• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Materialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is this definition consistent with how you define materialist?
Haha, well, my emphasis is on the "material" root of the word. That is, I think everything in reality is made out of "material." And moreover, I think everything is made of the same kind of material.

This material that I have in mind is not what we know as physical. And since many people equate materialism with physicalism, I suppose it's best (sigh) that I don't refer to myself as a materialist. Geez!

It seems my views are better described as monist, more specifically I'm a "stuff monist." (Stuff being apparently more official than material, haha). And even more specifically, I'm a reflexive stuff monist.
 
Haha, well, my emphasis is on the "material" root of the word. That is, I think everything in reality is made out of "material." And moreover, I think everything is made of the same kind of material.

This material that I have in mind is not what we know as physical. And since many people equate materialism with physicalism, I suppose it's best (sigh) that I don't refer to myself as a materialist. Geez!

It seems my views are better described as monist, more specifically I'm a "stuff monist." (Stuff being apparently more official than material, haha). And even more specifically, I'm a reflexive stuff monist.

... this might be of interest to you re: your post about personality type and philosophy - myers briggs + philosopher's wheel and their interrelations

Philosophy and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
questionnaire
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the one about The Dawkins. Also enjoyed the Nabokov-Metamorphosis film and loved the music at beginning and end. Anyone know the source (CD?)

I did find out it was done by PBS - see IMDB entry, they might have it on the PBS catalog?
 
@Constance
@Soupie

http://www.cgjungpage.org/pdfdocuments/EndofMeaning.pdf

I've been thinking about Geigerich .. I think there is a connection to Bloom's closing of the American Mind (I found a PDF the other day of the book, but can't find the link now)


... section two Nihilism American Style - specifically the influence of German philosphy, of course this line continues to Geigerich's thought through Jung - reading the paper above, he jumps in head long:

"One of the most persuasive voices that during the last century raised the question of the “meaning of life” or, as we might also say, the question of “mythic,” “religious,” or “metaphysical”1 meaning, was that of C.G. Jung. His thoughts about this topic moved between two poles. On the one hand there is his relentless diagnosis that “No, evidently we no longer have any myth.” “Our myth has become mute, and gives no answers.” Today “we stand empty-handed, bewildered, and perplexed [...]” “There are no longer any gods whom we could invoke [...]”Jung even went as far as to state that “it would be far better stoutly to avow our spiritual poverty, our symbol-lessness, instead of feigning a legacy to which we are not the legitimate heirs at all.” Jung was very much aware that modern man dwells with himself alone, “where, in the cold light of consciousness, the blank barrenness of the world reaches to the very stars.”

The other pole of his thinking about meaning comes to the fore when to the quoted diagnosis of his (“No, evidently we no longer have any myth”) he immediately reacts with the surprising question, “But then what is your myth? The myth in which you do live?” Jung did not take “no” for an answer.

He was of the opinion that meaning is indispensable and that the loss of meaning in modern times is the ultimate reason for neurosis. Neurosis is due to the “senselessness and aimlessness” of the lives of those who suffer from it.“Everything is banal, everything is ‘nothing but’; and that is the reason why people are neurotic.”

“You see, man is in need of a symbolic life—badly in need.”

...

What is the delusion? The search for meaning seeks something that cannot be sought because any seeking for it destroys what is to be gained. Meaning is not an entity that could be had, not a creed, a doctrine, a world view, also not something like the fairytale treasure hard to attain. It is not semantic, not a content. Meaning, where it indeed exists, is first of all an implicit fact of existence, its a priori. It can never be the answer to a question; it is conversely an unquestioned and unquestionable certainty that predates any possible questioning. It is the groundedness of existence, a sense of embeddedness in life, of containment in the world—perhaps we could even say of in-ness as the logic of existence as such. Meaning exists if the meaning of life is as self-evident as the in-ness in water is for fish.

