Sacred space

[tsuki]

@now is forever Sigh, please just get out.
You wanna chat, go to my other journal. This one here is the place where I think.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Classical_element#/India
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Aether_(classical_element)
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Akasha

Quote

According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Ancient Greek: αἰθήρ, aither[1]), also spelled æther or ether and also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.[2]

Quote

Akasha (Sanskrit ākāśa आकाश) is a term for ether space or æther in traditional Indian cosmology, depending on the religion. The term has also been adopted in Western occultism and spiritualism in the late 19th century. In Hindi, Nepali, Bengali, Marathi, Kannada, Telugu, Tamil it means "sky". In many modern Indo-Aryan languages and Dravidian languages the corresponding word (often rendered Akash) retains a generic meaning of "sky".[1]

Quote

Indian cosmology

The word in Sanskrit is derived from a root kāś meaning "to be visible". It appears as a masculine noun in Vedic Sanskrit with a generic meaning of "open space, vacuity". In Classical Sanskrit, the noun acquires the neuter gender and may express the concept of "sky; atmosphere" (Manusmrti, Shatapathabrahmana). In Vedantic philosophy, the word acquires its technical meaning of "an ethereal fluid imagined as pervading the cosmos".

Hinduism

In Vedantic Hinduism, Akasha means the basis and essence of all things in the material world; the first element created. A Vedic mantra “pṛthivyāpastejovāyurākāśāt” indicates the sequence of initial appearance of the five basic gross elements. Thus, first appeared the space, from which appeared air, from that fire or energy, from which the water, and therefrom the earth. It is one of the Panchamahabhuta, or "five gross elements"; its main characteristic is Shabda (sound). The direct translation of Akasha is the word meaning "upper sky" or 'space' in Hinduism.

The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools of Hindu philosophy state that Akasha or aether is the fifth physical substance, which is the substratum of the quality of sound. It is the One, Eternal, and All Pervading physical substance, which is imperceptible.[2]

According to the Samkhya school, Akasha is one of the five Mahābhūtas (grand physical elements) having the specific property of sound.[3]

In the Shiva Purana, it identifies Akasha having "the only attribute of sound."[4]

Adherents of the heterodox Cārvāka or Lokāyata philosophy held that this world is made of four elements only. They exclude the fifth, Akasha, because its existence cannot be perceived.[5]

______________________________________

On another note, I'm still interested in Hades and Persephone and I'm not seeing them clearly.
The Underworld is their home, which is an instance of Otherworld:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Greek_underworld
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Otherworld
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Chthonic

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hades
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Persephone

Edited May 8, 2019 by tsuki

[tsuki]

On 7.05.2019 at 11:06 AM, tsuki said:

I just came up with a way to describe Alchemy in terms of itself.

There are four factors in the process:

1. Earth: The Stone
2. Water: Logic
3. Air: The Creator
4. Fire: Creativity

The Stone is the subject matter of the process.
For a mason, it is a gross stone. For a painter, it is the canvas and paint. For a writer, it is a story. For a programmer it is code.
Its primary characteristic is that it is Dry. It has a firm structure that does not yield easily so it requires effort to conquer.
It is resistant, but loyal and therefore, stable. Secondarily, it is Cold.
It has a tendency to absorb into itself and does not mix easily.

Logic is the relative interconnectedness of things. It is like Water, because it is Cold and Moist. 
Coldness of Water comes from its ability to absorb things. To make something out of stuff that is of different kinds.
With Water, you can make a soup from vegetables. It makes fish, grass, trees and stone into a lake.
Water in itself, however is nothing. It is Moist and it has no substance of its own.
It is relative, it can only form connections, dilute, but there has to be something that needs to be connected.
You can mix various kinds of water together and you still get water.

You can combine Earth and Water through the principle of Salt. The end result is the Primal Mud.
If you take a small rock and throw it into a pond, it goes "splush". You won't be able to find it.
If you take a glass of lemonade and splush it on someone's face, he's still there and Water is gone.
You need the right combination of Logic and Stone to form Soma. The Mud needs to be sticky, but firm.

