Michael Sternbach

Well, it was worth trying... Belief certainly amplifies everything it touches a lot.

But, Nungali, the piece that I was really looking for is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N7c5nf1c50

Would you mind buying a ticket for me then, Jim? I'll send you a couple of bucks...

Of course, it could be said that you are always interacting with everybody and everything else. Indra's net (Hinduism)... The Force connects everything..." (Yoda)... That's because you were not listening to your intuition (just that one time)... No, it's not that simple. But it could be argued that meeting that guy reflected something in yourself, that you were likely not aware of (that was unconscious ). "As within so without" (my uncle)... Alright, maybe the guy would have come to the night club that evening anyway as others there would have "attracted" him. That always seems to be a team effort, by the way, involving what Seth calls Framework 2 which probably partially coincides with Jung's Collective Unconscious. But you wouldn't have had to be around. (You couldn't keep your buddy from getting his bleeding nose anyway.) The Daoist sage wouldn't be in a place or at a time where he might run into trouble. Most likely, he wouldn't be working as a bouncer just because he knows Kung Fu in the first place, Allright, so there you were in that situation, anyway. You could still have altered the course events took. For example... You could have gone to the fellow, got him involved in a chat, offered him a drink, and make him see the meaninglessness of what he was planning to do. Maybe even to seek professional treatment for his bipolarity (or whatever he was suffering from). Ever ready to take him out at the slightest indication that he was going to draw a weapon by a quick strike to a kyusho, of course. Watch from 6:00 on: Also watch right after 3:00. Moreover, watch: Because X is a sly fox and Y a chook. So she attracted getting eaten. It's probably what she wanted unconsciously, anyway.

Quoting from vedicastrologyblog: "MOON COMBUST? Not really. When the Sun and Moon are close you are in a new moon. This has it’s own specific energy. It is challenging to have your Moon or your Mind with your Sun. This is called a dark moon and can result in a soul being very challenged to find themselves." Besides, any celestial body that is in super-exact conjunction with the Sun is no longer combust but kazimi - a very favourable condition which brings its full potential out.

There is never a consensus about anything amongst astrologers.

In yet other (and really beautiful) words:

A law which you have truly mastered, Marblehead! - Do you do it consciously or unconsciously?

You mean, the Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul? When is it going to end? Will it ever?

In other words, there are "life themes" given from the start that you can deal with in many different and more or less enlightened ways, but that cannot be avoided as such. These life themes are reflected in the Archetypes that are represented i.e. by the astrological entities and by the Tarot cards (did I tell you your birth cards already based on your date of birth?). Another way to say this is that the Archetypes are expressing themselves through us. Edit: Added fundamental remark. Don't miss!

As I vowed to remain impartial as long as everybody here more or less behaves themselves , or rather, to represent only my own views, I am afraid, I must agree to most of what Nungali said in his post no. 172 (not so much to his tone, but to his factual statements ) - as it is in accordance with much of what I have said before, although partially from another perspective. Especially I wish to comment on the following quotes: That's what I thought all along... Maybe the problem is one of semantics, after all. I would say, you and DreamBliss are pretty much describing the same thing. On deeper analysis, the question may simply be whether you call the unconscious/unaware part sub-conscious or something else... DreamBliss, actually, I think your indoctrination with the Christian belief system is a good example that seems to have had an almost tangible character? Isn't that typical of how human beings in all cultures get "programmed" already at an early age? Again, I seem to take a central stand between the two of you, in a manner. Of course, spiritually sophisticated martial artists understand to ward attacks off by reflecting the negative energy back to the aggressor, or better yet, by not presenting an opening and avoid attacks in the first place. At least, that's the theory... Well said. That sounds interesting. References? I agree that there must be a psycho-spiritual code comparable to the genetic code, carrying the imprints of past lives and, or reflected in - the astrological influences.

Something specific? How about this then... I was looking at an isolated event in Azerbijian. Here is the chart for the solar eclipse as it affects that place. I note war planet Mars in contact with the ascendant - Saturn (the other "malefic" among the planets) out of sect (a diurnal planet in a night chart), in keeping with the nature of the event... Here is the story that motivated me to look at this... http://rt.com/news/242373-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-azerbaijan/

Solar eclipses in very general terms mean endings and beginnings. Which is emphasized in this one by its occurrence on the last degree of Pisces which is the transitional degree to 0° Aries, or the Spring equinox - the end of an astrological year and the beginning of a new one.

