  "observer" in the seventh-dimension) collapses the wavefunction on 'pure
                  space' (i.e. height, breadth, depth as extended throughout the univere)
                  in the opposite psychophysical third-dimension. And, as you say, in more
                  than once sense.

                  Perhaps too 'inelegant' for me.
                  >
                  > Anyhow, the main point is that we *can* go backwards in time...

                  Not only that.

                  It is absolutely *necessary* that there be this time-reversal for the
                  survival of human civilization.

                  > > > ... that the emergence of life, as well as a number of other
                  events,
                  > > would fit into the pattern. And the factor which seemed to fit the
                  bill
                  > > was the so-called Feigenbaum number -
                  > >
                  > > Feigenbaum in German means "fig tree", of course.

                  > > And the synchronicity with the statements of Jesus in the Gospel, as
                  > > well as the Revelation of John.
                  > >
                  >
                  > And perhaps the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (one of the Dead Sea
                  scrolls,

                  The Gospel of Thomas was discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt and was not
                  one of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

                  > which I think you've mentioned before). You have probably heard that
                  in the sixties, Oxford scholar John Allegro wrote a famous book
                  suggesting that Christianity arose from a magic mushroom cult.

                  This just happens to be right up my alley.

                  The book was witless.

                  The reason it was given so much publicity was to convey they idea that
                  *anyone* who disagreed with the 'official' interpretation of the Dead
                  Sea Scrolls researchers was a lunatic.

                  And this was very successful.

                  Much more measured and lethal arguments against the interpretations of
                  the official researchers were ignored by the media because,
                  fundamentally, the media did not want to do anything to threaten the
                  multi-billion dollar Judaeo-Christian religious establishment.
                  Allegro's book became a primary distraction from other more threatening
                  research.
                  >
                  > I did read much on your site, on the day you first posted here. Inter
                  alia, you have referred to Ernest Becker's "Denial of Death", which I
                  read way back -- and recall he acknowledges his indebtedness to Norman O
                  Brown's "Life Against Death: the Psychoanalytical Meaning of History"
                  (1959) and Freud's "Civilisation & Its Discontents" (1930). Both of
                  which I thought more profound than Becker's Pulitzer prize winning
                  effort.

                  Well, I appreciated Becker's comments on the role of Kierkegaard in this
                  discussion.
                  >
                  > The Freud book seeks to answer ultimate questions, of course: What
                  influences led to the creation of civilization?

                  A very 'large' question.

                  But civilization originated in the self-reflective consciousness.

                  > How did it come to be? What determines its course? In this work, he
                  elucidates the contest between aggression, i.e. the death drive, and its
                  adversary Eros. He speaks to issues of human creativity and fulfillment,
                  the place of beauty in culture, and the effects of repression.

                  The denial and separation from reality.

                  > He argues that the demands of civilization and demands of our
                  instincts are out of sync, positing that humans are haunted by an
                  assortment of powerful unconscious needs.

                  Such a dualistic perspective requires a much more simple and elegant
                  explanation; which is the mechanism of self-reflection itself.

                  What is self-reflection but an instantaneous, delusional separation from
                  the neurology of immediate sense experience?

                  Such is necessary, of course.

                  But its implications cannot be ignored or denied as merely trivial.
                  >
                  > These hardcore "needs" range from sexual fulfillment to a release of
                  aggression.

                  All of these are related to the perpetuation and propagation of the
                  'form' and 'image' of the 'classical' consciousness and its preservation
                  over time.

                  > Again, as Noman O. Brown reminds us, "Culture originates in the denial
                  of life and the body,

                  Which is what self-reflection consists of, if you merely observe it
                  carefully.

                  But, if we accept that this duality is primal and unresolvable, we are
                  in deep trouble.

                  The duality must be resolved.

                  > and the impossibility of denying life in the body is what makes all
                  cultures unstable defusions of life instinct and death instinct. It
                  follows that the recovery of life in the body is the hidden aim of all
                  history, in the sense that the recovery of life in the body would put an
                  end to the dynamic disequilibrium." (Life Against Death (1959), pp.
                  296-97).
                  >
                  > My approach adduces neurophysiological and (Kleinian and Freudian)
                  data to show *why* individuals and then civilisations end up with a
                  particular brain hemisphere bias. And it's a bias that makes it v.
                  difficult to understand people with the 'opposing' bias -- hence the
                  incomprehension and hostility that 'both sides' (i.e. LH biased
                  coalition forces and RH biased insurgents) are currently exhibiting in
                  Iraq.

                  Sure, but all of this has a much deeper origin in the Cartesian dualism
                  itself.

                  This kind of science can take us only part of the way to the solution.

                  At some point, there must be a direct observation of consciousness
                  itself, as Krishnamurti observes.
                  >
                  > CJL mentioned Gauquelin's work on Astrology, which I also read in the
                  eighties, and found pretty convincing. He was a French
                  psychologist/statistician, and because in France every birth certificate
                  has to register the time and place of birth (under the Code Napoleon),
                  he and his co-workers were able to draw up horoscopes for tens of
                  thousands of people (they later did the same in the USA and elsewhere).
                  Briefly, he claimed his findings showed that men and women who became
                  famous in sports and in the military had a greater preponderance of Mars
                  in their charts, whilst among the 500 members of the Academie de Medicin
                  many had a greater than chance preponderance of Neptune in their charts,
                  I think.

                  Sure.

                  But, as Jung observed in "Synchronicity--An Acausal Connecting
                  Principle", there is no causation to these observations; merely a
                  simultaneous occurrence.
                  >
                  > Trouble is that because 'hard science' will not acknowledge that we
                  live in a psychophysical universe (and I can't recall your own site
                  mentioning this either),

                  Sure.

                  But they also stick to causation on the basis of the arrow of time going
                  only in one direction, because this is what is required by the
                  'classical' consciousness.

                  > and insists on empirical data for astrology (i.e. based on quantum
                  gravity by top-down "observation" only -- which simply isn't possible),
                  a lot of critics came out of the woodwork and dismissed Gauquelin's
                  findings as nonsense.

                  Acausality is "uncomfortable" for the 'classical' consciousness.
                  >
                  > The result was that he became isolated, his long-term girlfriend left
                  him, and in the end he committed suicide.

                  Certainly a tragedy.

                  Thanks for the discussion.

                  Michael Cecil
                  >
                  > La lutte continue...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > BEB.
                  >
                • Michael Cecil
                  ... Not really. ... touch ... and so ... everyday but ... It s really much deeper than this. It has to do with the appreciation of the limits or boundaries
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 3, 2007
                    --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Lofting" <chrislofting@...>
                    wrote:

                    >
                    > BB and Michael are showing lack in education/consideration

                    Not really.

                    > covering the
                    > realm of the asymmetric, they show lack in training in Science and so
                    touch
                    > on borders of science research but they thinking style is symmetric
                    and so
                    > offering a distorted point of view that might be fine for the
                    'everyday' but
                    > not for the realms of high precision detail, full logical thinking.

                    It's really much deeper than this.

                    It has to do with the appreciation of the limits or boundaries of "full
                    logical thinking" itself.

                    There is a paradigm that says that all truth occurs from within the
                    context of thought and logic. Anything which is not logical and not
                    thought is considered to be not truth.

                    I am well-aware of that paradigm.

                    I just don't accept that it is the final arbiter of truth...