The last element is Fire, the Creativity. It is Hot and Dry, for it is discerning and obeys its own rules.
The Fire is Hot. It separates the undifferentiated Mud into various kinds.
It is also Dry. It is uncontrollable. It comes on its own and obeys its own rules.
Flame destroys and creates. It does so by taking something and making it different. 
If you give it a piece of paper, it is no longer a piece of paper. It turns it to ash and it will burn it until it's done.
It is difficult to spark a flame, but once it happens, it will spread on its own.
There is no such thing as Fire without something burning. Fire is subtle, but there is Sulfur, inspiration.
The Mud on its own will not burn and if it will, it will turn it to ash. There is also the third element, Air.

The Creator is Air, for s/he is the Mediator. S/he is Moist, and Hot.
Moisture is flexibility. It is the possibility to adapt, to yield effortlessly.
This is how The Creator is similar to Water, but unlike Water, s/he is Hot.
Hotness, on the other hand is how s/he is similar to Fire, but s/he is Hot only secondarily. S/he is also Moist.
Therefore, The Creator is the Messenger that is Moist to Fire and Hot to Water. 
S/he yields to the Creative, and discerns from the Primal Mud.
If the process gets out of hand, the Creator has the possibility to reverse the flow, to yield to Water and cool the Fire.
S/he is the Mercurial principle, the activity of reconciling the irreconcilable.

The creation comes from selective, directionless, destruction. This destruction is not random.
The Creator is the Air, invisible, directionless. It moves, but there is no mover. It reveals by dropping the curtain.

It goes,
Earth > Water > Air > Fire > Earth > Water > Air > Fire > ...
Stone > Logic > Creator > Creativity > Stone > Logic > Creator > Creativity > ...

 Each cycle turns the Stone closer to the Philosopher's stone. Logical Creativity, the Stone that is the Creator.

Bringing this post forward because it is relevant to what I'll be writing next.

[tsuki]

Outline of understanding as a spiritual practice as explained in terms of alchemy.

1. Earth: the stone.
2. Water: personal experience.
3. Air: Ego
4. FIre: Ambiguity.

The goal of alchemy is the Quintessence, quint essence, fifth element.

You take the stone, whatever it is. It may be a piece of art, a painting, a song, a book, a conversation, a person, an object, anything, even silence, space, stars, you, the floor, a window, this text. Anything. The stone is Dry and Cold. It is in itself, by itself and protects its own boundaries. It has its own form and shape, its own rules, requires effort to change and upon effort, it returns to its natural state.

Now, you take Water, your personal experience. This includes your knowledge, your experience, your feelings, your intuition, your perceptions, objections, opinions and facts. Water is Cold and Moist. It gathers and connects, but has no substance of its own. It is pure relativity for the sake of it. It is connection, relation, without the things that are being related. 

Now, you apply the Salt principle. You mix the two in order to create Soma, Primal Mud.
If all you see in the Mud is Water, your personal experience, then it means that you've thrown a rock into a pond. Start over.
If all you see in the Mud is Earth, the stone, then it means that you've thrown a glass of water onto a mountain. Start over.
It is best to start with a middle sized rock and learn to dilute it gradually, to make the stone personal until it is something in between you and it.
Primal Mud needs to be neither Water, nor Earth. It is both Moist (relative) and Dry (concrete, stable, rigid). It is also Cold, contracting, known, mechanical and mundane.

Then, there is Fire, which is ambiguity. Ambiguity is knowing that you don't know. It starts with openness, with the acknowledgement that something may be other than it appears, but it does not end there. Ambiguity is forgetfulness, destruction, obliteration, erasure. It is death, a dream that you forgot you had, the breakfast you had a year ago, a relative that died 50 years before you were born. There is no fire without something that is burning. That is, non-existence does not exist. That sentence and this paragraph is Sulfur, inspiration. It brings it about, but it needs to burn down. A fire cannot be captured because it is a process that turns to ash what it touches. Fire in itself Hot and Dry because it separates and is unyielding.

The last part is Air, the mediator, Ego.
The Ego does not think or feel, because thoughts and feelings belong with Water.
The Ego does not destroy because destruction belongs with Fire.
The Ego does not die because the only thing that exists is Earth and Earth does not think or feel.
The Air is Moist and Hot. It transmits Moisture from Mud to Sulfur and Heat from Fire to Water.
Ego makes the inspiration of ambiguity known and uninspiring or destroys connectivity in the Stone and makes the Mud fall apart.
The pathway is bi-directional and the Ego has no control over it even if it rules the process.