In fact, that's where we came from. As the horoscope chart shows. The Archetypes are inherent to your being.

So according to this, it's not really that you can consciously choose not to feel hurt when somebody crosses the line, if you are completely honest with yourself. Rather, you have found a way of dealing with your emotions rationally that suits you. You do get them out by writing them into a file that nobody else gets to see. That's a psychological technique you are applying, and it is far better than denying your feeling hurt, to be sure. If that truly suffices to clear them, well... great! (But see my further comments here.) I do think that the decision about what is desirable and undesirable to us in the most basic of terms takes place at an instinctual level quite outside the conscious mind. Even a small infant reacts accordingly. Of course, over time, the super-ego will develop which has a say in whether we follow our instinctual evaluations or not. My instinctual desire may be to eat that whole big sack of potato chips, but my super-ego decides that it's not good for me, so I hesitate. The ego then decides to give in to either one side or the other, or perhaps it arrives at a compromise and I will only eat half of the chips. So while sometimes the objections of the super-ego make sense, there is a reason why so many spiritual teachings, from Daoism to Seth, tell us not to be overly supressive but follow our instinctive impulses. In cases where this would lead to considerable problems, it is often because we have denied them too long, thus they are pent up. It takes little stimulus then for the dam to break, and we do something really stupid. You are welcome. It was an instinctual reaction that my ego decided to follow through with even though my super-ego warned me that you might say something like this: I see what you mean. However, expressing your being upset is a natural means of social interaction. If you deny others that feedback due to some spiritual ideal, they may not even realize how much they are hurting you. They may well haul out even bigger guns next. A lot of writing in your file for you to do then... Fighting back doesn't reinforce your victim role, imo. Rather, you may want to ask yourself why you became a victim in the first place. As others tend to treat you the way you are treating yourself on some level. That may be an unconscious thing going on (something you are not sufficiently aware of), and that's something you can indeed work on, so that you will change what you attract to yourself (the LoA in action). In principle and to a certain degree, yes. It often requires closing yourself up and simply walking away from a situation though. Sometimes, that's the better way. But not always. If somebody punches you, that's destructive energy hurting your body. If somebody attacks you on an emotional level, they are likewise projecting negative energy towards you. If it bounces off your protective aura, fine (usually it flyes back to the sender then). It's an energy thing, not necessarily subject to a conscious decision. If something doesn't get to you (consider this phrase, it illustrates what I just said), then you don't need to deal with it all, not even by way of a psychological technique. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating tit for tat here. For instance, you can send back what has been thrown at you on a more conscious level. Such as talk about how something made you feel and why you think it was inappropriate. The receiver may then reconsider their behaviour. Sometimes... True as far as it goes! Still, I maintain that some conflicts need to be resolved on an external level, one way or another.

Exactly. Change the way you are looking at yourself, once you gained insight into it - and you change the way others look at you.

There are indeed cases known of people with virtually no brain, yet with normal or even above average mental abilities. http://www.rense.com/general63/brain.htm So: Of course it's possible to have a mind but no brain! That's what I call a "no brainer."

freeform, That sounds much better. Well, I said this to correct the idea of the OP just relying on "the kindness and hard work" of others when in fact he is giving his best efforts for his not-always-so-appreciative associates. No, not in general. But I do see three members implicitly or explicitly calling the OP "a child" and your subsequent misinformed post as a disservice. I don't know how DreamBliss would feel about it. I perceive him overall as an exceptionally patient and understanding personality, so maybe he wouldn't have cared much (at least consciously ). However, I sensed an unsound dynamics developing that I felt inclined to quickly dissolve. Of course! If you read my posts, you will see that I actually challenge the OP's thesis of there not being a subconscious. Such debate is fully appropriate as long as it's taking place in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I hope that it became clear meanwhile that what offended me was three members agreeing on what turned into an attack ad hominem, on a personal friend of mine, and on a thread I am contributing to. I did similar things on forums for others before, and on a few occasions personally appreciated other members' support. Always happy to do just that whenever I can. I hope that you understand my position now and appreciate your clarification. We can leave it at that, as far as I am concerned. Michael