                    Certainly not about consciousness, for example and especially, because
                    thought occurs subsequent to self-reflection; so how can thought have
                    anything significant to say about consciousness in the first place?

                    Michael Cecil
                    >
                    > Chris.
                    >
                  • Julienne
                    ... Jung was only theorizing. We don t yet know for sure. Read Gauquelin s, Cosmic Clocks . ... Astrologers also use reverse transits to predict the future
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 3, 2007
                      At 12:01 PM 8/3/2007 +0000, Michael Cecil wrote:

                      > > CJL mentioned Gauquelin's work on Astrology, which I also read in the
                      >eighties, and found pretty convincing. He was a French
                      >psychologist/statistician, and because in France every birth certificate
                      >has to register the time and place of birth (under the Code Napoleon),
                      >he and his co-workers were able to draw up horoscopes for tens of
                      >thousands of people (they later did the same in the USA and elsewhere).
                      >Briefly, he claimed his findings showed that men and women who became
                      >famous in sports and in the military had a greater preponderance of Mars
                      >in their charts, whilst among the 500 members of the Academie de Medicin
                      >many had a greater than chance preponderance of Neptune in their charts,
                      >I think.
                      >
                      >Sure.
                      >
                      >But, as Jung observed in "Synchronicity--An Acausal Connecting
                      >Principle", there is no causation to these observations; merely a
                      >simultaneous occurrence.

                      Jung was only theorizing. We don't yet know for sure. Read
                      Gauquelin's, "Cosmic Clocks".

                      > > Trouble is that because 'hard science' will not acknowledge that we
                      >live in a psychophysical universe (and I can't recall your own site
                      >mentioning this either),
                      >
                      >Sure.
                      >
                      >But they also stick to causation on the basis of the arrow of time going
                      >only in one direction, because this is what is required by the
                      >'classical' consciousness.

                      Astrologers also use reverse "transits" to predict the
                      future form the past.

                      Julienne
                    • Mark Peaty
                      After realising with some surprise that some contributors to Mind and Brain were taking this stuff about the Zodiac seriously [I assume they are not subtly
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 6, 2007
                        After realising with some surprise that some contributors to
                        Mind and Brain were taking this stuff about the Zodiac seriously
                        [I assume they are not subtly taking the p*ss out of the rest of
                        us] I had a quick squizz at what Google could turn up for me.

                        I was reassured to find this link:
                        http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html

                        This seems to indicate a distinct lack of scientific/statistical
                        credibility for Michel Gauguelin's results. Given that nobody
                        else has found any credible relationships between planetary
                        positions and human affairs [other than relatively recent
                        efforts sending artificial satellites across the solar system],
                        what is the point of going on about astrology?

                        Regards

                        Mark Peaty CDES

                        mpeaty@...

                        http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/





                        Julienne wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > At 02:26 AM 8/3/2007 +0100, barron.burrow wrote:
                        >
                        >>
                        >> The Freud book seeks to answer ultimate questions, of course: What
                        >> influences led to the creation of civilization? How did it come to be?
                        >> What determines its course? In this work, he elucidates the contest
                        >> between aggression, i.e. the death drive, and its adversary Eros. He
                        >> speaks to issues of human creativity and fulfillment, the place of
                        >> beauty in culture, and the effects of repression. He argues that the
                        >> demands of civilization and demands of our instincts are out of sync,
                        >> positing that humans are haunted by an assortment of powerful
                        >> unconscious needs.
                        >>
                        >> These hardcore "needs" range from sexual fulfillment to a release of
                        >> aggression. These primal needs for sexual fulfillment and aggressions
                        >> were once the tools we used to survive. With the dawning of a new age,
                        >> we no longer need to use these tools. We turn inwards. Thus,
                        >> juxtaposed and interconnected we find the other side of the coin,
                        >> civilization -- a phenomenon that inhibits these primal drives.
                        >>
                        >> But we need civilization to give us a different sense of security. It
                        >> is a catch-22. Throughout the ages, the constant tug of war between
                        >> these two forces has caused ruptures in our history with the tension
                        >> being expressed in frustration. That is to say, in the conflict
                        >> between RH biased and LH biased individuals at the micro-level and RH
                        >> biased and LH biased civilisations, at the macro-scale.
                        >>
                        >> Freud is really informative when he posits that we turn aggression
                        >> inward. It is how individual men and women and civilization configure
                        >> good and evil that is causing us to be out of sync (in fact, I argue
                        >> that the distinction between good and bad is only truly discovered in
                        >> the 'Eleusinian' love-act betwixt male and female). In an almost
                        >> sado-masochistic move, the superego is now torturing the ego. It is
                        >> the collision rather than the confluence that is ruining this forced
                        >> marriage.
                        >>
                        >> Although Freud was a champion for the recognition of our primal urges,
                        >> he certainly did not advocate a free for all. What is really powerful
                        >> in Freud is that civilization is not seen as a purely external thing
                        >> rather it has real consequences on the inside. Our superego --
                        >> civilization's handmaiden on the inside -- is now calling the shots.
                        >> As we internalize what the external is telling us to do, how to act --
                        >> like gnawing guilt it invades the psyche to the extent that no matter
                        >> how we wish to transgress, we become and need the very thing that
                        >> causes our frustration.
                        >>
                        >> Again, as Noman O. Brown reminds us, "Culture originates in the denial
                        >> of life and the body, and the impossibility of denying life in the
                        >> body is what makes all cultures unstable defusions of life instinct
                        >> and death instinct. It follows that the recovery of life in the body
                        >> is the hidden aim of all history, in the sense that the recovery of
                        >> life in the body would put an end to the dynamic disequilibrium…"
                        >> (/Life Against Death/ (1959), pp. 296-97).
                        >>
                        >> My approach adduces neurophysiological and (Kleinian and Freudian)
                        >> data to show *why* individuals and then civilisations end up with a
                        >> particular brain hemisphere bias. And it's a bias that makes it v.
                        >> difficult to understand people with the 'opposing' bias -- hence the
                        >> incomprehension and hostility that 'both sides' (i.e. LH biased
                        >> coalition forces and RH biased insurgents) are currently exhibiting in
                        >> Iraq.
                        >>
                        >> CJL mentioned Gauquelin's work on Astrology, which I also read in the
                        >> eighties, and found pretty convincing. He was a French
                        >> psychologist/statistician, and because in France every birth
                        >> certificate has to register the time and place of birth (under the
                        >> Code Napoleon), he and his co-workers were able to draw up horoscopes
                        >> for tens of thousands of people (they later did the same in the USA
                        >> and elsewhere). Briefly, he claimed his findings showed that men and
                        >> women who became famous in sports and in the military had a greater
                        >> preponderance of Mars in their charts, whilst among the 500 members of
                        >> the Academie de Medicin many had a greater than chance preponderance
                        >> of Neptune in their charts, I think.
                        >
                        > Actually, Gauquelin found that sports champions tended to have Mars in
                        > specific sectors
                        > of an astrological chart, and with similar patterns with Jupiter for
                        > actors, and with
                        > Saturn for scientists.
                        >
                        >> Trouble is that because 'hard science' will not acknowledge that we
                        >> live in a psychophysical universe (and I can't recall your own site
                        >> mentioning this either), and insists on empirical data for astrology
                        >> (i.e. based on quantum gravity by top-down "observation" only -- which
                        >> simply isn't possible), a lot of critics came out of the woodwork and
                        >> dismissed Gauquelin's findings as nonsense.
                        >>
                        >> The result was that he became isolated, his long-term girlfriend left
                        >> him, and in the end he committed suicide.
                        >>
                        >> La lutte continue...
                        >
                        > Nevertheless, Gauquelin's work was replicated and not found
                        > faulty, which enraged, for instance, the Skeptics. They
                        > replicated his results, were unable to disprove his findings,
                        > though they tried to discredit them, having to eventually
                        > admit to them. He committed suicide a long time after.
                        >
                        > He did, by the way, write more than one book on astrology. "Cosmic
                        > Clocks" is a compendium of studies done in a number of fields
                        > which impact astrology.
                        >
                        > References
                        >
                        > * Michel Gauquelin The Scientific Basis of Astrology. Stein and Day
                        > Publishers. New York, 1969. Paperback version: Natl Book Network, 1970
                        > ISBN 0-8128-1350-2.
                        > * Michel Gauquelin The Cosmic Clocks. Henry Regenery Company,
                        > Chicago, 1967. Paperback version: Grafton Books, 1998 ISBN 0-586-08158-5.
                        > * Michel Gauquelin Neo-Astrology : A Copernican Revolution. Arkana,
                        > Penguin Group. London, 1991 ISBN 0-14-019318-9
                        >
                        > 1. ^ http://www.comitepara.be <http://www.comitepara.be/>
                        > 2. ^ Michel Gauquelin Neo-Astrology : A Copernican Revolution.
                        > Arkana, Penguin Group. London, 1991 ISBN 0-14-019318-9. Pg. 24.
                        >
                        > * Michel Gauquelin Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior. [tr. from
                        > the French by Joyce E. Clemow.] Aurora Press. Santa Fe, NM, 1994.
                        > * Michel Gauquelin Planetary Heredity. French edition, 1966. English
                        > edition: ACS Publications. San Diego,CA, 1988.
                        > * Michel Gauquelin Birth-Times: A Scientific Investigation of the
                        > Secrets of Astrology. [tr. from the French by Sarah Matthews.] Hill and
                        > Wang. New York, 1983. (Published in England as The Truth About Astrology)
                        > * La Cosmopsychologie - Les astres et les tempéraments
                        > (Cosmopsychology -- Stars and Temperament), Centre d'Étude et de
                        > Promotion de la Lecture, Paris, 1974
                        > * Les personnalités planétaires (Planetary Personalities), Guy
                        > Trédaniel editor, 1992 - Exhaustive list of publications p. 301 à 307
                        >
                        > I think that one of the reasons there is so much resistance
                        > to astrology, apart from ignorance, is that it is not easy to
                        > learn, and, once learned, transforms one view of reality.
                        >
                        > Julienne
                        >
                        > Messages in this topic
                        >
                      • Chris Lofting
                        ... Don t be so quick to condemn - read a little more - such as: Moon Rhythms in Nature: How Lunar Cycles Affect Living Organisms (Paperback) by Klaus Peter
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 6, 2007
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
                          > Behalf Of Mark Peaty
                          > Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2007 3:31 AM
                          > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Zodiacal consciousness? ?????????? :(
                          >
                          > After realising with some surprise that some contributors to
                          > Mind and Brain were taking this stuff about the Zodiac seriously
                          > [I assume they are not subtly taking the p*ss out of the rest of
                          > us] I had a quick squizz at what Google could turn up for me.
                          >
                          > I was reassured to find this link:
                          > http://www.skepsis.nl/mars.html
                          >
                          > This seems to indicate a distinct lack of scientific/statistical
                          > credibility for Michel Gauguelin's results. Given that nobody
                          > else has found any credible relationships between planetary
                          > positions and human affairs

