Throwing Out The Subconscious or Unconscious Mind

[DreamBliss]

I went ahead and read the disclaimer , seems they leave it to the audience to decide whether the info presented is valid,, which I don't consider it to be.

 

Well just thinking out loud here... But if the physical brain is mostly or all gone, yet there are still brain-like parts in the heart and stomach, maybe that is enough to constitute the physical interface for the mind, allowing someone to exist physically without a brain?

[Stosh]

Well just thinking out loud here... But if the physical brain is mostly or all gone, yet there are still brain-like parts in the heart and stomach, maybe that is enough to constitute the physical interface for the mind, allowing someone to exist physically without a brain?

Sure it sounds reasonable , maybe its possible, but, I dont think the neurons in the gut are configured like the brain itself, and some of the structure of the brain is task specific.

Proven by damage having predictable effects based on what parts are affected. Yes tasks can be reassigned ,but I think theres a limit to that which falls short of enteric neurons replacing frontal lobes.

[Nungali]

It , being the mind.  

 

 

Ah ... so you meant observing the mind from the inside as opposed to the outside ....  indeed, there is a vast difference between the subjective and objective view ... of the brain and  the mind  . 

 

If I read that someone thinks I want to kill my father and have sex with my mother , I dont see that as true ,

 

That's Freud. 

 

 

neither do a believe the sweeping statements  folks make about archetypes having something to do with me.

 

That's Jung.    But actually I can demonstrate that archetypes do have something to do with you.  Maybe you have been fed wrong information about them ? 

 

Here is an archetypal  symbol;

 

 

You, me, a Kalahari bushman and an ancient Sumerian would know what it represents.

 

I do have first hand knowledge of my personal experience, and I don't need to prove it to anyone else,

The psych community has come up with ideas they havent proven,and cant prove, with that level of certainty.

Though I know more than a few folks with problems , I don't know of any the psych community has  cured. 

 

Then you have limited experience.   Find out how many people you know that seem normal ... but are on some type of psyche meds.   

 

So while I do like and respect Michael , Ive got a beef with most shrinks. 

 

Sounds like it ! 

[Nungali]

There are indeed cases known of people with virtually no brain, yet 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."

 

 

Now now ...  you are fudging a bit there.  Those people did not have no brain at all.

[Marblehead]

Now now ...  you are fudging a bit there. 

I do that sometimes too.

[Nungali]

I am not aware of calling any specific person a fool, much less doing so happily. If I have done so, I am deeply and truly sorry. In fact, if I have ever singled out and attacked anyone at these forums, I apologize.

 

When I came back here yesterday to read this thread, and saw what Nungali had posted, I wrote something I nearly posted, but, when I was done, I put it into a new bleedings document. That is where I get angry, cry, rant and rave.

 

I am not sure what I want to say about this, or if I even know why I didn't post it. I guess maybe it didn't seem mature? It would only strengthen this image that was projected onto me of being a child? But that's not quite it, or totally it, either.

 

The truth remains, I can not be hurt or offended unless I choose to be. Someone could come over and kick the living tar out of me, and that would obviously hurt my physical body, but it its up to me to perceive the beating as bad or good, negative or positive, desirable or undesirable.

 

So it is up to me to decide if I will take offense here or not, if I will allow myself to play the role of victim, of one attacked or offended. As it is up to me to decide if I will complain about my life experience or do something about it. I can empower myself or not, the choice is always mine.

 

I was not aware that I had been complaining in here, whining about my circumstances, or doing anything remotely like that. I thought I had been clear as to how I felt about what I perceived to be my circumstances. But I didn't think I was bitching and moaning about things.

 

I did get on my high horse though with the whole lemming rock analogy. I did display an attitude of superiority there or something. I don't know I intended it like that. I think I intended it more like I am taking a stand. More like this is what I choose to do, you guys can do whatever the hell you want. But I guess even that is a sort of, "I'm better than you are! Nyah! Nyah!" attitude. I will work on that.

 

Micheal, thank you for standing up for me. I am happy to know that I have someone out there, in the world, who cares enough to do something like that. I really and truly appreciate it!

 

But I would prefer that nobody join in on this "Chain-of-Pain." I would prefer that everyone be free of all chains, from beliefs, religion, self and society. When we come in valiantly to someone's rescue, we enforce the idea that someone needs rescuing, and reinforce the victim role.