If the Air needs to warm the Mud, but can't - it means that the Ego is mixed with personal experience.
If the Air needs to make Sulfur Moist, but can't - it means that Ego is destructive and suicidal.
Both beliefs are mistaken, as the Ego cannot die and cannot experience.
Ego is in-between Death and Life, Mind and Body. It is the Soul between Spirit and Corpus.
The only thing that Ego does, is conducting. It transports things, but it appears as if it was directing.
When it is directing, it is when it is entangled with either personal experience, or Death.
There is no other place than Death for personal experience to go, and there is nothing else to do for Death than to destroy.
When Ego directs, it conducts, when it conducts, it directs.

The four-element rotation process never ends and never starts.
The Quint essence, the Spirit, is the self-similarity, how every Element can be seen in everything.
It is how the Air resembles the whole of the process. It is how the Lower Self resembles the Higher Self and that the two are identical.

The Quint essence is the Void, the immeasurable, because there are no words to describe it.

[tsuki]

 

[Zigzag Idiot]

Archetype of the Magician video reminded me of a little section in ACIM. The section is called Grandeur versus Grandiosity and contains 11 paragraphs. I've pasted paragraphs 1,2 and 8 below with link to full text underneath. If you can look beyond the Patriarchal language,,,,, 

T-9.VIII.1. Grandeur is of God, and only of Him. 2 Therefore it is in you. 3 Whenever you become aware of it, however dimly, you abandon the ego automatically, because in the presence of the grandeur of God the meaninglessness of the ego becomes perfectly apparent. 4 When this occurs, even though it does not understand it, the ego believes that its "enemy" has struck, and attempts to offer gifts to induce you to return to its "protection." 5 Self-inflation is the only offering it can make. 6 The grandiosity of the ego is its alternative to the grandeur of God. 7 Which will you choose?

T-9.VIII.2. Grandiosity is always a cover for despair. 2 It is without hope because it is not real. 3 It is an attempt to counteract your littleness, based on the belief that the littleness is real. 4 Without this belief grandiosity is meaningless, and you could not possibly want it. 5 The essence of grandiosity is competitiveness, because it always involves attack. 6 It is a delusional attempt to outdo, but not to undo. 7 We said before that the ego vacillates between suspiciousness and viciousness. 8 It remains suspicious as long as you despair of yourself. 9 It shifts to viciousness when you decide not to tolerate self-abasement and seek relief. 10 Then it offers you the illusion of attack as a "solution."

T-9.VIII.8. It is easy to distinguish grandeur from grandiosity, because love is returned and pride is not. 2 Pride will not produce miracles, and will therefore deprive you of the true witnesses to your reality. 3 Truth is not obscure nor hidden, but its obviousness to you lies in the joy you bring to its witnesses, who show it to you. 4 They attest to your grandeur, but they cannot attest to pride because pride is not shared. 5 God wants you to behold what He created because it is His joy.

https://acourseinmiraclesnow.com/course-miracles-chapter-9-viii-grandeur-versus-grandiosity/

 

[tsuki]

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction.

Can a person be hurt, if the person was not protecting something?
Can a person hurt another, if the person did not enter space that is restricted?
From the perspective of the protector, the intruder is the villain because he wants something that is not his to be taken.
From the perspective of the conqueror, the usurper is the villain because he holds something that is not his to keep.
How to solve this problem without the third agent that decides who's right?

Spirituality tells us that we're all evil creatures, devils, that are only out for ourselves.
That, unless we know that we are evil and we try to make space for other people, we're doomed to perpetuate suffering.
Some people on the spiritual path decide to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others and venture to kill their own ego.
This ego, the will to survive, is supposedly the root of all problems.  At a first glance - it is true.
Both the protector and the conqueror are blinded by their own selfishness and cannot see the greater good that comes from cooperation.

This approach, however, creates a problem.
That is because from the point of view of any of those people, they are not doing anything wrong.
In fact, they are both convinced that they are right and they defend their convictions through conflict.
People are never out there to do harm because they enjoy it. They do that because they are convinced that it serves the good cause.
So, in order to transcend the ego, they need to admit to being evil while genuinely thinking that they want to do good.
This is the root of all inner conflict and confusion in spirituality. That you are convicted for being a sinner without any evidence to support it. This gives rise to psychics that supposedly know better what you feel than you, the only person that has access to your first person experience.