                          Don't be so quick to condemn - read a little more - such as:

                          Moon Rhythms in Nature: How Lunar Cycles Affect Living Organisms (Paperback)

                          by Klaus Peter Endreys (Author), Wolfgang Schad (Author), Christian von
                          Arnim (Translator)


                          Astrology AS A TYPOLOGY shares space with the MBTI and other typologies -
                          the issues are in the interpretations of constellations etc as real
                          influences rather than as metaphors.

                          The ancients who developed Astrology could easily recognise lunar/solar
                          influences and generalised/anthropomorphised from there.

                          Furthermore the discussion re the validity of Gauquelin statistics goes on
                          so there needs to be some sort of experiment based on the same data to
                          repeat the results or reject them.

                          The ROOTS of Astrology, as in all typologies, are in self-referencing and
                          the creation of dichotomies such as 'air/earth' out of which comes
                          'fire/water' etc etc where the layering of these dichotomies will elicit
                          'value' due to the methodology. The figurative nature is then sold as if to
                          be taken literally - but behind that there IS evidence for tidal influences
                          on us as a species etc etc.

                          See my page "The Logic of the Esoteric" -
                          http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/esoter.html

                          Chris.
                        • barron.burrow
                          I spend far less than one per cent of my time in taking any interest in astrology. The discipline doesn t grab my attention because (a) I know that
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 12, 2007

                            I spend far less than one per cent of my time in taking any interest in astrology. The discipline doesn't grab my attention because

                            (a) I know that interpretation of horoscopes can be extremely subjective (e.g. astrologers with a left-wing political bias may adduce things in. say, President Bush's chart to 'prove' that he is the most evil person since Genghis Khan, whilst those with a right-wing bias can 'prove' that he is a 'great visionary'; and

                            (b) since my own work demonstrates incontrovertibly that we are specifically twelve-dimensional psychophysical beings who live in a twelve-dimensional psychophysical universe, then it is simply more intelligent for me to try to get people to understand the terrible forces of repression at work in those who are fixated on treating science as a religion (Peaty -- along with the others whom I've referred to here as 'the usual suspects' -- being a perfect instance of this "scientific" type).

                            Peaty refers us to Nienhuys Skeptical Inquirer article of 1997, in which Nienhuys states:

                            "The Mars Effect hypothesis was based on data collected by Gauquelin. The evidence for Gauquelin's massive bias is compelling. No value can be attached to the hypotheses these data gave rise to. This does not imply any willful deceit on the part of Gauquelin".

                            But the scientific case for the Mars-Effect is really dependent on much more recent statistical analysis, by Suitbert Ertel. In a 2005 article, for example, Kollerstrom is well aware of the debunking by Nienhuys and other sceptics, and he notes that: "The hard-hitting sceptics’ articles [publicised] what Ertel called ‘bias’ and what [e.g, Kurtz, Nienhuys & Sandhu, ‘Is the Mars Effect genuine? JSE 1997 11,1] called cheating".

                            But Kollerstrom (2005) goes on to discuss Ertel's analysis of the *unpublished* data:

                            ...following publication of the French sceptics’ sports data in 1995, Ertel gathered the three sets of sceptics’ data together and showed that the ‘Mars effect’ was present therein. Thus the effect was demonstrated using data-sets not gathered by Michel Gauquelin [italics added]. The null-hypothesis has been disproved. The latter could be expressed as, "Bias was present in the way Michel Gauquelin collected his data, and that has generated his claimed effects": a view no longer tenable (How Ertel Rescued the Gauquelin Effect Nick Kollerstrom, Correlation Vol 23 (1) 2005).