 

There is nothing at all anyone can say here that can have even the remotest effect on me unless I allow it to. Nothing. Not one word, one sentence, one paragraph. I always have the choice, and I claim that choice, to decide how I feel about what others are "saying" here, how I will respond, if at all, whether or not it hurts or offends me, etc.

 

In short I am in control. I don't have to be in control and don't seek to be in control. This is just the natural state that is mine by default, and it is the same for everyone. I am in control, I decide who will have power over me, I assign it, and everyone else can do the same. The sooner the collective human race realizes this, the quicker we will be rid of conflict!

 

Okay, thats better.  Now read your post again, look at the bits where you reacted with ; ' bleeding, angry, cry, rant, rave,  ' or if I even know why' ,  ' But I guess even that is a sort of' , "I'm better than you are! Nyah! Nyah!" attitude. I will work on that.' , "Chain-of-Pain.",  etc.

 

Now your wonderful last two paragraphs!  That is you ... the 'new'  DreamBliss asserting his will as to how that part of him wants to be, and asserts it over the other parts of yourself, that you allowed to react, but then, hauled in.

 

First reaction ... but pause ... and then  response.

 

 

But my point is (and hopefully you will see it now)   from where did it come, where did it  lodge ,   and what caused the initial reaction that your 'higher self' chose not to run with ?  

 

Why are you so effected when others are not (  some here even posted that ... some of us find it amusing and have a laugh ... dont we Knucklehead ... I mean, Marblehead )

 

(if you listen closely , you can hear him chuckling)

 

 

I am happy to see that you are actually dealing with the very programming (that you denied you had)  and issues that are in both your conscious and unconscious mindbrain. 

 

Thats the thing; many magical acts start with an affirmation, but the affirmation alone isnt going to do it. Its more likely to drag up the blocks into open view, up from the  waters of the deep  ( I am trying not to use the term unconscious  )  until they are flippin and flappin around in bottom of the boat. Then you have to deal with it; tasty morsel or  snapping rampaging barracuda .

What I am getting at is a 'higher' part of yourself, that you choose to be, triumphed over a 'lower part' that 'arose' you didnt want to be.

 

I am pointing out that sooner or later those lower parts will arise and I am saying its good to look at how and where they got lodged in us, denying the faculty and their existence doesnt matter, they will influence, arise, triumph or be controlled and transmuted,   because they exist.   If one is going to say they are all in the conscious mindbrain, and the will to rise above them is also in the same place  .... one will have a very muddled 'same place'.

 

Its a dynamic that was outlined by others earlier in this thread that some said the pop LoA does not address .... and hence is a danger.

 

So I am still asserting, yes, you do have an unconscious faculty that can effect you, yes you have been programmed to an extent, and yes, some of those things can be 'stimulated' so you might react in ways you dont really consciously want to. 

 

 

(Ps. For those that came in late, DB declared earlier that he can attract what comes to him by LoA 'principles' and some comments about people generally attracting the situation they are in by their belief systems ..... then I appeared    )

[Stosh]

Nungali,

Im not considering a neverending regime of meds as an actual cure indicating that freud knew about anyones mind structure.. I can pacify a cat with thorazine but that doesnt mean I know anything about her mind.

The medical community holds the keys to the pharm cabinet, but ...

Nah , I dont want to go on this rant.

 

The moon thing, archetype? Is a horse an archetype? Doesnt that make anything recognizable an archetype? What if I was blind? , one might as well use the term ,recognizable thingie.

[Nungali]

I do that sometimes too.

 

WE all do .... the thing is - not to get caught for it  

[Nungali]

Nungali, Im not considering a neverending regime of meds as an actual cure indicating that freud knew about anyones mind structure..

 

Nah ... I'm not either. I am not a fan of Freud at all actually.    

 

I can pacify a cat with thorazine but that doesnt mean I know anything about her mind. The medical community holds the keys to the pharm cabinet,

 

What if an unnatural modern lifestyle has caused the brain to not make the correct balance of chemicals ( lithium, serotonin, etc ) ... I ' m not talking about sedating people ...

 

but ... Nah , I dont want to go on this rant.

 

Oh ....  well, forget the above then. 

 

 

The moon thing, archetype? Is a horse an archetype?