Not only this idea serves to spread guilt, it is also gives birth to preaching and moralizing that other people should keep their egos checked. In this sense, spirituality is self-defeating. It tries to solve conflict, but it creates it on a different level. It creates conflict about conflict itself. This meta conflict is either externalized and gives rise to rules that are enforced, or internalized and results in self-flagellation. This internalization is especially dangerous because it instills the basic distrust towards one's own capacity to see things clearly.

To be continued.

@Zigzag Idiot Thank you for the material.

Edited May 10, 2019 by tsuki

[tsuki]

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 2.

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

Can a person be hurt, if the person was not protecting something?
Can a person hurt another, if the person did not enter space that is restricted?
From the perspective of the protector, the intruder is the villain because he wants something that is not his to be taken.
From the perspective of the conqueror, the usurper is the villain because he holds something that is not his to keep.
How to solve this problem without the third agent that decides who's right?

When we inspect personal experience closely, how exactly do emotions manifest during conflict?
Is there only one person that feels strongly? If that was the case, then the other would simply yield without conflict.
Do emotions announce themselves before they appear?
Only if we expect conflict to happen, but what is that expectation other than fear or anger?
Emotions always arrive unannounced, spontaneously and they coexist in both parties simultaneously.
They are an energetic transaction that binds people together in a certain situation.
If that is the case, then what is the meaning of assigning blame for what is happening?
Do emotions know about survival?
Emotions are non-discursive, they do not know what they transmit. They are a call to action without explanation.
They express themselves as irrational possession of our faculties, they don't care about anything.

The big question is: what is the thing that manifests itself through this transaction? Is this transaction personal?
Certainly, each end of this transaction is experienced personally as emotions by the protector, or the conqueror.
Is the transaction itself, however, attributable to either of them? Aren't they both victims of the circumstances that arose?
Emotions of both parties are irrational and experienced within their bodies. The transaction itself however is beyond something personal.
It is something that manifests within Nature, the Animal Kingdom, God's body, material world.
It is the interplay of our primal instincts that we were born with when we were incarnated in these bodies.
When this situation is seen as such, the fighting animals are only worthy of compassion, and not disgust.

Emotions however are not the only factor at play in conflict, so this just a part of the story.
To be continued.

[tsuki]

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 3.

On 10.05.2019 at 3:05 PM, tsuki said:

Can a person be hurt, if the person was not protecting something?
Can a person hurt another, if the person did not enter space that is restricted?
From the perspective of the protector, the intruder is the villain because he wants something that is not his to be taken.
From the perspective of the conqueror, the usurper is the villain because he holds something that is not his to keep.
How to solve this problem without the third agent that decides who's right?

How exactly does the conflict take place though? 
While we certainly can fight physically, we have been given a way to resolve conflict without visible bloodshed: speech.
It may be difficult to accept that the two have something in common, but don't we understand something when we're being petted, or hit with a zen stick?

From the point of view of language, conflict is about establishing shared truth and the agreement to respect it.
We expect others to hear what we're saying and present their truth to us so that we can find the common kernel.
It is the most curious of things that despite our best efforts to do so, we can rarely see things the same way others do.
If it wasn't the case and we could, would there be any grounds for disagreement then?

Why is it that we cannot understand each other, and yet - it is apparent that we communicate?
Can we inspect language more closely? Many have tried to do that, but to no avail.
We can question the meaning of words to no end and it always turns out that even we don't understand what we're saying.
If that is the truth of our inner experience, then why are we so invested in convincing others of the fact that we're right?
If we can't even find the meaning of our own words, then by what magic others react to what we're saying?
Isn't it to be expected that their inner experience of language is the same in its groundlessness?
That the other can speak only as long as he forgets that he has no idea what he says?