                            Now the reason that the psychophysical solution to quantum gravity AND the 'hard problem' that my own work provides turns out to be so powerful, is the simple fact that it starts from 'in here' (i.e. it shows that the "observations" of hard science made from 'out there' arise from the limitations imposed by the metrication of space and time, as fixed by standing waves [matter] as governed *entirely* by the limiting factor that is 'the speed of light'). Hard science is just not equipped to go to the depths necessary, in other words, to apprehend the irrefutable truth that ours is a psychophysical universe.

                            The scientific point here is that if, tomorrow, all research into astrology to date was proven to be erroneous and invalid once and for all, that would not invalidate the psychophysical theory that I have been elucidating on this list over the past few months.

                            For instance, my work proves that Descartes was correct to hypothesise the existence of psyche (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) -- because the psychophysical theory shows that psyche and matter inform not only our own human condition (i.e. at the micro-scale), but also that of the very universe itself (i.e. at the macro-scale). Psyche in the cosmos exists by virtue of the fact that it is the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction on matter (at all scales)!

                            I have repeatedly requested sceptics such as Peaty et al. to take me on, and to that end have several times listed all my relevant posts to Mind-Brain so that they can quote back at me my own words, for the purpose of debunking any claims that I have made. [The full list of these posts of mine was last given in #10055 'Re: Zodiacal consciousness?' -- Be my guest.]

                            In short, the sceptics have had abundant opportunity to refute my evidence on grounds of scientific incompetence or dishonesty on my part. Why haven't they done so?

                            Recently I showed how my own work points to how symbolism is first acquired by the infant, starting with his/her instantiating the mother's smell-touch (cross-laterally) in the pre-object relations genital, then doing so via an identification with the mother in the RH behavioural ego 'in here' -- such that a symbol-substitute for the mother (such as number) can then be apprehended as an "object" by LH consciousness ''out there'. All objects, including number, 'contain' the mother's smell-touch.

                            But this finding was instantaneously greeted with screams of derision, anguished rejection, and contempt by at least five of the 'usual suspects'.

                            So why didn't I bother to respond to their debunking at the time?

                            Answer: I wished to see if the six hundred subscribers to the Mind-Brain

                            group might be able to draw their own objective conclusions in the matter.

                            Interestingly, the hard science sceptics' need to jump on my head on this occasion was not an orchestrated affair. (Meaning, they were not guilty of conspiring to plot against me.) The rather extraordinary fact was that each of them posted his refutation independently -- and near-instantaneously. As if propelled into the act, that is, by his own unconscious...

                            But from whence arose their certainty that I must be wrong?

                            Because I've noted again and again here that number cannot be located anywhere (i) in the mind-brain (and one cannot say it arises from 'neurology' because neurology is inseparable from behaviour -- so if a person's behaviour is predisposed, for psychoanalytical reasons, to cheat in attempting to "prove" that hard science is the ultimately 'objective' tool, then their unconscious will cause them to betray a bias, without them ever being aware that this is happening); nor can we locate number anywhere in the universe.

                            So don't these two simple facts alone make it reasonable to hypothesise that perhaps we live in a psychophysical universe, and that number is psychophysical in its very essence -- especially given that I adduce vast amounts of evidence from many disciplines to back up my claim for the existence of psychophysical twelve-dimensional quantum gravity?

                            So what might be the real reason for the sceptics' rejection of my finding re: the modus operandi of symbol acquisition in the case of the human infant?

                            I suggest that unconsciously the sceptics were terrified that I had 'stolen' the object away from them, i.e. they were horrified that I had stolen from them the primary-object, the personal mother, for whom (in this instance) number was merely a substitute.

                            No space to pursue the subject further here. But I would simply point out that if my analysis is correct (which more than 35 years' of full-time psychoanalytical research on my part argues that it is), then the usual suspects' terror at feeling that I'd deprived them of their mum, also indicates that their desire to possess the mother as a sexual object is complemented, as we would expect, by a death-wish against the personal father (i.e. with myself being experienced as the substitute father-figure who was stealing the "object" away, and therefore onto whom they were also bound to project their murderous hate, their Oedipal rivalry!).

                            A propos

                            this latter, below I quote some interesting remarks by Mike Harding, who has researched astrology -- and who also happens to be a psychotherapist -- about the terror that having the object 'hard science' stolen from them causes some people:

                            "In reading and re-reading the views of those hostile to astrology one does not have to be a psychotherapist to detect some concerns beyond the immediate subject matter. There appears to be a powerful need to ground all ideas in safe and known ‘theories’. This is in sharp contrast to astrology’s claim for inevitable flux and change. Why? Nietzsche puts it well:

                            To trace something unknown back to something known is alleviating, soothing, gratifying and gives moreover a feeling of power. Danger, disquiet, anxiety attend the unknown -- the first instinct is to eliminate these distressing states… That it is something already familiar, experienced and inscribed in memory, which is posited as a cause, that is the first consequence of this need. Thus one searches not only for some kind of explanation to serve as a cause, but for a particularly selected and preferred kind of explanation (The Gay Science, by F. Nietzsche, Vintage Age Books, 1974, page 300).

                            Harding continues: "Here Nietzsche instinctively links knowledge and power in his recognition that one of the functions of 'truth' is to make us feel better about ourselves and our beliefs in terms which we already think we understand and, in doing so, often create an illusion of causality which comforts us. Astrologers can make the same mistakes, of course, but there appears to be something so fundamentally unsettling about astrology, which may account for so much of the wrath it calls down, and the consequent need to make it ‘safe’. As Nietzsche put it:

                            Look, isn’t our need for knowledge precisely this need for the familiar, the will to uncover under everything strange, unusual and questionable something that no longer disturbs us? Is it not the instinct of fear that bids us to know? And is the jubilation of those who attain knowledge not the jubilation over the restoration of the sense of security? (The Gay Science, by F. Nietzsche, Vintage Age Books, 1974, page 300).

                            Nietzsche has got it dead right. It is the "instinct of fear" that propels people who need organised religion -- including those who need science-as-religion -- to keep the mysterium tremendum at a safe, manageable distance.

                            But will any of this impress Peaty? Nope. Not in the slightest. Because instead of delighting in our discovery that the universe can be understood at last, his ego (i.e. self plus mum) will grope desperately to reassert "observer" dominance -- so that he can have "objects" as a means of trying to prop up his imploding world-view.

                            Which is where I started, as a result of taking a single hit of LSD, way back in 1972...For the ineffable truth, I gradually discovered, is the opposite to what you think it is.

                             

                            BEB.

                             

                          • Michael Cecil
                            ... astrology to date was proven to be erroneous and invalid once and for all, that would not invalidate the psychophysical theory that I have been elucidating
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 12, 2007
                              --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow" <barron.burrow@...> wrote:

                              > The scientific point here is that if, tomorrow, all research into astrology to date was proven to be erroneous and invalid once and for all, that would not invalidate the psychophysical theory that I have been elucidating on this list over the past few months.
                              >
                              > For instance, my work proves that Descartes was correct to hypothesise the existence of psyche (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) -- because the psychophysical theory shows that psyche and matter inform not only our own human condition (i.e. at the micro-scale), but also that of the very universe itself (i.e. at the macro-scale). Psyche in the cosmos exists by virtue of the fact that it is the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction on matter (at all scales)!

                              Hi, Barron,

                              Thanks for the clarification of what you are saying.

                              I was unaware, for example, that you assumed the duality to be primal, foundational, and otherwise irresolvable.

                              And this, to me, is a problem.

                              As far as I can tell from this statement, you appear to be saying that the 'classical' consciousness originating in self-reflection is this "observer".