 

Sure, for some groups of people and for a looooong time, a strong one for Mongolians,   not one at all for the pre 1700 Australians.  I chose the crescent as it is an overall one  (except for Morlocks)  

 

 

Doesnt that make anything recognizable an archetype?

 

If we share recognition enough that it is lodged in our unconscious it can become an archetypal symbol. Then it rises in complexity to 'image' ..  and all the way up to theme and even experience (that's what myth is about, the readjustment, reversal, juxtaposition, etc of archetypal themes into specific mythic patterns. people act them out, sometimes with great (unconscious) detail  (even if they deny it  ... there is that different view from the inside / outside again ) . 

 

 

What if I was blind? , one might as well use the term ,recognizable thingie.

 

Interesting!  What if you were blind !  I dont know, we would have to ask a blind person. Maybe they have an archetypal pattern of sound or touch ?  WE do tend to foucus on visual image but the language of the unconscious is 'symbol' not specifically 'image'.  Symbols can be in sound, cannot music evoke similar moods in us ?  (Although I have never heard of any theory of archetypal music ).

[Nungali]

A from the Waters of the Deep  recognizable thingy  ....          

Edited March 20, 2015 by Nungali

[Stosh]

 

Lodged in our subconscious..everything is lodged there. All the data,all the habits and paradigms everything I can think of except our present experience which is filtered through ,and tht which is currently on the docket.What might get called archetype, just depends on what one has been exposed to. I have no archetypal kangaroo, no rainbow lizard... but lets use the moon one, What special significance has the moon got when lodged in my brain? Would that not depend on the stories I heard about the moon or my aesthetic sense ? Is not archetype suggesting the universality of some experiences? The argument I am making is that these things really arent universal except by chance, so there isnt anything special about archetypes, to give the word significant distinction. It is therefore an artificial distinction . But it does make for fun cross social comparison.:-)

Lodged in our subconscious..everything is lodged there. All the data,all the habits and paradigms everything I can think of except our present experience which is filtered through ,and tht which is currently on the docket.What might get called archetype, just depends on what one has been exposed to. I have no archetypal kangaroo, no rainbow lizard... but lets use the moon one, What special significance has the moon got when lodged in my brain? Would that not depend on the stories I heard about the moon or my aesthetic sense ? Is not archetype suggesting the universalality of some experiences? The argument I am making is that these things really arent universal except by chance, so there isnt anything special about archetypes, to give the word significant distinction. It is therefore an artificial distinction . But it does make for fun cross social comparison.:-) Edited March 20, 2015 by Stosh

[DreamBliss]

Okay, thats better.  Now read your post again, look at the bits where you reacted with ; ' bleeding, angry, cry, rant, rave,  ' or if I even know why' ,  ' But I guess even that is a sort of' , "I'm better than you are! Nyah! Nyah!" attitude. I will work on that.' , "Chain-of-Pain.",  etc.

 

Now your wonderful last two paragraphs!  That is you ... the 'new'  DreamBliss asserting his will as to how that part of him wants to be, and asserts it over the other parts of yourself, that you allowed to react, but then, hauled in.

 

First reaction ... but pause ... and then  response.

 

 

But my point is (and hopefully you will see it now)   from where did it come, where did it  lodge ,   and what caused the initial reaction that your 'higher self' chose not to run with ?  

 

Why are you so effected when others are not (  some here even posted that ... some of us find it amusing and have a laugh ... dont we Knucklehead ... I mean, Marblehead )

 

(if you listen closely , you can hear him chuckling)

 

 

I am happy to see that you are actually dealing with the very programming (that you denied you had)  and issues that are in both your conscious and unconscious mindbrain. 

 

Thats the thing; many magical acts start with an affirmation, but the affirmation alone isnt going to do it. Its more likely to drag up the blocks into open view, up from the  waters of the deep  ( I am trying not to use the term unconscious  )  until they are flippin and flappin around in bottom of the boat. Then you have to deal with it; tasty morsel or  snapping rampaging barracuda .

What I am getting at is a 'higher' part of yourself, that you choose to be, triumphed over a 'lower part' that 'arose' you didnt want to be.

 

I am pointing out that sooner or later those lower parts will arise and I am saying its good to look at how and where they got lodged in us, denying the faculty and their existence doesnt matter, they will influence, arise, triumph or be controlled and transmuted,   because they exist.   If one is going to say they are all in the conscious mindbrain, and the will to rise above them is also in the same place  .... one will have a very muddled 'same place'.