Just like it was the case with emotions, communication is an energetic transaction between parties in conflict.
Each end of this transaction is experienced as language, even if its appearance is intangible for participants.
The big question is: what is the thing that manifests through this transaction? Is it personal?
Each end of this transaction is personal, but the whole of it - isn't.
Just like the chatter happens in our minds, the transaction takes place in the mind of God.
Haven't we all experienced that there are no original thoughts within us? That everything we have, has been picked up on the fly and mingled? The substance of God's mind is what I call culture. It is not just human culture - it also underlies animal violence and all of our interactions in the world. Culture is the basis for understanding and we have access to it prior to knowing words. Don't we understand when we're being taught how to speak?

From this point of view - isn't it obvious that both the conqueror and the protector are victims of their own conflict?
There is, however one last bit that has been missed. From one point of view, we are driven by emotions, but from another - by thoughts.
How exactly do we manage to balance the two, if they are opposite forces? After all, our emotional behavior overrides our logical faculties. It possesses us to do things seemingly against what we think we should do. Are we just slaves to our/God's desires, or mechanical beings that simply repeat culture?

The idea of free will has been advocated to solve this mystery, but how exactly do we make choices?
Is free will a thought? Is it an emotion? Can it be observed? The only answer is: no, but we can't really deny its existence.
Have we arrived at the mysterious Ego that plays the tricks upon mere mortals?
The Devil has traditionally been seated in the dark places and that is for a reason.

To be continued.

Edited May 11, 2019 by tsuki

[tsuki]

On Ego and the nature of conflict from the perspective of transaction, part 4.

On 11.05.2019 at 3:28 PM, tsuki said:

Can a person be hurt, if the person was not protecting something?
Can a person hurt another, if the person did not enter space that is restricted?
From the perspective of the protector, the intruder is the villain because he wants something that is not his to be taken.
From the perspective of the conqueror, the usurper is the villain because he holds something that is not his to keep.
How to solve this problem without the third agent that decides who's right?

But why does conflict arise in the first place? Isn't it simply because we want things and are unwilling to give them up?
Surely, if any of the people involved gave up what they wanted - there would be no need to fight.
But how exactly does one decide when is it appropriate to withdraw? Why do I have to give up and my opponent gets to have what he wants?

Usually we explain our choices in terms of values, virtues, or principles. We say that we prefer one thing over the other because we see them as more noble, greater or superior. We prefer happiness over misery, wealth over poverty, mercy over cruelty and so on. We strive to be better to seek fulfillment and avoid suffering for the good of all beings. The main difficulty in accomplishing this feat is the fact that there are many different sets of values and they are often contradictory. How to reconcile the fact that a wise person has to be both merciful and ruthless in order to be just? How to choose which set of values to follow? After all, we cannot rely on virtues in order to choose which virtues are appropriate.

So, how exactly do we choose how to choose?
Do we engage in inner dialog until we come up with a solution? Do we follow our feelings to see what's right?
What if feelings and thoughts are in opposition, like when we know that we shouldn't do something that we feel is important?
Do we trust our logic that tells us to not trust our feelings, or do we submit to emotions and run amok?
How exactly do we submit to either of those? Can this submission, or choice, be observed?
Don't we have to choose how to observe choice? Wouldn't we influence the observation this way?

The same questions can be posed with respect to thought. We think that we think our thoughts, that we are responsible for them. They form the stream of continuous experience, but each thought arrives one at the time and never announces the next one. We can form a story in our head what we will be doing next Monday, but we do not form the stories about what stories we will form (when we are forming them). In this sense, free will is a local phenomenon in our conscious experience.

The last example comes from observation of objects and trying to grasp what are they in their essence. When I look at a cup, it is apparent what it is even prior to naming it in my thoughts. From one point of view, a cup has physical properties, but it is what it is only in relation to its usefulness. This usefulness, however is never expressed verbally. I can be preoccupied with a conversation with another person and still write something with a pen without contemplating its properties, or even noticing it. In fact, my philosophical disposition towards it prevents me from seeing it as a pen in its everyday way of being, in its usefulness. In order to write, I have to be preoccupied with my thoughts to "see" the pen for what it is. In order to see a pen properly, I have to stop inspecting it. Similarly, when I'm throwing a ball, or smiling, I don't deliberately contract and relax my muscles. I just do it.