                              It is one "observer", of course, but it is an "observer" trapped within the scientific method itself and limited to the perceptions/thoughts of the space-time reality.

                              It is of no help in understanding either what the Buddha, Jesus, or Krishnamurti were saying.

                              In other words, it can never escape triviality.

                              And this also has implications on the terminology Freud uses to 'explain everything'.
                              >
                              > I have repeatedly requested sceptics such as Peaty et al.

                              Don't know who all is included in this group; but I am certainly more than skeptical with regards to the primal nature of the duality.

                              > to take me on, and to that end have several times listed all my relevant posts to Mind-Brain so that they can quote back at me my own words, for the purpose of debunking any claims that I have made. [The full list of these posts of mine was last given in #10055 'Re: Zodiacal consciousness?' -- Be my guest.]
                              >
                              > In short, the sceptics have had abundant opportunity to refute my evidence on grounds of scientific incompetence or dishonesty on my part. Why haven't they done so?

                              I certainly don't view you as being either dishonest or 'scientifically incompetent'.

                              What I am saying is that science, in this case, is merely trivial; and, that to get to anything which is even interesting, one of the fundamental metaphysical assumptions of science--that is, the existence of a 'thinker'--needs to be eliminated, just as the existence of the 'ether' needed to be eliminated for the Theory of Relativity.

                              When it comes right down to it, classical physics is really boring.

                              Relativity Theory is at least interesting.

                              Same goes for the 'classical' consciousness: boooooorrrrriiiinnnggg.
                              >
                              > Recently I showed how my own work points to how symbolism is first acquired by the infant, starting with his/her instantiating the mother's smell-touch (cross-laterally) in the pre-object relations genital, then doing so via an identification with the mother in the RH behavioural ego 'in here' -- such that a symbol-substitute for the mother (such as number) can then be apprehended as an "object" by LH consciousness ''out there'. All objects, including number, 'contain' the mother's smell-touch.

                              Even if any of this is accurate (I simply have no idea what this terminology even means), I'm not at all sure that it would be in any way helpful in arriving at any conclusion which was not fundamentally trivial and boring.

                              Seriously.

                              This comes from the dictum "garbage in, garbage out".

                              The summation of an endless number of trivial pieces of evidence will never result in a conclusion that is anything more than trivial.
                              >
                              > But this finding was instantaneously greeted with screams of derision, anguished rejection, and contempt by at least five of the 'usual suspects'.

                              Maybe they didn't understand what you are talking about, or that you attribute too much significance to trivial observations.
                              >
                              > Interestingly, the hard science sceptics' need to jump on my head on this occasion was not an orchestrated affair. (Meaning, they were not guilty of conspiring to plot against me.) The rather extraordinary fact was that each of them posted his refutation independently -- and near-instantaneously. As if propelled into the act, that is, by his own unconscious...

                              Uhhhh...

                              Maybe they were 'propelled' by the perception that you are merely wrong.

                              It could happen.

                              Why consider it necessary to appeal to some vague 'unconscious'?

                              > So don't these two simple facts alone make it reasonable to hypothesise that perhaps we live in a psychophysical universe, and that number is psychophysical in its very essence

                              And?

                              Is this not straight-forward?

                              Self-reflection is "one" after all; or the 'thinker' insists that the consequence of self-reflection is one 'thinker' rather than a 'thinker' for every thought. Right?

                              >-- especially given that I adduce vast amounts of evidence from many disciplines to back up my claim for the existence of psychophysical twelve-dimensional quantum gravity?

                              Well, you should know the possible problems--and I said possible--with such a mechanism, knowing a little bit about psychology, right?
                              >
                              > So what might be the real reason for the sceptics' rejection of my finding re: the modus operandi of symbol acquisition in the case of the human infant?

                              First, this is contrary to my memory.

                              I have very clear RH memories of picture symbols by which a baby of maybe 10 months old perceives meaning against reality. And none of your categories of meaning appear to apply.

                              So, maybe there is an experiential objection to what you are concluding on the basis of thought, after all.
                              >
                              > I suggest that unconsciously the sceptics were terrified that I had 'stolen' the object away from them, i.e. they were horrified that I had stolen from them the primary-object, the personal mother, for whom (in this instance) number was merely a substitute.

                              Why all of this 'subterraneanness' and 'mystery' and vileness?

                              Maybe they were not terrified at all--I surely am not the least bit terrified of your conclusions --but merely consider you to be in error.
                              >
                              > No space to pursue the subject further here. But I would simply point out that if my analysis is correct (which more than 35 years' of full-time psychoanalytical research on my part argues that it is), then the usual suspects' terror at feeling that I'd deprived them of their mum, also indicates that their desire to possess the mother as a sexual object is complemented, as we would expect, by a death-wish against the personal father (i.e. with myself being experienced as the substitute father-figure who was stealing the "object" away, and therefore onto whom they were also bound to project their murderous hate, their Oedipal rivalry!).

                              All of this is much, much, much too unbeautiful and inelegant for me. Also disgusting.

                              Such complexification is really unnecessary once consciousness can be directly observed.

                              Krishnamurti is the cure for this kind of approach: thought is fear; and very complex thought systems function to protect against fear. Nothing more complex than that.

                              > "In reading and re-reading the views of those hostile to astrology one does not have to be a psychotherapist to detect some concerns beyond the immediate subject matter. There appears to be a powerful need to ground all ideas in safe and known 'theories'. This is in sharp contrast to astrology's claim for inevitable flux and change. Why? Nietzsche puts it well:
                              >
                              > To trace something unknown back to something known is alleviating, soothing, gratifying and gives moreover a feeling of power. Danger, disquiet, anxiety attend the unknown -- the first instinct is to eliminate these distressing states.

                              It is on this basis that certainty is attributed to thought in the first place.

                              In particular: the thought of the 'thinker'.

                              > That it is something already familiar, experienced and inscribed in memory, which is posited as a cause, that is the first consequence of this need. Thus one searches not only for some kind of explanation to serve as a cause, but for a particularly selected and preferred kind of explanation (The Gay Science, by F. Nietzsche, Vintage Age Books, 1974, page 300).
                              >
                              > Harding continues: "Here Nietzsche instinctively links knowledge and power in his recognition that one of the functions of 'truth' is to make us feel better about ourselves and our beliefs in terms which we already think we understand and, in doing so, often create an illusion of causality which comforts us. Astrologers can make the same mistakes, of course, but there appears to be something so fundamentally unsettling about astrology, which may account for so much of the wrath it calls down, and the consequent need to make it 'safe'. As Nietzsche put it:
                              >
                              > Look, isn't our need for knowledge precisely this need for the familiar, the will to uncover under everything strange, unusual and questionable something that no longer disturbs us? Is it not the instinct of fear that bids us to know? And is the jubilation of those who attain knowledge not the jubilation over the restoration of the sense of security? (The Gay Science, by F. Nietzsche, Vintage Age Books, 1974, page 300).
                              >
                              > Nietzsche has got it dead right. It is the "instinct of fear" that propels people who need organised religion -- including those who need science-as-religion -- to keep the mysterium tremendum at a safe, manageable distance.

                              Precisely.

                              But fear can also be the basis for the rigid adherence to one psychoanalytic approach too.