 

Its a dynamic that was outlined by others earlier in this thread that some said the pop LoA does not address .... and hence is a danger.

 

So I am still asserting, yes, you do have an unconscious faculty that can effect you, yes you have been programmed to an extent, and yes, some of those things can be 'stimulated' so you might react in ways you dont really consciously want to. 

 

 

(Ps. For those that came in late, DB declared earlier that he can attract what comes to him by LoA 'principles' and some comments about people generally attracting the situation they are in by their belief systems ..... then I appeared    )

 

Just want to address one thing here... I said I was throwing out the idea of the subconscious mind and I meant it. As far as I am concerned, it does not exist.

 

I prefer to think of these "lower parts" and "not consciously wanted" things you are talking about as those things I am not aware of within my conscious mind. They are not in my awareness. They are in my consciousness.

 

The practice for me is to bring my awareness into all aspects of my consciousness, but consciousness, at least for me, is something like a large space. It is all one level.

 

Furthermore I don't act on programming. I act on adopted beliefs, which are merely thoughts that I thought over and over again.

 

If there is a belief in me that I must defend myself when I am attacked, then when I perceive myself as being attacked, I may, without awareness, defend myself. It is only because, in this example, I was not acting with awareness. When I put my awareness on it the belief starts to dissolve and I can change it.

 

There is no errant code somewhere in my noggin like I am some sort of AI that I have to become a world class programmer to access and change, if I want to. I am a human being, not a computer.

 

Of course if we stat talking about instincts, maybe my currently held beliefs fall apart. I will have to think on that.

 

BTW I eat my inner blocks whether they are a, “...tasty morsel...” or “...snapping rampaging barracuda...” for breakfast

Edited March 20, 2015 by DreamBliss

[DreamBliss]

When we start talking about archetypes, we are talking about the collective consciousness. That larger pool that contains all human knowledge. Probably how the race collectively access the mind of Source.
 

That's where this stuff comes from, it is not pre-programmed into you. You may have a particular archetype or symbol you adopt from childhood, but there is no programming of any universal types. That is just there in humanity's collective consciousness.

 

So if you go out into the woods, and you are not armed or a hunter, and see a big, drooling, hungry, slobbering wolf you will likely find yourself very afraid. You will also likely need a change of underwear when it starts growling at you.

 

But your fear response is not entirely your own. Part of that comes from that pool of collective human consiosuness, hearkening back to when wolves made a meal out of us.

Edited March 20, 2015 by DreamBliss

[freeform]

In Daoist practice, the brain is never thought of as a the organ of consciousness... It's thought of more as a filter... or like a step-down motor. The idea being that reality is at its fundamental level consciousness, and that physicality grows from that - the brain is stepping down and filtering the unfathomable scale of reality down to a manageable process - manageable for physical beings. Marblehead will have a field day with this!

 

DB - what you were saying about choosing your responses to stimulus. This is at the base of your 'there's no subconscious' idea. But I put it to you that in actual fact you react to stimulus almost immediately, with no conscious awareness - and only after the fact do you start to think about it, and decide whether you like your reaction or not, whether you brush it under the carpet and pretend it didn't happen or you paint over it and make it look like a different reaction.

 

What I'm basing this on is not simply a belief, but actual observation - I observe myself and others doing this constantly. If your attention is trained at noticing subtle signals in others and in yourself you can see all kinds of things happening outside of their awareness, or even your own standard awareness.

 

One person gets called a fool and the immediate response is a smile - he interprets it as light teasing. Another person gets called a fool and the immediate response is hurt - with all the associated changes in the face and eyes that goes along with that... then maybe after a few milliseconds he laughs about it - as the conscious mind has had time to paint over it in some way or other (though unfortunately the real hurt is still there, and because it's been denied, it takes deeper root - in physiology and mentally)

 

Now where do these automatic reactions come from?? What is it that has us react in a certain way before we even know it? That's what I call the subconscious (not some out of date Freudian bs).

 

I know this seems disempowering - but whitewashing it and pretending it doesn't happen is even less empowering. What I suggest is simply noticing what happens with keen interest and curiosity. Not trying to 're program your subconscious' or whatever other forms of self abuse that many new agers suggest, but simply becoming aware of processes and completely allowing them to happen has the effect of unwinding them.

