“As opposites never unite at their own level, a supraordinate ‘third’ is always required, in which the two parts can come together. And since the symbol derives as much from the conscious as from the unconscious, it is able to unite them both, reconciling their conceptual polarity through its form and their emotional polarity through its numinosity.” Jung – Aion
Jung’s work was central in applying the ideas relating to uniting the opposites contained within the conscious and the unconscious for psychospiritual growth. However, the seeds of this concept were planted deep in history. Plato is often attributed to first raising the concept of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, although these were not his exact words.
Meister Eckhart brought Christian concepts to the German speaking people by considering God as the thesis, Christ as the antithesis in physical form, and the unifying concept as the Holy Spirit. His work was censured by the Catholic Church soon after his death.
Hegel described this in terms of his dialectic: two opposites which created a new whole. His usage was more along the line of the abstract as the first principle which would generate a form of its automatic opposite as it became concrete in the world. The opposing energy between the two would then generate a new level of understanding. Writers who later described Hegel’s work used the Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis model to describe his thought.
I had the honor of speaking at the International Alchemy Conference in Long Beach in September of this year. The topic was on the Union of Opposites. Carl Jung, M.D., noted that this process of uniting opposites was the means to expand consciousness. He further noted, that it was rarely performed because of the general effort involved. His process related to identifying unconscious aspects of the personality and allowing them to actively interact with conscious awareness in his method of Active Imagination. The ego rarely enjoys being unseated, though, and unless these opposites are given energy and allowed time and interaction, typically the unconscious attempt at representing wholeness will be lost to the ego’s attempt to regain control. Of course, this merely leads to further and more intense attempts by the unconscious to be heard, demonstrated in life by the repetitive patterns and mistakes we all find ourselves within.
Jung further noted that the opposites can never unite on the same plane or the same level in which they interact. This creation of a new “third” or the synthesis from the thesis and anti-thesis forms the mark of rapid psychospiritual growth. Some of the more common phases of this path will be explored in upcoming posts.
My apologies for the long delay in updating the blog. Life sometimes just runs in interesting directions.
One of those directions has been the incredible experience my wife and I have had attending Matrix Energetics conferences, Levels 1 through 4.
I share this with people here on this blog as the findings and experiences of regular attendees really do shake traditional Western paradigms of consciousness. Richard Bartlett, D.N., D.C., creator of this system uses quantum versions of reality to explain the dramatic shifts in physical symptoms and emotional states that are nearly instantly observed in the workshops. I personally observed dramatic changes in drastic physical parameters of participants, that, as a physician trained in traditional medical school, I could not explain. And yet, there it was immediately before my eyes.
Richard, it seems, has begun to bridge the gap between the Newtonian version of the body and the quantum version of the same. All in all, a wonderful set of experiences that suggests consciousness is indeed primary in our reality.
The website is http://www.matrixenergetics.com
Thomas Campbell, a physicist by training, has developed a clever and seemingly complete description of the development of consciousness in his book series My Big TOE [Theory of Everything]. He correctly criticizes current scientific views of the world as being unable to incorporate subjective experience into the predominant models. His response is to suggest that by using only two a priori assumptions he can accurately model the universe more accurately than mainstream scientific theory. Campbell’s only two assumptions are that the primary primordial “stuff” of the universe contains rudimentary consciousness, and that this primordial “stuff” could evolve. He is then able to weave together a detailed description of the forces within physics and the primacy of direct experience.
He chose to use the two simplest assumptions available that would provide for the derivation of a richness of both experience and of basic physical science. He does not necessarily suggest that this basic primordial consciousness is the actual description, only that even if this very basic definition is applied that the results of the evolution of consciousness can become staggeringly complex. What is highly relevant about the model is the use of consciousness at any level as essentially a primary building block of the universe both subjective and objective. He is clearly not a monistic idealist, but his underlying assumptions at least have similarities in some ways to the idealist perspective. The difference is that he uses his assumptions to support the existence of an objective scientific universe which exists independently of the idealist. Quite an intellectual tour de force.