The above examples show that there is a ground for what is experienced, but this ground cannot be expressed in terms of it. Questions about the meaning of color red cannot be answered verbally because the association between certain sights and thoughts ("red") is the basis for it. These associations lie within the realm of the subconscious mind and they are what I call archetypes. Archetypes are the mediators between various parts of our experience and the 'sense' that 'perceives' them is what I call intuition. Intuition is the interface between the conscious and the unconscious mind. We may be free to pursue our desires, but we are not free to choose them. We may choose to live the virtuous life, but we do not know what virtues are. That is because virtues are intuitive, archetypical. Archetypes reside "between" our faculties and are the invisible mechanism that guide the experience through awareness.

When we decide on our actions in the personal frame of reference, when we mediate between thoughts and emotions to make a decision, personal archetypes are at play. These archetypes are what constitutes personality. This personality can express itself as the 'conqueror' or 'protector', but they occur symmetrically in interactions and this symmetry needs to be accounted for.

Emotions and language that are experienced personally arise simultaneously in people that engage in communication. They are personal experiences, two ends, of energetic transactions that occur within the trans-personal realm. The symmetric relationship between personal archetypes ("conqueror", "protector") can be accounted for by trans-personal, or collective archetypes that mediate emotional and linguistic transactions at play. While personal archetypes make up the personality, the collective ones are the universal makeup of God's unconscious mind.

To be continued.

[oMarcos]

hail discordia

[tsuki]

I've been contemplating this stuff for quite some time now and this model can be distilled down to the following metaphor:
If experience is a movie, then:

1. sensations are the camerawork,
2. thoughts are the script,
3. feelings are the scenography and
4. intuition is the editing.

[tsuki]

On MBTI and Jungian typology

Jungian typology is a cognitive theory that attempts to dissect experience into parts and show how these parts interact to form the basis on which the personality is forming. This theory is not scientifically verifiable because it does not make behavioral predictions. It is purposefully vague and its application is intuitive.

MBTI is the attempt to make Jungian typology into something that is scientifically verifiable. It makes behavioral claims and attempts to infer a person's type from automatic tests.

There have been many controversies about MBTI and it has been generally considered unreliable in determining a person's type.

[tsuki]

Jungian Typology as phenomenology, pt 1

Jungian typology is the application of alchemy in the realm of personal experience. 
Elements are mapped to cognitive functions in the following way:

1. Earth is sensing
2. Water is thinking
3. Air is intuition
4. Fire is feeling

These cognitive functions are not separate, they are intertwined with each other. They are interdependent, always coexist simultaneously and blend seamlessly. Looking at one of them is like looking at all of them from one perspective. They form two contradictory pairs that are a union. Considering one end of a pair in itself is nonsensical, like considering evil without the concept of good. It is, however beneficial to create their separate descriptions to highlight their peculiarities. These descriptions seem total, absolute, contrasted, like gods of ancient mythology because they should invoke a certain experience that is of some use in this work.

Earth/Sensing is everything that can be perceived.
This area can be mapped to five senses:

1. Sight
2. Sound
3. Movement
4. Smell
5. Taste

Each of these five senses have inner and outer expression. Outer senses are those that we use to observe the external world, while the inner ones are what we consider to be our private experience/imagination/memory. Sensing as a cognitive function apart from other functions is not intelligible. It is like a camera and a microphone without a person to perceive it. There are sounds that make up speech - both the outer, as in a conversation, and inner, as in inner dialog - but without any meaning. It is more in lines of a background murmur of people talking in a cafe when we're lost in thought. It is the meaning of a traffic noise when we're reading a book and not paying attention to it. There are outer sights, like this text, and inner sights, like visual imagination, but they do not convey meaning. It is like a finger pointing to the moon prior to knowing that it demands from us to look in a certain direction. Movement is the kinesthetic sense that includes outer movements of our body, inner movements that we usually call emotions and the boundary between the two that is called touch. These are, again, to be understood as "pure" sensations without any meaning attached to them. The sensing center is what is usually referred to as the body, and its mirror reflection is the world/universe.