                              Literally any thought will do.
                              >
                              > But will any of this impress Peaty? Nope. Not in the slightest. Because instead of delighting in our discovery that the universe can be understood at last, his ego (i.e. self plus mum) will grope desperately to reassert "observer" dominance -- so that he can have "objects" as a means of trying to prop up his imploding world-view.

                              Have no idea about this one way or another.

                              But it appears you underestimate the significance of the threat to the 'classical' consciousness.

                              It is based upon an illusion and is always a half step away from irreversible psychosis.

                              This is not merely a trivial problem.
                              >
                              > Which is where I started, as a result of taking a single hit of LSD, way back in 1972...For the ineffable truth, I gradually discovered, is the opposite to what you think it is.

                              And what is that truth if you do not 'think' at all?

                              Michael Cecil

                              http://www.science-of-consciousness.blogspot.com/

                               
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > BEB.
                              >
                            • barron.burrow
                              ...
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 13, 2007

                                --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Cecil" <mececil@...> wrote:

                                > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow"

                                <barron.burrow@>> wrote:

                                <<The scientific point here is that if, tomorrow, all research into  astrology to date was proven to be erroneous and invalid once and for all, that would not invalidate the psychophysical theory that I have been elucidating on this list over the past few months. For instance, my work proves that Descartes was correct to hypothesise the existence of psyche (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) -- because the psychophysical theory shows that psyche and matter inform not only our own human condition (i.e. at the micro-scale), but also that of the very universe itself (i.e. at the macro-scale). Psyche in  the cosmos exists by virtue of the fact that it is the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction on matter (at all scales)!>>

                                > Hi, Barron,  Thanks for the clarification of what you are

                                saying. I was unaware, for example, that you assumed the duality to be primal,  foundational, and otherwise irresolvable. And this, to me, is a problem.>>

                                 

                                I've noticed, Michael, that you go through other people's messages, insert your own thoughts; but then somehow always end up concluding that everyone else is schizophrenic (i.e. dualistic) -- except yourself.

                                You have a penchant for scientisms and psychologisms, are interested in "ideas". But of course as you know, the word "idea" is from Greek, *idein*, "to see". Your "seeing" is inherently dualistic.

                                Because no matter how abstract and idealised one's seeing, it still involves "objects". Well, as I've mentioned, all objects that we see are substitutes for the personal mother. Bimodal-psychoanalysis shows that they contain her smell-touch.

                                This is true of even something as aetherial as number. The Greeks knew that there are at least two ways or relating to number: either as a [left brain] counting object (where at least ostensibly, complete separation between subject and object/number exists); or as a component in the [right brain biased] fractal structure that they called the *tetractys*, and which the Pythagoreans held in such esteem.

                                Recall that the tetractys comprises a pyramid of four horizontal layers of dots, with one at the apex and four at the lowest level (and so ten dots in all); and that in the tetractys, the cardinal number ‘one’ can be either a [left brain] counting object; or [from the RH biased perspective] it can represent One as everything, the All (i.e. a PSYCHO-physical unity). Similarly ‘two’ can be a left-brain counting object, or from the RH biased standpoint, it symbolises the archetypal dyad (i.e. ‘two units treated as one’); three can be a [LH] counting object, or a [RH] biased trinity; finally [from the RH perspective] four can symbolise the holon, self-unified fourfold, or Eleusinian quaternio/archetype.

                                I mention the latter because the Greeks considered any attack on the Eleusinian mysteries as an attack on democracy itself. In their rites, mother and daughter are seen to be one another's primary love-objects. This is because the smell-touch of each is imprinted in the genitalia of the other at the moment of the girl's birth, and consequently both women are indissolubly linked together thereafter. Paradoxically, then, Demeter and her daughter Persephone are two women...and yet also one [RH biased] female.

                                Similarly, Zeus and Hades(-the-phallus) are two brothers, but also one [LH biased] man. So that LH male and RH female together actually make one human being, experienced as a fractal 'outside of time' and exhibiting self-similarity across scale.

                                It is this latter quality that is made *manifest*, in the democracy of ancient Greece -- and it was the Greeks who invented this much-admired form of government, after all.

                                "Zades'" intercourse with Demeter-Persephone is in part incestuous, but only in RH unconscious phantasy -- in fact, in LH consiousness 'out there' complete separation is achieved between father and daughter. The Greeks seemed to know intuitively that, as Nietzsche perceives, incest breaks the veil between past and future.

                                And the bimodal-psychoanalytical explanation is that, whereas in all previous and subsequent civilisations, the two sexes saw one another as *objects* (and so inevitably as mere substitutes for the parents), and specifically because they failed to differentiate breast from penis (in the depth-dimension), by contrast the Greeks made this crucial distinction in the very *act* of 'Eleusinian' love-making. Thus, whereas other civilisations tended to be sado-masochistic (which is what happens when breast is con-fused with penis), the Greeks' intuition was informed by a profound understanding of what is "right" (e.g. the word "justice" is from L. "jus", meaning "right").

                                Right derives from a slight LH bias, and is the prerequisite for further Eleusinian human evolution. Fortunately, in the Greeks' case, as a result of their practice of the Eleusinian rites, underlying LH biased consciousness was RH biased (Eleusinian) action.

                                All the pieces fit.,, and (like DNA, evolve helically...

                                The division between the sexes began in the 'cradle of civilisation', in Sumeria eight thousand years ago. That was when counting and writing made their first appearance -- but also, as a consequence of the mind-brain increasingly relating to the world in terms of objects (i.e. as substitutes for the parents), that was also when Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden of Eden, so to speak. If they began to wear fig-leaves, it was because this was the body-ego's way of creating a defence to protect its most vulnerable part, the genitalia, from the hostile reality-principle.

                                From a Darwinian perspective, of course, we are merely containers that are destined to pass on our genes: the genital protects itself with fig leaves, therefore, just because the genital is the *sine qua non* bridge between past, present, and future.

                                The Greeks knew all about evolution, But they were conquered by the Visigoths in the 4th c A.D., their rites were suppressed, and replaced by a bodiless Christianity (though the latter religion was in fact created following the Helenisation of Judae by Alexander the Great, and the direct precursor of Christ had been Dionysus, offspring of the incestuous liaison between Zeus and Persephone in the Greek mysteries).

                                Ever since, the split between the RH biased 'East' and LH biased 'West' has grown exponentially (though there has also been an admixture of the two cerebral hemisphere types  -- especially since the advent of electronic media).

                                As Hoggard pointed out, information overload has its own unstoppable momentum, it follows the period-doubling rule governed by the Feigenbaum constant. It just strikes me as extraordinary that the culmination of human civilisation should end in a return to chaos in Sumeria, present-day Iraq, where everything began eight thousand years ago.

                                The RH biased types that the present-day Iraqis, descendants of the Sumerians who originally created human civilisation in the fertile crescent, are in conflict with the LH biased Western types that the American-led coalition represents, and the hostility between them fluctuates between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Jerusalem.   

                                My contention is that information and temporal overload (leading to chaos) will only disappear when men and women really understand each other. As occurred in the rites of Demeter.

                                Albert Hoffman, the man who discovered LSD, was convinced that a psychotrophic substance was contained in the kykeon cakes ingested by initiates at the rites. And John Allegro believed that Christianity arose from a magic mushroom cult also.

                                In an Introduction to a paper in the bulletin of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), entitled Dr. Oscar Janiger's Pioneering LSD Research: A Forty Year Followup (1999), by Rick Doblin, was included a "Personal Statement" from Janiger -- a follower of Albert Hoffman’s -- in which he expressed regret at the academic community's failire to pursue research into hallucinogens.