Myth, religion, metaphysics—they were never answers to an explicit and pressing question about the meaning of existence, such as when, e.g., William James in 1897 raised the question, “Is Life Worth Living?” No, they were merely the concrete articulation or formulation, in imaginal form, and, in the case of metaphysics, the explication, in the mode of thought, of the form of the factually existing in-ness in, or groundedness of, existence at each historical locus respectively. The tales of myth, the religious practices, doctrines or dogmas, the elaborate systems of metaphysics, spelled out in different modes the logic that factually governed a peoples lived life. They were the self-expression in consciousness of the meaning that was. This is why myths, rituals, and metaphysics simply told—and celebrated—the truth. That was their job. Just as fish could never seriously question the meaningfulness of being in water, so from the age of myth through the end of the age of metaphysics, i.e., through the time of Hegel and Schelling, man could not possibly have in all earnest raised the question, “Is Life Worth Living?” as a real, more than merely rhetorical, question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, new job? I'm a night owl when I'm on vacation. Otherwise, have to be up with the birds. :)

An old job gearing back up . . . this is also my normal waking up time (3 am) the last several weeks, usually I'm asleep pretty early -
 
"Now we understand why the modern search for meaning is necessarily self-contradictory. The search for meaning is in truth, but secretly, the longing for a state of in-ness, but since the question about the worth and meaning of life has existence as a whole in its field of vision, it inevitably positions us outside and visà-vis life. The search for meaning unwittingly has to construe that which it desires to be the logic or syntax of life as a semantic content, as a kind of doctrine of wisdom or a creed or ideology, ultimately as a commodity.

This is why today meaning exists in the plural of numerous competing meanings put up for sale on a large “meaning market” by a whole “meaning industry,” and why we are in the position of customers who have to make their decisions and choices about these “meanings.”16 Even if we “buy” a certain meaning and immure ourselves in it, nothing can undo the fact that it is a secondary acquisition and that our inness in it, if it comes to exist at all, is like that in a house that we ourselves built or rented, not that kind of a priori and irrevocable in-ness that was actually sought."

... but now, he takes an interesting turn:

"In addition to the intellectual contradictoriness inherent in the question of meaning there is also an emotional contradiction: we could not even seriously wish to find in fact realized what our search for meaning is in truth seeking. The kind of in-ness that is longed for, if it were indeed realized, would be intolerable for the modern subject.

It would collide with our inalienable insistence on emancipated individuality and rationality.

It would necessarily be felt as imprisonment, as a nightmare, of which the 20th century experience in totalitarian states and with fundamentalist sects has given us a taste."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will check this out ASAP. I'm an INTJ, which is like <5% of population. My stance on things almost always differs drastically from others.

I refused to use any of the letters they offered me and instead chose to be a QX*2

... ok just took a free version:

Introvert/Intuitive/Thinking/Perceiving

INTP, right?

Famous People of Your Type:

Socrates, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Sir Isaac Newton, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, William Harvey, C. G. Jung, William James, Albert Einstein, Tom Foley, Henri Mancini, Bob Newhart, Rick Moranis, Meryl Streep, Ashley and Mary Kate Olsen.

Socrates and the Olsen twins had the same personality type??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4. Two basic lines of reaction to “the end of in-ness”In view of this fundamental change, two opposite stances are possible. One can either try to hold on to and defend the truth of the past against the real situation produced by historical developments or own up tothe new situation into which history has placed us and allow oneself to be taught by it about how to think.Both reactions involve us in a dialectic. By allowing itself to be placed into the real situation the secondoption lets go of the former definition of in-ness, namely, the child status of upward looking and the senseof containment in nature, while in fact continuing the real in-ness, which however now happens to be thein-ness precisely in the situation of “meaninglessness.” According to this stance history is, as it were, thesoul&s alchemical retort, and we collectively are the prime matter in this hermetically sealed retort and aretransported through one phase of history&s alchemical opus after the other, each time finding ourselves inan entirely new world situation. – By longing for “meaning,” the first option defends, to be sure, the oldsense of in-ness, i.e., the in-ness in the former situation, but therefore has to renounce what it actually mostdesires, in-ness as an actual reality, which, however, today would be the in-ness in the utterly new psychologicalsituation of being extra ecclesiam et naturam and not the in-ness of old. Either way, a loss is unavoidable.Inasmuch as the first option tries to dictate what the kind of in-ness that it wants has to be, it must becomprehended as the egoic revolt against the soul&s alchemical process, the attempt to remain exempt fromhaving to undergo the transformations of the soul&s logical life from stage to stage. It insists on havingmeaning, i.e., the status of in-ness, while itself imaginally placing and holding itself outside the containmentin the alchemical vessel of history. From outside the vessel, it can prescribe and demand the statusthat it thinks should be and criticize and condemn what it thinks is intolerable about the situation that is. Itis in this sense that, e.g., Jung, as we already heard, declared mythic meaning to be indispensable andmeaninglessness to be the unbearable cause of psychic illness. When you are extra ecclesiam, so he statedas a veritable scaremonger, “then things really become terrible, [...] you are confronted with all the demonsof hell”28; before you “there yawns the void [das Nichts],” and you “turn[-] away from it in horror.”29Threatening with the horrors of the void is one strategy of those who insist on meaning. Another favoritestrategy for the same purpose is interpreting the change that occurred in terms of a psychology of blame.The change is viewed as a decline, decadence, a mistake, as sick; it is due to our fault, our hybris, our neglectand forgetfulness. It is all our guilt. The West has squandered its spiritual heritage, Jung stated.30 Wehave been too rationalistic, too patriarchal, too one-sided. So now, this conception claims, we have to humbleourselves and turn again to the ignored unconscious as the true source of meaning.
 