Water/Thinking is understanding of what is perceived in reference to a set of rules, such as for example: culture or knowledge. Thinking is not found within sounds (either 'real' or inner/imaginary) because the same meaning can be conveyed in many different ways. It can be conveyed with various pitches of voice, by various people, while keeping the same meaning. We can say the same 'thing' using many different grammatical structures and these structures may even be incorrect to some degree. It is possible to translate meaning between different 'kinds' of language, like for example 'Polish' and 'English'. It is even possible to translate it across mediums, like sound (speech) to sight (painting) while retaining the meaning that is expressed. Thinking in itself is something beyond the senses and and is, at most, intertwined with them. However, the underlying similarity of those expressions is that thought always relates things to something that is already known, familiar. It expresses connections between objects of perception as rules to be applied, or followed. It is mechanical in nature - cold, detached and automatic. The thinking center is what is usually referred to as the mind, and its mirror reflection is culture.

Air/Intuition is everything that is, but cannot be perceived. Intuition is the home of penetrating insight, genius, of wordless truth and clarity. It is the possibility to recognize patterns, make connections, see things that are not perceivable through senses. It is the way of looking at things without any tangible context, like a newborn that tries to grasp the significance of something he has never experienced before. It is for example how we can recognize our mother and father right after we're born. It is also how we can recognize our father in our employer, or our mother in our wife. It is how we can step back and look at something to re-purpose it into something new, different, without altering its physical form. It is not something new randomly, by coincidence, it is precisely what we needed in this situation, it is what we were looking for. It is how we learn, how we create something, seemingly out of nothing, how we recontextualize. We know that something is there even if we can't explain it. We observe, investigate, take apart, try and put back together or destroy. It is puzzlement, joyful confusion, fun, creativity and foolishness. The intuitive center is what is usually referred to as the unconscious, and its mirror reflection are the archetypes.

Fire/Feeling is understanding of what is perceived without reference to any set of rules. It is not something we do against the rules in the rebellious sense - that kind of understanding is still based on thought. Feelings manifest in the spur of the moment and have the ability to emote us to action. They are most notably expressed through inner movements, but are something beyond them. We may feel the same emotion in different parts of the body with varying intensity, but we still recognize its underlying meaning as being one and the same. Feelings, when contrasted with thoughts, are more primal, basic. They are not, in any way, lesser, or worse - they are simpler, more demanding and direct. Feelings are always to-the-point, even if the point is not always understood 'correctly'. When inspected closely, they have a peculiar inconsistency to them - what feels right, right now, is not always something that will seemingly help us feel better later. Feelings are not random, they have their own twisted logic to them, but this logic is almost purposefully obstructed from view. They are capricious - sometimes cute, but sometimes dangerous or deadly and it is never too obvious which. It almost seems like their function is simply to surprise, but they can also harmonize. They have their own distinct dignity and can solve, sometimes seemingly unsolvable, problems. The feeling center is what is usually referred to as the heart, and its mirror reflection is nature.

To be continued.

Edited May 22, 2019 by tsuki

[tsuki]

 

Edited May 23, 2019 by tsuki

[tsuki]

Jungian Typology as phenomenology, pt 2

The four cognitive functions form two pairs:

1. The perception axis: Earth/Sensing - Air/intuition,
2. The judgement axis: Water/Thinking - Fire/Feeling.

Jungian typology assumes that our attention is finite, and that we split it across cognitive functions unevenly. Moreover, since the two functions sharing one axis seemingly serve the same purpose (like thinking vs feeling and sensing vs intuition), we identify with one of them and externalize the other. These observations form the basis for classification of personalities that are built on top of our cognition. There are 16 types and they are designated by the order of cognitive functions and their introversion or extroversion.

• Introversion of a cognitive function means that this function is the 'home', a sense of 'I' of a person. It has a subjective connotation to it.
• Extroversion of a cognitive function means that the function is externalized, as if it was an object to be manipulated. It is something distant.

Introversion of one function of a given axis implies the extroversion of the other function of the axis.

[tsuki]

 

[Zigzag Idiot]

Great! ?

Yep. Lunar Venusian. The Lunar type is said to be willful.  ??‍♂️

[tsuki]

Thanks @Zigzag Idiot ?

[tsuki]

 

[Truth Addict]

@tsuki

I'm not sure my comment is welcomed, but I want to say that I like the video. I noticed how you got more comfortable talking towards the end, which is a great sign of getting in touch with your heart.

I'm inspired, I want to make a video as well. But probably next month.

Thank you, I'll watch the Annihilation movie ?