My Big TOE – The Complete Trilogy
J. DANIEL GUNTHER is a life-long student of esotericism, mythology, psychology and religion. For over thirty years he has been a member of A.’.A.’., the teaching Order established by Aleister Crowley. He is considered one of the foremost authorities on the doctrines of Thelema and the syncretic method of Magick and Mysticism taught by A.’.A.’. He is the author of the highly acclaimed Initiation in the Aeon of the Child, published by Ibis Press. Along with James Wasserman, he is the co-editor of the forthcoming book, Pythagoras, His Life and Teachings, which will be released in the Spring of 2010, also published by Ibis Press. He is on the editorial board of The Equinox, published by Weiser, and has served as consultant and advisor for numerous other publications in the field of occultism.
| In the process of Initiation in the Aeon of the Child, it is the “Point of View” that is critical to the success of the aspirant. What is the “Right Perspective?” What is the True Message of the Averse Mysteries of Horus, Child of the New Aeon? J. Daniel Gunther examines this question with some of the most important Archetypes of Aversion that have sprang from the Collective Unconscious and the message they communicate to us concerning the Spiritual Life and our Point of View. How does the System of Initiation in the Aeon of the Child promise such rewards for its aspirants in this incarnation? Why must you learn to walk upon your hands? Join us March 27th, 2010 to hear J. Daniel Gunther answer these and other questions central to the Mysteries of the Inward Journey. He will complete his Lecture by a dramatic recitation from Liber VII. “ This book is both enlightened and enlightening and a welcome addition to the post-Crowleyan literature. It is clearly deserving of a place in a curricula of A.’.A.’., and O.T.O. and it deserves to be welcomed and studied carefully by Thelemites of all persuasions. ” – Hymeneaus Beta, Frater Superior, Ordo Templi Orientis “ In my opinion, this is the most important original work to be published since the death of Aleister Crowley. ” -James Wasserman
|
One other subtle requirement of Godel’s Proof is a special use of numbers in which unique numbers are used to encode mathematical formulas and even other numbers. In this manner, numbers are used to describe themselves, a form of self reference. At one level the numbers are numbers, yet at the meta-level the numbers provide information about the truth or falsity of equations.
This use of self reference may in some ways have equivalence to our own mental representations making reference to our selves or the ability to observe mental states. Theoretically the electrical and chemical processes of the brain could be understood in a mechanistic way. Yet, the actual experience of being seems to elude the reductionistic approach. The surprise of a new insight, perspective or understanding which was true but unknown may, in fact, be a rough equivalent of the true but unprovable Godel statement. These insights may come unbidden, or through self-reflection, or depth psychotherapy, but the surprise of the AHA moment creates a new whole of reality for the individual who experiences it. An interior depth of new views of a data set that is largely unchanged in detail, the meta-view of the self.
There is one key distinction to be made in this particular discussion regarding the concept of an infinite number of truths not provable within any formal system. Many post-modernists have taken Godel’s ideas to promote the primary tenet of post-modernism which is that all narratives [truths] are equally true. The corollary to their perspective is that various truths cannot be compared, especially if they arise from different cultures or worldviews.
As a logician, Godel would, I believe, have been horrified by this misuse of his proof. Godel would have easily known that there are actually infinitely more false statements than there are true statements. His proof does not proclaim false statements to be true, nor would he have ever endorsed the abandonment of logic itself. His proof only stated that there exist statements which are true, but not provable; he does not claim or endorse the concept that all statements are equally true.
One of Godel’s biographers, Dr. Wang, a rather conservative philosopher himself, concluded that the consequences of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem for Mathematics included at least one of the following, if not all:
1. Mathematics is inexhaustible.
2. Any consistent formal theory of mathematics must contain undecidable propositions.
3. No theorem-proving computer (or program) can prove all and only the true propositions of mathematics.
4. No formal system of mathematics can be both consistent and complete.
5. Mathematics is mechanically (or algorithmically) inexhaustible (or incompletable)
Certainly if mathematics, as the foundation of science, is without limit, that at least suggests that other aspects of reality are also without limit, inexhaustible, and contain “undecidable propositions.” There is no reason that this limitlessness should be necessarily limited to mathematics. Godel actually believed that he had demonstrated the truth of Platonism, but neglected to publish that further proof. This proof certainly does imply that “truths” are discovered from a larger field of reality rather than merely created as an arbitrary convenience.
Godel certainly believed that although brain states might be mathematically determined as measured by such things as electo-encephalograms or brain imaging techniques, nevertheless, neither of those techniques nor any other mathematically based technique could [even in theory] predict or determine the richness of consciousness. He was certainly accurate regarding the limitations of the abilities of digital systems like computers to emulate consciousness, and was a consultant to the Artificial Intelligence community until his death.