Not least, worthwhile for you if you enjoy spreading your opinions over the Internet. If you are not having fun - don't do it! If you had read DreamBliss' posts more carefully, you would know that he is living with his handicapped grandmum while helping her. In fact, he is doing pretty hard work for relatives and aquaintances all the time, including things like a move of 100 miles or so that took six full days to finish and which was rewarded by a mere 200 bucks. But since that was the amount he had requested from the Universe for a certain purpose, he is happy that he got the opportunity to make it. His circumstances are about to change and he is now getting ready to make his life away from his family. It's fine that he endeavours to apply the LoA principles the way they worked for him so far. As spiritually conscious people, we should offer him our support rather than uninformed mockery, imo.

I have a wonderful little self-help manual written in German. It's actually borrowing plenty from Eastern philosophies. It's teaching how to live in peace and contentment. Part of this is to understand how people always try to manipulate you to their own advantage, and how to do it to them if the need arises. The TTK may have been something similar originally. It's confusing us nowadays because we like to think of it as the lofty teaching of a "saint" (whatever that may be) elevated over the concerns of daily life. When in fact it was meant as a self-help manual offering all kinds of advice to ensure that the reader (whoever they may be) lives as happily as possible. "Use whatever you see fit!"

freeform, You be nice to DreamBliss!

Giordano Berti in Italy still has some copies of the Mayer edition from 1998 (the only one containing all 78 cards, not only the majors) and offers them along with a book he has written at a very fair price. https://solabuscatarot1998mayer.wordpress.com/

Well, I will comment on your comments nevertheless. You mean, you have cards up your sleeve? Glad you like it, UFO. Not only you. That sounds interesting. According to C. G. Jung, Tarot (especially the Major Arcana) represents the Archetypes. However, beyond just being an image of the (collective) unconscious, I would say that Tarot is a variation of the Theatrum mundi or Theatre of the World cherished by the Renaissance philosophers (you might call it Memory Palace, ZYD). Thus it is relevant to all levels of existence - both internal and external. These are always analogous to each other, anyway. Eliphas Levy wrote that a prisoner, if he had only a Tarot deck available and knew how to use it, could derive all the knowledge of the world within a number of years, and talk about it eloquently with experts. That may be a slight exaggeration - but Tarot as a universal system of Archetypes in fact relates to all kinds of things as all things are based on those Archetypes. You don't need to stretch it, you only need to see the analogies. Rocket science? Let me think... Rocket propulsion is based on Newton's Law of Action and Reaction, isn't it? Which you could easily relate to Trumps I and II. But the analogies go further... The escape velocity for a rocket in order to fly away from the Moon is 2,38 km/sec. 2 happens to be the number of the High Priestess which is most commonly attributed to the Moon. 3 + 8 = 11 = 1 + 1 = 2 again. Let's take off from Earth now; for that, we need a higher escape velocity of 11,2 km/sec. That's again 11 = 1 + 1 = 2, plus 2 behind the comma. Well, no wonder, the Moon and the Earth reflect or are inverse to each other, they are a Yin/Yang pair. Trump 11 in the traditional decks shows a person overcoming a lion; personally, I have no problem seeing in this a metaphor for a vehicle overcoming Earth's gravity field. Calculus? Yeah, it's in there too, but too complex a theme to go into here. Some other time, perhaps... Politics? Inherent to Tarot! Just look at The Empress, The Emperor, all the Court Cards... I am sure you could read nicely on political developments with Tarot, if you were thus inclined. Oh, that has the potential for controversy on this thread... Yet another reason to attain immortality. I mostly agree with you on this. Tarot is replete with esoteric symbolism right from the start. Whether the system as a whole was transmitted for many centuries "from teacher to pupil" as you say is doubtful, though. One reason being that quite some variation exists among the earliest extant decks regarding both the number and the order of the cards. It took awhile until the now common system established itself more or less firmly. I agree with Zhongyongdaoist that metaphysical systems are not necessarily inherited from time immemorial in fully fleshed out form, but gradually develop, accomodating to a pattern that is acting as a Final Cause over prolonged periods of time. ZYD's observation regarding the cycle of Neptune/Pluto conjunctions in Gemini is interesting here. In a sense, Tarot as such is an abstraction. As a system of Archetypes, it is an Archetype itself; thus (according to Jung's definition), it has no recognizable form. Yet it can be expressed in many forms. There is some validity to all its many different expressions therefore, even the "derived" ones (for all we know, all the decks we have are derived). But I agree with you that some are far more encompassing in their symbolism than others. Now, which of the many decks are the most apt, that is a matter of hot argumentation but even more, I would say, of personal preference. Some truth to that, to be sure, especially as far as predictions. But I know Nungali well enough to say that he was not simply referring to divination - let alone to foretelling lotto numbers. The probability theories of modern physics in fact leave a lot of questions unanswered from a Metaphysical perspective.