 

It's like play. By play I mean when you screw a nut to a bolt really tight, it has no play - there's no wiggle room. If you unscrew it just a quarter of a turn, suddenly you have some play - a little space for movement and change. Becoming more aware of what is happening gives these stimulus-response patters some much needed play. And after a while - with constant attention, you really would start to unwind the whole stimulus response loop so that real creativity will begin to seep in.

Edited March 20, 2015 by freeform

[Marblehead]

... we are talking about the collective consciousness.

Be careful with that concept.  It can lead you down paths you really don't want to go.

[DreamBliss]

About belief and denial...

 

I want to set the record straight here. I do not believe in Santa Claus. But I do believe the world would be a much better place with a jolly fat guy in a red suit giving gifts to children on Christmas. I want Santa Claus to be real. Just as I want Harry Potter magic to be real. But so far, in my experience, neither the magic of Father Christmas or Harry Potter is real.

 

This non-belief is not denial. Denial implies a closing. A person in denial will continue to believe what they want despite the proof. A person in denial of the the existence of Santa Claus would just see a trespasser in a red suit that had come down the chimney and started to place presents under the tree. Even if they watched Santa take off in his sled they would choose to believe they must be dreaming. They are closed off to believing in Santa Claus.

 

When I say I do not believe in the subconscious mind there is no closing implied. I disbelieve in Santa Claus and the subconscious mind for the same reasons. They are both myths as far as I am concerned. Because I see no proof of Santa Claus' existence, and I see no proof of this aspect of my mind that is somehow below consciousness. I choose (that is the key here, it is my choice) to not believe in these things.

 

But if Santa Claus were to come down my chimney and put presents under my tree I would drop my disbelief in him. I would, in fact, be happy to see that this kind of magic is real in the physical world I currently inhabit. Likewise if I experience for myself the reality of some aspect of the mind outside of my conscious mind I will drop my disbelief in it and instead believe in it.

 

Another analogy is the email subscription list. I can subscribe to certain newsletters, and I can cancel my subscription. It is my choice to subscribe, not subscribe, or cancel a subscription. As far as any aspect of the mind below, beyond or outside the conscious mind, I have unsubscribed. I used to be subscribed to this belief, I am no longer subscribed. Nothing you can say will sell me a subscription!

 

Santa Claus and the subconscious mind are free to exist if they in fact do. I am not saying they can not exist. I am not denying their existence (or rather the possibility of their existence) as the existence of both things can not be proved. I simply do not believe in their existence. There is a difference, and that is if I am closed or open in my mind, and my mind is open.

 

I am not living in denial, I am choosing what I believe. As I am choosing my responses to my life circumstances. As, eventually, I will even choose the thoughts I think.

Edited March 20, 2015 by DreamBliss

[Michael Sternbach]

When I came back here yesterday to read this thread, and saw what Nungali had posted, I wrote something I nearly posted, but, when I was done, I put it into a new bleedings document. That is where I get angry, cry, rant and rave.

 

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 am not sure what I want to say about this, or if I even know why I didn't post it. I guess maybe it didn't seem mature? It would only strengthen this image that was projected onto me of being a child? But that's not quite it, or totally it, either.

 

The truth remains, I can not be hurt or offended unless I choose to be. Someone could come over and kick the living tar out of me, and that would obviously hurt my physical body, but it its up to me to perceive the beating as bad or good, negative or positive, desirable or undesirable.

 

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.

 

So it is up to me to decide if I will take offense here or not, if I will allow myself to play the role of victim, of one attacked or offended. As it is up to me to decide if I will complain about my life experience or do something about it. I can empower myself or not, the choice is always mine.

 

I was not aware that I had been complaining in here, whining about my circumstances, or doing anything remotely like that. I thought I had been clear as to how I felt about what I perceived to be my circumstances. But I didn't think I was bitching and moaning about things.

 

I did get on my high horse though with the whole lemming rock analogy. I did display an attitude of superiority there or something. I don't know I intended it like that. I think I intended it more like I am taking a stand. More like this is what I choose to do, you guys can do whatever the hell you want. But I guess even that is a sort of, "I'm better than you are! Nyah! Nyah!" attitude. I will work on that.

 

Micheal, thank you for standing up for me. I am happy to know that I have someone out there, in the world, who cares enough to do something like that. I really and truly appreciate it!