                                After mentioning that he himself had taken LSD in 1954, Dr Janiger suddenly states:

                                I am reminded of conversations that took place around 1958-59 among a small group including Aldous Huxley, Gerald Heard, Alan Watts, Anais Nin, Sidney Cohen, Keith Ditman, Betty Eisner, and others who had early exposure to LSD. Our discussion led to the question of how psychedelics might find a place in our culture that could be socially accepted and institutionalized.

                                We thought that the ritual created by the Greeks at Eleusis could serve as an instructive model.

                                Janiger goes on to relate that participation in the rites was voluntary, open to men, women and slaves, and was "said to be for many the most profound experience of their lives". Like the Christianity the came after it, the Greek rites were about death and rebirth.

                                Huxley, Watts and Anais Ninn are of course widely-read and respected authors. If the Eleusinian ‘template’ had such a powerful impact on these writers, what they could not have known is that the source of this religious experience derives (i.e. as a result of ingesting hallucinogens) from the mind-brain's apprehension of both modes of [RH biased and LH biased] twelve-dimensional space-time simultaneously.

                                For the hallucinogen dissolved the ego and therefore the taboo against incest, thus allowing the RH sensorimotor self to end the split between the sacred and profane that is the hallmark of all organised religions, save the Eleusinian one.

                                 

                                BEB.

                                "Heh, Britney, this'll make your hair curl. Are you ready for this? Listen...Feigenbaum is the German word for fig tree. Neat, huh? I'm gonna put that up on my blog!" Sir Paris Hilton.

                                > As far as I can tell from this statement, you appear to be saying

                                that

                                > the 'classical' consciousness originating in self-reflection is this

                                > "observer".

                                >

                                [snip]

                              • Margaret Rynn
                                Whoooa there, I usually skip through the posts but this one caught my attention, as it was meant to do of course. I can just imagine everyone sniffing their
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 13, 2007
                                  Whoooa there, I usually skip through the posts but
                                  this one caught my attention, as it was meant to do of
                                  course. I can just imagine everyone sniffing their
                                  parents genetalia to see if they smell like their own,
                                  what a concept, Wow
                                  Dang, I dont have time to tell my story and throw in
                                  my two bits about the opposing elements of the male
                                  and female electromagnetic functions on the body, on
                                  every body that is to say, but will converse later on
                                  when my time permits, I can assure you. Until then,
                                  happy thoughts. Renee
                                  --- "barron.burrow" <barron.burrow@...>
                                  wrote:

                                  > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Cecil"
                                  > <mececil@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "barron.burrow"
                                  > <barron.burrow@>> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > <<The scientific point here is that if, tomorrow,
                                  > all research into astrology to date was proven to
                                  > be erroneous and invalid once and for all, that
                                  > would not invalidate the psychophysical theory that
                                  > I have been elucidating on this list over the past
                                  > few months. For instance, my work proves that
                                  > Descartes was correct to hypothesise the existence
                                  > of psyche (res cogitans) and matter (res extensa) --
                                  > because the psychophysical theory shows that psyche
                                  > and matter inform not only our own human condition
                                  > (i.e. at the micro-scale), but also that of the very
                                  > universe itself (i.e. at the macro-scale). Psyche in
                                  > the cosmos exists by virtue of the fact that it is
                                  > the "observer" that collapses the wavefunction on
                                  > matter (at all scales)!>>
                                  >
                                  > > Hi, Barron, Thanks for the clarification of what
                                  > you are saying. I was unaware, for example, that you
                                  > assumed the duality to be primal, foundational, and
                                  > otherwise irresolvable. And this, to me, is a
                                  > problem.>>
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I've noticed, Michael, that you go through other
                                  > people's messages, insert your own thoughts; but
                                  > then somehow always end up concluding that everyone
                                  > else is schizophrenic (i.e. dualistic) -- except
                                  > yourself.
                                  >
                                  <Snip>
                                • Julienne
                                  ... J: People are terrified of losing the hard science paradigm because they want absolute answers, black and white answers. Just as religions all too often
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Aug 13, 2007
                                    At 02:23 PM 8/12/2007 +0100, barron.burrow wrote:
                                    A propos this latter, below I quote some interesting remarks by Mike Harding, who has researched astrology -- and who also happens to be a psychotherapist -- about the terror that having the object 'hard science' stolen from them causes some people:

                                    J: People are terrified of losing the "hard science" paradigm because
                                    they want absolute answers, black and white answers. Just as religions
                                    all too often discourage questioning or doubt, too many sciences do the
                                    same. Either an answer is absolute, or it is too disconcerting. If an
                                    experiment doesn't always have the same results, they become scared.
                                    Yet we already know that the same treatment doesn't cure every person's
                                    cancer, that metereological reports are far from precise, that drilling
                                    into a well to save miners caught in a mining accident doesn't always
                                    reach where it was aiming, that the same sexual techniques don't work
                                    for every human being, that what works with one child doesn't seem to
                                    work with another. Life is extraordinarily complicated, and part of
                                    science is an attempt to simplify life, to understand it, to find
                                    precise answers which will let us know what to do when and always
                                    get it right. But life doesn't oblige - life is busy reinventing
                                    itself as it goes.

                                    "In reading and re-reading the views of those hostile to astrology one does not have to be a psychotherapist to detect some concerns beyond the immediate subject matter. There appears to be a powerful need to ground all ideas in safe and known ‘theories’. This is in sharp contrast to astrology’s claim for inevitable flux and change. Why? Nietzsche puts it well: To trace something unknown back to something known is alleviating, soothing, gratifying and gives moreover a feeling of power. Danger, disquiet, anxiety attend the unknown -- the first instinct is to eliminate these distressing states… That it is something already familiar, experienced and inscribed in memory, which is posited as a cause, that is the first consequence of this need. Thus one searches not only for some kind of explanation to serve as a cause, but for a particularly selected and preferred kind of explanation (The Gay Science, by F. Nietzsche, Vintage Age Books, 1974, page 300).
                                    Harding continues: "Here Nietzsche instinctively links knowledge and power in his recognition that one of the functions of 'truth' is to make us feel better about ourselves and our beliefs in terms which we already think we understand and, in doing so, often create an illusion of causality which comforts us. Astrologers can make the same mistakes, of course, but there appears to be something so fundamentally unsettling about astrology, which may account for so much of the wrath it calls down, and the consequent need to make it ‘safe’. As Nietzsche put it: Look, isn’t our need for knowledge precisely this need for the familiar, the will to uncover under everything strange, unusual and questionable something that no longer disturbs us? Is it not the instinct of fear that bids us to know? And is the jubilation of those who attain knowledge not the jubilation over the restoration of the sense of security? (The Gay Science, by F. Nietzsche, Vintage Age Books, 1974, page 300).
                                    Nietzsche has got it dead right. It is the "instinct of fear" that propels people who need organised religion -- including those who need science-as-religion -- to keep the mysterium tremendum at a safe, manageable distance.

                                    But will any of this impress Peaty? Nope. Not in the slightest. Because instead of delighting in our discovery that the universe can be understood at last, his ego (i.e. self plus mum) will grope desperately to reassert "observer" dominance -- so that he can have "objects" as a means of trying to prop up his imploding world-view.