Another aspect is that behaviour once thoroughly learned becomes unconscious and automatic. This can be of advantage, of course. Thus a trained martial artist doesn't have to think about how to move all the parts of his body in order to perform a certain technique; he (or she) can apply it spontaneously and intuitively. But of course, we also learn and automatize a lot of stuff (especially, but not exclusively, in childhood) that we would do well to unlearn later. So that we find back to our original self (as not only Daoism teaches). The problem is, how do we get access to those program files? Psychoanalysts say, don't mess with your software, you need us for that. Seth (and like minded spirits) say, there is nothing to keep you from stepping wherever you like inside your psyche (if you are not too afraid).

Only insofar it is about to become conscious. Which led C.G. Jung to his "discovery" of the Archetypes. They pertain to the collective unconscious and to the (inner or higher) self. I seriously miss any mention of them on this "unconscious" thread so far. Despite the reference to channelled material. Where was it channelled from? From spirits external to the channeller? Seth says no; while he insists on having an existence independent from Jane Roberts, her psyche had a link to Seth in inner or subjective space. In certain terms, Seth is Jane's future self, as he says; thus her higher self or evolutionary goal. Again, with sources like Seth and Abraham, Archetypes play a major role as their names imply which are associated with mythological figures. In Freudian psychology, it is the ego which is the sorting ground for what it receives from both the Id and the super-ego, always trying to reconcile the two. From my view, here lies the common ground between your view and DreamBliss'. There is a subconscious/unconscious but none of its contents are inaccessible to the conscious mind per say. The conscious mind is functioning in a linear manner whereas many of the processes of the unconscious are due to non-linear parallel computing. That's why they are not visible to the conscious mind directly. But people do get programmed all the time,starting in childhood with their parents and teachers indoctrinating them with beliefs generally shared by their society. This is the formation of the super-ego which is partially conscious, and partially unconscious. Many take these beliefs for granted for the rest of their life without ever seeing them for what they are, or questioning them. And that is the potentially problematic part; not the understanding that you may be carrying programs within your psyche that you are not (yet) aware of. I don't think admitting this weakens the position of your conscious self in any way; rather, not seeing it makes it more susceptible to unconscious influences. By the way, Seth in The Nature of Personal Reality agrees that some of our beliefs were adopted in childhood from our educators. What matters is that these are not closed off from the conscious self; they can be made conscious and discarded where appropriate. Again, I think it can indeed serve to empower you. While I agree that we are potentially susceptible to suggestions, these are either accepted or rejected based on our belief system - which in turn is open to our introspection by the conscious mind. Self-hypnosis can be of great value and is suggested by Seth in The Nature of Personal Reality. As far as therapy is concerned, I agree that you don't need to undergo a lengthy psychoanalysis or something like that in order to effect change in your psyche. A practice of introspective exploration is highly recommendable though. Yes, the brain is some kind of receiver. Like other organs, it connects to and is "informed" by subtle parts of our greater anatomy such as the mental body. You can indeed. That's what Seth is emphasizing - and not the negation of parts of the parts of the psyche unknown to the waking self. You need to become aware of those thoughts exactly because initially you are not - thus they are unconscious. That's a very good observation. And a typical Sagittarian one, may I say. Right, our external experience and our interpretation thereof always seems to "confirm" our beliefs. With a "poverty mind set", you will always feel poor, even if you were Uncle Scrooge. I am fully with you here. In conclusion, I would like to say that I appreciate the emphasis on the power of the conscious self in the intelligent LoA literature but that it can lead to downplaying the unconscious or subconscious mind which is dangerous (as it doesn't appreciate being downplayed). Best wishes, Michael