 

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:

 

But I would prefer that nobody join in on this "Chain-of-Pain." I would prefer that everyone be free of all chains, from beliefs, religion, self and society. When we come in valiantly to someone's rescue, we enforce the idea that someone needs rescuing, and reinforce the victim role.

 

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).

 

There is nothing at all anyone can say here that can have even the remotest effect on me unless I allow it to. Nothing. Not one word, one sentence, one paragraph. I always have the choice, and I claim that choice, to decide how I feel about what others are "saying" here, how I will respond, if at all, whether or not it hurts or offends me, etc.

 

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...

 

In short I am in control. I don't have to be in control and don't seek to be in control. This is just the natural state that is mine by default, and it is the same for everyone. I am in control, I decide who will have power over me, I assign it, and everyone else can do the same. The sooner the collective human race realizes this, the quicker we will be rid of conflict!

 

True as far as it goes! Still, I maintain that some conflicts need to be resolved on an external level, one way or another.

[Stosh]

When we start talking about archetypes, we are talking about the collective consciousness. That larger pool that contains all human knowledge. Probably how the race collectively access the mind of Source.

 

That's where this stuff comes from, it is not pre-programmed into you. You may have a particular archetype or symbol you adopt from childhood, but there is no programming of any universal types. That is just there in humanity's collective consciousness.

 

So if you go out into the woods, and you are not armed or a hunter, and see a big, drooling, hungry, slobbering wolf you will likely find yourself very afraid. You will also likely need a change of underwear when it starts growling at you.

 

But your fear response is not entirely your own. Part of that comes from that pool of collective human consiosuness, hearkening back to when wolves made a meal out of us.

When I was little , my mom took us to the beach, I still love it there, but anyway, Coney Island had rock breakwaters which jut out into the sea. My mom didnt want us to slip on those rocks , which would really scrape a kid up pretty nasty with the slime and barnacles etc. Well , I ended up with a healthy dose of inherited paranoia about wet rocks like that. 

That scenario is a much more narrow example of the same principle of the wolf scenario, and being so narrow it undermines my endorsement of archetypes having real distinction vs the normal experiences of social living.

[Michael Sternbach]

When we start talking about archetypes, we are talking about the collective consciousness. That larger pool that contains all human knowledge. Probably how the race collectively access the mind of Source.

 

That's where this stuff comes from, it is not pre-programmed into you. You may have a particular archetype or symbol you adopt from childhood, but there is no programming of any universal types. That is just there in humanity's collective consciousness.

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

Edited March 20, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Nungali]

Just want to address one thing here... I said I was throwing out the idea of the subconscious mind and I meant it. As far as I am concerned, it does not exist.

 

Now you are trying to go back to square one, sorry, it doesnt work like that, You do have an unconcoscious and no amount of denial or assertions by you is going to change that.

 

See below ... yuo even worked it for yourself ...

 

 

 

 

I prefer to think of these "lower parts" and "not consciously wanted" things you are talking about as those things I am not aware of within my conscious mind. They are not in my awareness. They are in my consciousness.

 

Thats right. the unconscious IS those things you are not aware of in ' within' (if you like) your conscious mind. When you become aware of parts of it, it becomes part of your conscious mind. Yes, they are  things you are not aware of ... thats what makes them 'unconscious' ..... they might be in that part of 'consciousness' that we call the unconscious, but we are not aware of them.

 

Think of spheres inside each other, the inner sphere is the 'unconscious', then there is a sphere of 'of what you are aware of' on the outside that includes 'the conscious'. The unconscious still forms part of 'consciousness' as such, but it is mostly those faculties that we are not aware of.

 

 

 

The practice for me is to bring my awareness into all aspects of my consciousness, but consciousness, at least for me, is something like a large space. It is all one level.

 

Well, at least you admit there are aspects of your consciousness you are not aware of ... I will settle for that.

 

 

 

Furthermore I don't act on programming. I act on adopted beliefs, which are merely thoughts that I thought over and over again.

 

Ahem ! ...... adopted beliefs are programming. What ? ... all your thoughts were generated inside your own brain with no input from any where ?

 

You are building up a rather silly picture there ... I think even you realise that isnt true at all.

 

 

 

If there is a belief in me that I must defend myself when I am attacked,

 

Hang on now. Didnt we address this right at the beginning ? With this type of New Age philosophy ,,, there can be no attack, no one is attacking you , you are attracting what you are manifesting ... remember ?