                                    Which is where I started, as a result of taking a single hit of LSD, way back in 1972...For the ineffable truth, I gradually discovered, is the opposite to what you think it is.


                                    J: Amen, amen, amen. The need fo security, for safety, for
                                    stillness, for Mummy Religion and Daddy Science to map
                                    it all out for us, is profound. The problem is that there
                                    are no final answers, there is no absolute and complete
                                    explanation - life is not as afraid as we are. We can
                                    only be compatible with Life when we are willing to be
                                    open, to take a Kierkegaardian Leap of Faith into the
                                    Unknown, to realize that evry single experience is
                                    different, in at least some degree, to every previous
                                    experience. Even the Greeks knew it - all is flux, all
                                    is change, and the excitement comes from the flow,
                                    from being able to delight and joy in the evolution,
                                    the constant reawakening of each day, each moment.
                                    There is no safety in stasis - only in the courage
                                    to find joy in the dance of life, in the inevitable
                                    movement and change.

                                    The problem with "causes", is that there is always
                                    another cause behind the cause. The Ur cause is
                                    always unreachable, and going backwards is valuable
                                    only to help us understand our foundations, our
                                    history, our roots, but all that looking back
                                    isn't meant as a way for us to find a place to
                                    be safe - a primal "home". The past is no longer
                                    our home, and the explanations of yesterday are
                                    only prelude for tomorrow, and to the inevitable
                                    search for more answers to more and new experiences.
                                    "God" may seem to many to be an Ur First Cause, a
                                    "Home", a answer is which we can lie comforted
                                    and safe. Some people actually can do that, and
                                    there are studies which show that such religious
                                    people are actually "happier" than the unfaithful.
                                    I question those studies, as I think such people
                                    are primed to answer that they are happy, that
                                    they don't question their marriages, their
                                    purposes on this planet (God's secret plan). I
                                    think such people have given up and numbed
                                    themselves out of fear and anxiety.

                                    The mysterium tremendum takes courage to confront,
                                    and yet life without mystery is like life without
                                    love - only a part of the person is alive. Astrology
                                    does indeed show that life is flux, life is always
                                    changing, but it is within certain parameters.
                                    However, even those parameters are changing. No
                                    planet, in it's cycle, ever comes back in the sky
                                    to a place where it has been before. By the time
                                    it comes back, other planets in the sky are in
                                    different relationships with that planet, and
                                    even slight perturbations, almost imeasurable,
                                    bring everything "back" to a slightly different
                                    place. So much for absolutes, so much for any
                                    "hard" science which doesn't allow for constant
                                    mutability.


                                    Nietzsche said, "It is a little truth I carry,
                                    and if I hold not it's mouth, it screameth
                                    too loudly!" So for all the truths we hold
                                    back and avoid. I say let them all scream -
                                    it would make soul-stirring music.

                                    Julienne
                                  • Chris Lofting
                                    ... Delusion based on lack of understanding of the FULL spectrum of being - where such includes the PURPOSE encoded in life forms at the GENERAL/PARTICULAR
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Aug 13, 2007
                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On
                                      > Behalf Of Julienne
                                      > Sent: Tuesday, 14 August 2007 1:15 PM
                                      > To: EvolPsych@yahoogroups.com; A Group MindBrain
                                      > Cc: barron.burrow
                                      > Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: [EvolPsych] re: Zodiacal consciousness?
                                      >
                                      > At 02:23 PM 8/12/2007 +0100, barron.burrow wrote:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > A propos this latter, below I quote some interesting remarks by Mike
                                      > Harding, who has researched astrology -- and who also happens to be a
                                      > psychotherapist -- about the terror that having the object 'hard science'
                                      > stolen from them causes some people:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > J: People are terrified of losing the "hard science" paradigm because
                                      > they want absolute answers, black and white answers. Just as religions
                                      > all too often discourage questioning or doubt, too many sciences do the
                                      > same. Either an answer is absolute, or it is too disconcerting. If an
                                      > experiment doesn't always have the same results, they become scared.
                                      > Yet we already know that the same treatment doesn't cure every person's
                                      > cancer, that metereological reports are far from precise, that drilling
                                      > into a well to save miners caught in a mining accident doesn't always
                                      > reach where it was aiming, that the same sexual techniques don't work
                                      > for every human being, that what works with one child doesn't seem to
                                      > work with another. Life is extraordinarily complicated, and part of
                                      > science is an attempt to simplify life, to understand it, to find
                                      > precise answers which will let us know what to do when and always
                                      > get it right. But life doesn't oblige - life is busy reinventing
                                      > itself as it goes.
                                      >

                                      Delusion based on lack of understanding of the FULL spectrum of being -
                                      where such includes the PURPOSE encoded in life forms at the
                                      GENERAL/PARTICULAR level and so previously outside of the awareness of the
                                      SINGULAR consciousness since such purpose spans generations and the singular
                                      is one of many - survival through multiple copies is the species focus and
                                      so the individual consciousness is meaningless.

                                      BUT that consciousness, emergent after about 24 months of individual life,
                                      acts on the species as Darwin's mutation acts on evolution in general.

                                      Any 'reinvention' is done at the level of LOCAL context and so always WITHIN
                                      the bounds set by our sensory/neurology systems - i.e. falling with what is
                                      POSSIBLE through self-referencing the differentiate/integrate dichotomy.

                                      In this self-referencing develops the category if 'beginning' and that of
                                      'ending'. Due to the self-referencing the full set of categories derived in
                                      general at level 3, for example, emerges as contributors to EACH definition
                                      of a category at level 6 and so on.

                                      Thus each category contains within it purpose in the form of 'beginning' and
                                      'ending' states. However, these do not cover the individual, they cover the
                                      category and so CLASS that an individual is an instance of.

                                      Thus our singular natures are meaningless in the context of group
                                      development and it is these classes of groups that typologies pick up (e.g.
                                      MBTI, HBDI, Big-5 etc). As far as the group is concerned the individuals
                                      within it are all 'same' and expendable in that the more individuals the
                                      more chance of the group purpose being satisfied.

                                      However, with the development of consciousness and so the unique comes the
                                      ability for innovation from that uniqueness, one member of the group can
                                      come up with a novel perspective that can sweep through the group almost
                                      instantaneously.

                                      As such, there IS purpose but it is GENERAL and focused on the history
                                      (genetics) of the group - be it the whole species or some collective within
                                      the species.

                                      With enough resolution we can derive a vague sense of 'purpose' for an
                                      individual, identifying their GROUP purpose, and THEN comes their actions as
                                      'mediators' or 'randomisers' as conscious beings to contribute something
                                      unique to the group/species. Thus, those parts of our being, genetics,
                                      social history, etc work at the position of determinism and those parts our
                                      being focused on breaking history (and so symmetry) work in the position we
                                      call 'free will'. As such we can make symmetry and break symmetry.

                                      Included in the make symmetry, history-grounded, position is determinism
                                      including the influence of circadian rhythms on actions and that includes,
                                      for example, the dynamics of the Moon etc.

                                      From a neurological position, as we have brain oscillations left/right so we
                                      also have them front/back - the latter reflecting circadian dynamics.
                                      Recognition of the latter can lead to the generalisation of such to cover
                                      all species members (or classes within - e.g. males vs females hormone
                                      dynamics) but also the particularisation of such working off principles of
                                      'initial conditions' setting-off phase-sensitive differences in the
                                      individual as individual and as a group member.

                                      Chris.
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.