@smcder
It would collide with our inalienable insistence on emancipated individuality and rationality.

It would necessarily be felt as imprisonment, as a nightmare, of which the 20th century experience in totalitarian states and with fundamentalist sects has given us a taste."
Makes me think of this from SEP entry on consciousness:
Some have argued that consciousness as we know it today is a relatively recent historical development that arose sometime after the Homeric era (Jaynes 1974). According to this view, earlier humans including those who fought the Trojan War did not experience themselves as unified internal subjects of their thoughts and actions, at least not in the ways we do today.
This - and Hellen Keller - make me wonder deeply about our current "self-awareness" and experience of being a "self."

Is it possible that this "feeling" could cease in future post-apocalyptic humans?
 
Last edited:
I think that may be sort if where he's headed - or if we merge as we have, so keep merging w technology there could be several new species of consciousness on the planet

I suppose in a way there already are?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have been interested in consciousness since I was about 6 years old due to a puzzling sensation that was routinely accompanying by what I call cognitive emergence. This CE consisted of relatively identical and pronounced thoughts that I would get associatively with this sensation. I would be in the act of playing as children do, or caught up in some other activity that I was invested in at the time, when all of sudden out of the blue I would get this feeling, this sensation of profound gratitude accompanied by the realization, "I'm really here, I made it" as if I had arrived at sentience's very front door or something.

- this is fascinating Jeff - especially the feelings of gratitude and arrival . . . is there any more you can say about the experience? Do you still have this or other experiences?

Strange, but in those moments as I was caught up in bewilderment I knew within myself that there existed a completed oneness of me, almost as if two became one. In reflection I see the "me" as a sentient signature within consciousness resulting in an awakening ID due to my budding cognitive abilities recognizing as much. I was experiencing a completed circuit of signified consciousness. I believe that this signature is actually acquired at physical birth when child is separated from mother.

By "awakening ID" I assume that is short for identification? And I'd like to hear more about the signature acquired at physical birth if you care to expand on this idea?

Steve, & all
I am so sorry!:oops: It just seems like my life has been moving at a blur for the last few days and I ashamed that's it's been so ridiculously long since I responded to anyone on the forum. Let alone subject matter that is so near and dearly real to my heart. I had recently/have had many times in the past, parent issues health wise that are now stable, thankfully, and then there is the fact that the owner where I work is away this week and I am doing double duty in that sense as well. Forgot about the leaves over the weekend and how each and everyone a few days later felt like little pain staking piranha's teeth tearing into my rotator cuffs thank you very much! :eek:

That's OK, I can take it. Everyone tells me so.:D

Can you imagine being shed of this mortal coil, the physical orientation that we all appreciate temporally, thanks to that machine upstairs, and instead, the experience of being? It's sad, and not it would seem. The loss of one identity gains us the totality of consciousness. Beyond knowledge, beyond facility, truly, beyond imagination. Being. Don't let me get all Chauncey Gardiner on you.

I promise you Sir, with my deepest and most sincere tardy apologies in tow, if I have to turn the sign off tomorrow and close the damn business that I routinely run, myself, I will get some quality responses out tomorrow to my friends here at the great ol' PCF. :)
 
Makes me think of this from SEP entry on consciousness:
This - and Hellen Keller - make me wonder deeply about our current "self-awareness" and experience of being a "self."

Is it possible that this "feeling" could cease in future post-apocalyptic humans?


finished with the Geigerich paper - yes I think this is what he means in a way - we move into a purely psychological state and participate in the scientific technological mode - the goal of therapy is not individual integration/healing

for most, nearly all people though, it seems to me this participation will be as a consumer, consumer-consciousness (our current fascination with zombies?) but Geigerich says this is where "soul" is going (at least in developed countries)

it reminds me of Nietzsche's "Last Man"

... curious what others thought?
 
Steve, & all
I am so sorry!:oops: It just seems like my life has been moving at a blur for the last few days and I ashamed that's it's been so ridiculously long since I responded to anyone on the forum. Let alone subject matter that is so near and dearly real to my heart. I had recently/have had many times in the past, parent issues health wise that are now stable, thankfully, and then there is the fact that the owner where I work is away this week and I am doing double duty in that sense as well. Forgot about the leaves over the weekend and how each and everyone a few days later felt like little pain staking piranha's teeth tearing into my rotator cuffs thank you very much! :eek:

That's OK, I can take it. Everyone tells me so.:D

Can you imagine being shed of this mortal coil, the physical orientation that we all appreciate temporally, thanks to that machine upstairs, and instead, the experience of being? It's sad, and not it would seem. The loss of one identity gains us the totality of consciousness. Beyond knowledge, beyond facility, truly, beyond imagination. Being. Don't let me get all Chauncey Gardiner on you.

I promise you Sir, with my deepest and most sincere tardy apologies in tow, if I have to turn the sign off tomorrow and close the damn business that I routinely run, myself, I will get some quality responses out tomorrow to my friends here at the great ol' PCF. :)

It sounds like you have your hands full! I look forward to hearing more from you as time allows.
 
Linked to this from Geigerich article on Wikipedia:

Audio downloads

AUDIO: The Sacred and the Paranormal

Author and Rice University scholar of religious studies Jeffrey J. Kripal explores how the history of psychical phenomena remains an untapped resource of insight into the sacred. This recording was made March 16, 2011 at The Jung Center of Houston.

@Tyger - you might find this of interest:
AUDIO: Hunting the Great White Whale: Peak Oil, Moby Dick, and the Mythology of American Energy

Robert Wagner explores how one of the great works of American literature uncannily prefigures our current conversation about energy.

Does the Whale's Magnitude Diminish? Will He Perish?
Chapter cv - DOES THE WHALE'S MAGNITUDE DIMINISH? - WILL HE PERISH?

"But still another inquiry remains; one often agitated by the more recondite Nantucketers. Whether owing to the almost omniscient look-outs at the mast-heads of the whale-ships, now penetrating even through Behring's straits, and into the remotest secret drawers and lockers of the world; and the thousand harpoons and lances darted along all continental coasts; the moot point is, whether Leviathan can long endure so wide a chase, and so remorseless a havoc; whether he must not at last be exterminated from the waters, and the last whale, like the last man, smoke his last pipe, and then himself evaporate in the final puff.

Comparing the humped herds of whales with the humped herds of buffalo, which, not forty years ago, overspread by tens of thousands the prairies of Illinois and Missouri, and shook their iron manes and scowled with their thunder-clotted brows upon the sites of populous river- capitals, where now the polite broker sells you land at a dollar an inch; in such a comparison an irresistible argument would seem furnished, to show that the hunted whale cannot now escape speedy extinction."

Melville goes on to explain eloquently why the whale is different and will not be hunted to (near) extinction as the buffalo was.

As technology increased and demand for the resources remained, catches far exceeded the sustainable limit for whale stocks. In the late 1930s, more than 50,000 whales were killed annually[2] and by the middle of the century whale stocks were not being replenished. In 1986, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) banned commercial whaling so that stocks might recover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top