 

 

 

 

then when I perceive myself as being attacked, I may, without awareness, defend myself. It is only because, in this example, I was not acting with awareness. When I put my awareness on it the belief starts to dissolve and I can change it.

 

 

Yes, that is one way of describing the difference between an unconscious reaction that bubbles up into unregulated action and a conscious response that considers what it wants to achieve.

 

By now you probably realise the deep connection between mentation : response : consciousness and emotion : reaction : unconscious.

 

 

 

 

There is no errant code somewhere in my noggin like I am some sort of AI that I have to become a world class programmer to access and change, if I want to. I am a human being, not a computer.

 

Of course you are human .... but I have to break the bad news to you ;

 

you are not perfect. that means we all have errant somethings somewhere.. But, if you did choose to ... just as model to understand things .... you might find that computer programme model quiet helpful. In Exo-psychology the 'brain' is seen as 8 mini circuits of part programmed and programmable circuits. The good news is, one of them is the 'master controller for the others. Great work has been achieved with this model .

 

 

 

 

Of course if we stat talking about instincts, maybe my currently held beliefs fall apart. I will have to think on that.

 

Ah ! Now you yourself have started to see some things. We havent even gone near genetics (or the 'Neuro-genetic programme'.

 

I won't go there though, your wheels are already turning ... but I just might ask .... if you are not running on any programme .... where did your eye and hair colour come from ?

 

 

 

 

 

BTW I eat my inner blocks whether they are a, “...tasty morsel...” or “...snapping rampaging barracuda...” for breakfast

 

 

 

 

snapping rampaging barracuda

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

When we start talking about archetypes, we are talking about the collective consciousness. That larger pool that contains all human knowledge. Probably how the race collectively access the mind of Source.

 

There are archetypes like that, but I think people were referring to ones in the collective UNconscious.

 

You won't really get this concept, and how those archetypes can take on a life of their own (and be accessable without the programming experience) unless you also get the 'world soul' , anama mundi, the 'collective unconscious of nature' ... of which human collective unconscious is a part of and connected to.

 

 

 

That's where this stuff comes from, it is not pre-programmed into you. You may have a particular archetype or symbol you adopt from childhood, but there is no programming of any universal types. That is just there in humanity's collective consciousness.

 

It is just ' there' ?  Sorry, most of it is programmed.  I used to think that years ago until I did a study of Professor Z. Zing's book; 'Feral Children and Cases of Extreme Isolation'  .  I started that study as I worked in a hospital and one of these 'children' was bought in. They dont have to be lost in the wild and bought up by animals. Your parents brining you up in the back yard chicken run will do it (the case I had to deal with ) ... less responsive and human like than a dog.

 

Feral children (when abandoned at an early age - before the human programming)  are not like humans socially and mentally at all ... that has to be programmed.

 

 

 

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/6/60/Feral-child.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090412173033

 

So if you go out into the woods, and you are not armed or a hunter, and see a big, drooling, hungry, slobbering wolf you will likely find yourself very afraid. You will also likely need a change of underwear when it starts growling at you.

 

But your fear response is not entirely your own. Part of that comes from that pool of collective human consiosuness, hearkening back to when wolves made a meal out of us.

 

 

I fail to see how this refutes programming.     That first photo up there ... that girl was 'brought up'  (they stopped her from dying , that is )  by wolves. 

[Nungali]

About belief and denial...

 

I want to set the record straight here. I do not believe in Santa Claus. But I do believe the world would be a much better place with a jolly fat guy in a red suit giving gifts to children on Christmas. I want Santa Claus to be real. Just as I want Harry Potter magic to be real. But so far, in my experience, neither the magic of Father Christmas or Harry Potter is real.

 

This non-belief is not denial. Denial implies a closing. A person in denial will continue to believe what they want despite the proof.

 

OR  continue to not believe despite the proof ... now you are trying to massage the definition of denial to suit yourself 

 

 

 

A person in denial of the the existence of Santa Claus would just see a trespasser in a red suit that had come down the chimney and started to place presents under the tree.

 

Or would see the unconscious as parts of consciousness that we are unconscious or unaware of   

 

Even if they watched Santa take off in his sled they would choose to believe they must be dreaming. They are closed off to believing in Santa Claus.

 

When I say I do not believe in the subconscious mind there is no closing implied. I disbelieve in Santa Claus and the subconscious mind for the same reasons. They are both myths as far as I am concerned. Because I see no proof of Santa Claus' existence, and I see no proof of this aspect of my mind that is somehow below consciousness. I choose (that is the key here, it is my choice) to not believe in these things.

 

Even  though you admitted to them (in a roundabout way) in your above posts !    

 

But if Santa Claus were to come down my chimney and put presents under my tree I would drop my disbelief in him. I would, in fact, be happy to see that this kind of magic is real in the physical world I currently inhabit. Likewise if I experience for myself the reality of some aspect of the mind outside of my conscious mind I will drop my disbelief in it and instead believe in it.

 

Another analogy is the email subscription list. I can subscribe to certain newsletters, and I can cancel my subscription. It is my choice to subscribe, not subscribe, or cancel a subscription. As far as any aspect of the mind below, beyond or outside the conscious mind, I have unsubscribed. I used to be subscribed to this belief, I am no longer subscribed. Nothing you can say will sell me a subscription!

 

 

Well,  thats fine if you just declare that your psychic anatomy is just like an email list.

 

But it isnt. 

 

 

Its like when I write  if I dont like a what I write I will hit edit and change it, so if I dont like what Stosh wrote, I will hit edit and change it.  .... it doesnt actually work does it.

 

You actually seem like you have been programmed by this LoA BS   to think you can effect change by declaration of your conscious mind.   Its already got in and spread and has programmed you.    You cant select and delete reality like an email subscription address !   ....    For Gods sake! 

 

 

Santa Claus and the subconscious mind are free to exist if they in fact do. I am not saying they can not exist. I am not denying their existence (or rather the possibility of their existence) as the existence of both things can not be proved. I simply do not believe in their existence. There is a difference, and that is if I am closed or open in my mind, and my mind is open.

 

Yes, we have already been there ... right at the beginning ... you believe something does not exist ;  " I simply do not believe in their existence. "   You are saying you believe it exists, but not in you as you refuse to accept it. 

 

It might upset you, but, seriously, this is a very childlike way to deal with things that make us uncomfortable.

I am not living in denial, I am choosing what I believe. As I am choosing my responses to my life circumstances. As, eventually, I will even choose the thoughts I think.

 

Affirmations only.        read post 165 again   (it's very good ! ) 

Edited March 20, 2015 by Nungali

[Michael Sternbach]

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:

 

Thats right.  the unconscious IS those things you are not aware of in ' within'  (if you like)  your conscious mind. When you become aware of parts of it, it becomes part of your conscious mind.   Yes, they are not things you are aware of ... thats what makes them 'unconscious'  ..... they might be in that part of 'consciousness' that we call the unconscious, but we are not aware of them.

 

Think of spheres inside each other, the inner sphere is the 'unconscious', then there is a sphere of   'of what you are aware of' on the outside that includes what you are aware of, The unconscious still forms part of 'consciousness' as such, but it is mostly those daculties that we are not aware of.

 

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...

 

Ahem !  ......      adopted beliefs are programming. What ? ... all your thoughts were generated inside your own brain with no input from any where ?

 

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?

 

With this type of New Age philosophy ,,, there can be no attack, no one is attacking you , you are attracting what you are manifesting ... remember ?   

 

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...

 

Yes, that is one way of describing the difference between an unconscious reaction that bubbles up into unregulated action  and a conscious response that considers what it wants to achieve. 

 

By now you probably realise the deep connection between  mentation : response : consciousness and  emotion : reaction : unconscious. 

 

Well said.

 

you are not perfect.  that means we all have errant somethings somewhere..   But, if you did choose to ... just as model to understand things .... you might find that computer programme model quiet helpful. In Exo-psychology the 'brain' is seen as 8 mini circuits of part programmed and programmable  circuits.  The good news is, one of them is the 'master controller for the others.  Great work has been achieved with this model . 

 

That sounds interesting. References?

 

Ah !  Now you yourself have started to see some things.    We havent even gone near genetics (or the 'Neuro-genetic programme'.

 

I won't go there though, your wheels are already turning ... but I just might ask .... if you are not running on any programme .... where did your eye and hair colour come from ? 

 

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.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

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!

Edited March 20, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

In yet other (and really beautiful) words: