Soul Spelunker

What Is A Soul?

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:56:00 +0000

The Japanese Footbridge, by Calude Monet

Here is another example of amateur spelunking from the early nineties, just when I was becoming curious about such matters:

What is a soul? All my life I have been told that humans consist of soul and body. Some say, "I have a soul and I live in a body," as if a soul is a possession one purchases at Wal-Mart.

Once when I was a child, I went to a "revival," where the preacher was talking about the soul burning in hell. I wondered what that could mean.

The teachings of the Pythagoreans point to the soul as being immortal, imperishable, uncreated, and unlimited. They say it is air, wind, or breath (pneuma), and that it comes from the Upper Air, which steers the kosmos. This Upper Air is pure and very rarefied. It is always in motion, and it is that which moves the gods (planets). The soul is in exile from this upper region. It is imprisoned in the body, which is like a tomb. By purifying itself after many reincarnations, the soul can break free of the Lower Air and return to the Upper Air, where it then becomes god-like.

Obviously, this is mythical language. The soul is not just air or breath or wind in a literal sense. So, how does this language help me to understand what a soul is? Perhaps the question itself is flawed to begin with. Can we even say what a soul is? Doesn't the copula, "is," infer that the soul is an object just as a chair is an object? If so, then the question. "What is a soul," is worthless because the soul cannot be an object. Objects are empirically experienced. I cannot empirically experience a soul, at least not in the way I experience the chair I am now sitting in.

I am wondering whether soul is similar to Heidegger's idea of Dasein. Could these be connected? It seems a promising path to follow, since I am having so much difficulty viewing the soul as an object.

I recall my paper last quarter on Heidegger's idea of ready-to-handedness and the musicianship of Jimi Hendrix. The relation between the musician and his or her instrument, when the two fuse and perform as one, seems akin to what Heidegger meant by ready-to-handedness. Could this be the relation, the mode of being which is characteristic of soul? Is this the Being-energy which Pythagoras claims is immortal, and that passes from one body to another until it finds release in the Upper Air, where it becomes divine? Is Dasein the same as soul? Could the Upper Air be a metaphor for authenticity?

Aristotle wrote that the Pythagoreans claim "the soul is a sort of attunement (harmonia); for attunement is a synthesis and blending of opposites" (De Anima 407b 28). . . Is Dasein like this? Perhaps it is, for Dasein is not set over against the world of objects as in the subject/object dichotomy. Rather, the dichotomy is transcended, where Dasein is not "in the world," in a spatial sense, but is the world. As Heidegger says, "The world is not a way of characterizing those entities which Dasein essentially is not; it is rather a characteristic of Dasein itself" (qtd. in Stumpf 465). This is demonstrated in the previously mentioned example of a musician and his or her instrument fusing and becoming one, i.e., ready-to-handedness.
Perhaps this harmony, this transcendence is what the Pythagoreans meant by soul.

I'm uncertain about this. Pythagoras would want to include animals and plants in his teaching on the soul, whereas Heidegger is referring to humans only, as far as I can tell.

Bibliography

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Socrates to Sartre. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1982.

A Comparative Study Of David Hume And Thomas Aquinas

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:17:00 +0000

This is an old article that I just unearthed from the crypt. I wrote it in 1992, when I was quite enamored with philosophical theology. I offer it to those readers who may be interested in such things.

In this article I will attempt to compare the thought of Thomas Aquinas and David Hume concerning the existence of God. I will focus primarily on Thomas' attempt to prove the existence of God, and what Hume may have said in response to it.

These two great intellects came from very different backgrounds. Thomas Aquinas, the son of well-to-do parents, was groomed for ecclesiastical service from an early age. David Hume's family wanted him to pursue a career in law. Both had rebellious streaks, however. Thomas joined the ranks of the mendicant Dominicans while studying at the University of Naples, while Hume decided to go against the wishes of his parents by devoting his life to learning and philosophy. Aquinas became a Roman Catholic theologian, while Hume became a respected writer and thinker.

One thing that stands out very clearly is their common gift of intellectual prowess. These two are among the most influential minds in Western civilization. Even though their conclusions are very different, there is much truth to be gleaned from both of them.

The major divergence in their thought would, of course, be in religious matters. Thomas was very much a believer in the God of Christianity. Hume was, according to some, an atheist. His writings reveal that he was probably an agnostic. He was, however, very interested in religion and wrote much on the subject.

Aquinas attempted to prove the existence of God in his classic work, Summa Theologica. He presented five very persuasive arguments which he called the "Five Ways." A primary motif of his arguments was God as "First Cause."

A few of the arguments depend heavily upon cause and effect, and a connection between them. His position on demonstrating the existence of God rests on this statement:

...from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because, since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must preexist (Summa Theologica, Part I, Question Two, Second Article; emphasis mine).

Thomas seems to be saying in this passage that there is a necessary connection between cause and effect because of the dependence of the effect upon a preexistent cause. I understand that the causal chain for Thomas is not an infinite series, but is rather a hierarchy of causal activity in which a subordinate cause is dependent upon a higher cause. Nevertheless, I still think he is claiming a necessary connection.

This is the very thing that Hume attacked so vehemently in his philosophical writings. He tells us that a necessary connection cannot be observed. In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he says,

When we look about us towards external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover any power or necessary connection; any quality, which binds the effect to the cause, and renders the one an infallible consequence of the other" (Section VII).

If this be true, the arguments presented from causality by Aquinas are highly questionable. Since there is no necessary nexus between cause and effect, there can be no chain leading back to a First Cause.

I don't think Hume would have had a problem with Aquinas saying he "believed" there was some connection between cause and effect. Hume taught that "belief" is a strong feeling "which distinguishes the ideas of the judgment from the fictions of the imagination" (ibid.). Belief, in this case, is based on past experience, or "custom," as Hume calls it. We "believe" that when a billiard ball strikes another billiard ball the latter will move. We do so because it has always happened like that in the past. But Aquinas is not stating a belief in this manner. He has taken for granted that a necessary connection exists between cause and effect, and is making a logical inference, from effects, that a First Cause must exist. He has done this without establishing first that a necessary connection truly exists.

But what would Thomas say to Hume in response to the problem of a necessary connection? He might agree with Hume that one cannot observe a necessary connection. He might say that humans are still aware of a causal relation, nevertheless.

F.C. Copleston discusses this in his book, "Aquinas." He says:

A remark on the word 'cause' is here in place. What precisely Aquinas would have said to the David Humes either of the fourteenth century or of the modern era it is obviously impossible to say. But it is clear that he believes in real causal efficacy and real causal relations. He was aware, of course, that causal efficacy is not the object of vision in the sense in which patches of colours are objects of vision; but the human being, he considered, is aware of real causal relations and if we understand 'perception' as involving the cooperation of sense and intellect, we can be said to 'perceive' causality (page 123).

When Copleston says Thomas was aware that "causal efficacy is not the object....," he seems to be saying that Aquinas was aware that a necessary connection could not be observed, but that we could, nevertheless, "perceive" such a connection.

Hume, in Part IX of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, goes on to further criticize the idea of a First Cause. He says the idea "seems absurd," and that the act of uniting causes and effects into a whole, which may seem to demand a cause, is merely an "arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things."

Aquinas' third way asserts that God is a necessarily existing Being. He arrives at this conclusion by asserting that God cannot not-be, therefore He exists necessarily.

Hume, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, answers this argument through the mouth of Cleanthes:

Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently, there is no being whose existence is demonstrable (Part IX).

Since the mind can conceive of God as not existing, His/Her existence cannot be demonstrated.

Thomas would probably argue along the lines of necessity. I think he would say that Hume's argument would apply only to beings that come into existence or pass away. Hume may not have understood the way theologians like Aquinas and Anselm used the term "necessary being." Aquinas did not mean that God was a logically necessary being, but that God's necessity is factual, or equivalent to the self-existence (aseity) of God. God's necessary being should not be thought of as equivalent to saying the proposition "God exists" is a logically necessary truth.

It seems that both men have interesting things to say. As philosophers, we can learn much from their writings. We need not be religious to learn from Thomas, and we need not be a skeptic to glean from Hume. They both exhibit astounding intellects, and have both helped to shape the course of our present world.

The Soul Is Not Supernatural

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:28:00 +0000

Sunset, by Arkady Rylov, 1917

In the sense that the word, "supernatural," means "something that transcends nature," Soul is not supernatural. The word, "nature," literally is derived from "born," natus. It also carries the meaning of "the universe." It is the "course of things." Enigmatic as Soul is, and whose depths are fathomless, it is still intertwined with our natural universe. The idea that Soul originates in some otherworldly place is a product of our Christian tradition, its penchant for dualism, and its inclination for taking truths about reality literally. In mainstream Christian thought, God and nature are totally separate. According to this view, our world represents something fallen, due to sin, from a paradisaical state. I reject all of this in favor of a supremely wonderful universe, which has room in it for dreams, imagination, epiphanies, love, and beauty.

The claim that the Soul is purely a natural reality is not reductionist. I am not attempting to relegate the function of Soul to brain chemistry, physics, etc. I propose that the experiences we know to be soulful, such as those we have when enjoying an excellent meal with people we care for, or that feeling we get when gazing at a lazy sunset, or when we are moved by a play, a song, a book, are perfectly natural for humans to have. They are deep, meaningful, even epiphanous, at times. These are part of what we call Soul and Soul is ubiquitous, if we are open to the experiences. We can experience Soul in a painting, in a work of architectural genius, or simply gazing across a picturesque body of water at daybreak when the fog rolls gently across its surface. The experiences of Soul are myriad and they all occur in this universe.

Author, Paul Levy, says,

According to the alchemists, the products of our imagination are not immaterial, vaporous phantoms, but are something corporeal, having a “subtle body” all their own. The alchemists were realizing that the philosophers’ stone was a subtle energy body, a super-celestial body, the “star” in humanity, which is the interface between mind and matter (God the Imagination, by Paul Levy, emphasis mine).

And Carl Jung tells us,

Somewhere our unconscious becomes material, because the body is the living unit, and our conscious and our unconscious are embedded in it: they contact the body. Somewhere there is a place where the two ends meet and become interlocked. And that is the [subtle body] where one cannot say whether it is matter, or what one calls "psyche." (Nietzsche's Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1934-1939, Volume 2, vol. 1, p. 441).

Perhaps there are many modes of being in the universe, Soul being one; perhaps it is the primary mode of being. We do not possess all knowledge, so it is impossible at this time to say how deeper experiences of human life come about. We simply know for a fact they exist. Who knows what other dimensions there are to this wondrous universe of ours? It is arrogant and pompous for us to assume we have sufficient knowledge to proclaim that nature is composed of dead, inert matter and nothing more. It is a deus ex machina to posit a supernatural Soul. Marvelous, yes! But still part of our marvelous cosmos.

Take a dream, for instance. We all know that a dream is a very real experience. Are we to conclude that this experience, which really doesn't fall into the category of consciousness, is not real because it is not empirically observed? Of course not. Common sense tells us it is a very real experience. Certainly, it is not literal, but there are many realities that are not literal. And again, they are all part of our natural universe. One need not posit a shadowy, otherworldly locale from whence these experiences emanate. The universe is the body of the Anima Mundi.

That brings us to unconsciousness, and the irruptions into consciousness that C.G Jung wrote so much about. These, too, are part of our natural cosmic order. All the forgotten experiences of our species, and perhaps of all entities, lie there in the depths of Soul. This, too, even though we don't have much knowledge of the unconsciousness of humans, is part of the natural order of things. There is no need to posit a supernatural order.

Many assume that Soul is supernatural. This article was written to initiate thought processes that might lead one away from transcendental ideas, and perhaps nudge on to realize the amazing universe we are all part of.

The Naming Of Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:58:00 +0000

Winter Landscape in Moonlight by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, 1919

Philosophers have had much trouble naming what we think is real. Some believe that only matter is real and can be studied, and thus we have various forms of materialism. Some claim there are non-material entities and that these are just as real as material entities. Of course, there are many views that attempt to fuse these into a coherent schema. What I've been trying to do on this blog is develop my own naming convention for reality, borrowing heavily from many others. My animaterialist ramblings are an attempt to include Soul in my own view of reality. One would think, upon first glance, that Soul would be a non-material entity, and that my view would fall into a dualist framework. That is undoubtedly caused by the fact that the word, Soul, carries a lot of historical baggage, as does the word "matter." Soul is usually said to be an invisible inhabitant of the body. That is not the way I view Soul at all.

I have probably contradicted myself many times in my writings on this blog. This is due to the evolution of my thought. I am always learning new things and this occasionally changes my views. This is an issue for all thinkers.

My understanding of Soul is evolving. I believe it is due to my evolving view of matter, which none of us really understands very well at all. Matter is one of the most enigmatic puzzles in all the universe. We are accustomed to thinking of matter as Descartes viewed it,

So, extension in length, breadth, and depth, constitutes the nature of bodily substance; and thought constitutes the nature of thinking substance. And everything else attributable to body presupposes extension, and is only a mode of extended (The Principles of Human Knowledge". Principles of Philosophy I. p. 53).

That's it. According to Descartes, matter is only extension: length, breadth, and depth. Nothing else. I don't believe this is all there is to matter. I also don't believe that mind and consciousness are separate from matter. I don't use Soul in the usual Jungian sense of anima or animus (he distinguished between psyche and soul in his writings). In my opinion, what we know as Soul is the same as Matter. Reality is indistinguishable, whether we call it Matter or Soul. Our human experience is of this universe and it is, what I call, animaterial. It includes all things in our experience, including consciousness, unconsciousness, dreams, God, archetypes, as well as what we empirically know. Our experience, both conscious and unconscious, is of one reality: animatter. Yes, this is a monistic view.

Recently, I've found a common thread in the work of philosopher, Galen Strawson. In his paper, Realistic Monism, Dr. Strawson frames similar claims as what he calls "real physicalism."

Full recognition of the reality of experience, then, is the obligatory starting point for any remotely realistic version of physicalism. This is because it is the obligatory starting point for any remotely realistic (indeed any non-self-defeating) theory of what there is. It is the obligatory starting point for any theory that can legitimately claim to be ‘naturalistic’ because experience is itself the fundamental given natural fact; it is a very old point that there is nothing more certain than the existence of experience (Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism).

In regard to what he means by "physicalism", he seems to be returning to the ancient Greek view of physis:

I take physicalism to be the view that every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is … physical. It is a view about the actual universe, and I am going to assume that it is true. For the purposes of this paper I will equate ‘concrete’ with ‘spatio-temporally (or at least temporally) located’, and I will use ‘phenomenon’as a completely general word for any sort of existent. Plainly all mental goings on are concrete phenomena (ibid.).

He distinguishes his brand of physicalism from the sort that believes everything can be explained by physics, which he calls, physicSalism:

It follows that real physicalism can have nothing to do with physicSalism, the view — the faith — that the nature or essence of all concrete reality can in principle be fully captured in the terms of physics (ibid.).

Of this, animaterialism is in agreement. I'm not sure yet how Dr. Strawson would feel about experiences that we usually attribute to Soul, such as our dreams, but I think we are on the right track here. Animaterialism would say that our experiences of the archetypes, which we also call the Gods, would be physical, in the Strawsonian sense of real physicalism. To avoid the confusion of the definition of physicalism, I prefer to use the word, animaterialism.

The naming of reality has always been, more or less, a subjective issue, due to personal preference, I suppose. I'm certain there will be more names cropping up in the future for our evolving views of reality.

Are Mind And Brain The Same?

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:23:00 +0000

I recently read an article by a blogger who began by saying very plainly that dualism is not a correct view of reality, that it leads to fragmentation in all aspects of life. With this proposition, I agree wholeheartedly. Then, in attempt to discount the reductionist materialist view, they began to explain why they believe the brain is different from the mind. With this, I must disagree, but not with the usual objections we hear from materialists. In my perspective, the mind and brain should not be dichotomized. When they are said to be fundamentally different, this amounts to falling headlong back into the dualist tiger-trap. Viewing the brain as “simply flesh” and the mind as “consciousness” is dualism. This view degrades matter in an attempt to elevate mind to a higher position in the scheme of reality. It is the classic exemplification of the so-called mind-body problem.

I am of the opinion that the brain and the mind are of the same “substance” (Not substance in the usual sense; I have explained my use of this word elsewhere). The brain and the mind need not be different because all matter is intertwined with Soul, which acts as the entelechy of the entity. The brain is no different. Soul is homogeneous with flesh, thus making it one reality, the animaterial brain. If this is the first time you have heard the word, animaterial, I invite you to search this blog and read all the pertinent articles concerning this topic.

To affirm the homogeneity of matter and Soul is not to say the brain will not age and become, at times, impaired by disease and various other maladies. The animaterial entity is not immune from pathologization. In fact, this is one of the hallmarks of Soul. It is one of the primary means for the expansion of Soul, as in Hillmanian “soul-making.” The entirety of Nature suffers, at times. John Keats referred to this world as the "vale of soul-making," a place where animaterial entities encounter hardship and trouble in abundance, but that, without it, they cannot become what they are truly meant to be. Even the scriptures tell us, In your patience possess ye your souls (Luke 21:19). If one can endure with patience the troubles of this world, the Soul grows strong, forged in the fire of suffering. But, I digress.

The entire issue with thinking the brain and the mind are separate is due to a misunderstanding concerning the nature of matter. This question is paramount for the understanding of animaterialism. We know we possess a mind; we use it daily, at least most of us do. The direct experience of thinking thoughts and being conscious of everything around us points to the reality of a mind and consciousness. What we don't understand so well is matter. We have been led to believe that it is dead, inert, possessing no animative qualities whatsoever. To the Greeks, Nature consisted of physis, or "natural things." At some point in the history of philosophy, the word, "physical," took on a totally new meaning that left us with a view of matter that was devoid of mind, Soul, consciousness, etc. This was a mistake that is in process of being corrected by philosophers such as Galen Strawson and David Chalmers. These thinkers propose a physicalism that includes consciousness, which is what I am saying, as well. I go further, however, and say that all entities are animaterial because all entities in the universe are synonymous with Soul. Matter and consciousness alone do not make up all of reality. We must account for all natural things, as the Greeks did. This would include unconsciousness, as well. We know that Soul is both consciousness and unconsciousness, not just consciousness alone. The archetypes of the collective unconscious are unconscious realities that, in my opinion, should be accounted for in any theory of reality.

So, physicalism, stripped of reductionist materialism, is a theory that should include all these natural things in the universe. This is what I call animaterialism. This is why the mind and the brain are one reality.

David Bohm On The Dangers Of Fragmentation

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 03:32:00 +0000

Head Of A Martyr, by Odilon Redon, 1877

David Bohm, referring to the prevalent dualistic paradigm, says that mankind

begins to see and experience himself and his world as actually made up of components. Being guided by this view, man then acts in such a way as to try to break himself and the world up, so that all seems to correspond to his way of thinking. He thus obtains an apparent proof of the correctness of his fragmentary self-world view, not noticing that it is he himself, acting according to his mode of thought, who has brought about the fragmentation that now seems to have an autonomous existence, independent of his will and of his desire.

Fragmentation is thus an attitude which disposes the mind to regard divisions between things as absolute and final, rather than as ways of thinking that have only some relative and limited range of validity and usefulness. It leads to a general tendency to break things up in an irrelevant and inappropriate way, and so, it is evidently inherently destructive. For example, though all parts of mankind are now actually fundamentally interdependent and inter-related, the primary and overriding kind of significance generally given to the widespread and pervasive distinctions between people (family, profession, nation, race, ideology, etc.) is preventing human beings from working together for the common good, and indeed, even for survival. When man thinks of himself in this fragmentary way, he will inevitably tend to put his own separate Ego first, or else his own group. He cannot seriously think of himself as internally related to the whole of mankind and therefore to all other people. Even if he does try to put mankind first, he will tend to think of nature as something separate, to be exploited to satisfy whatever desires people may happen to have at the moment. Similarly, he will think body and mind are independent actualities, and he will go on in his thinking to divide these further into various parts and functions, each to be treated separately. Physically, this is not conducive to over-all health (whose root meaning is “wholeness”). And mentally, it is not conducive to sanity (which has basically a very similar meaning), as is indeed shown by an ever-growing tendency to the break-up of the psyche, as neurosis, psychosis, etc.

To sum up then, fragmentary thinking is giving rise to a reality that is constantly breaking up into disorderly, disharmonious, and destructive partial activities. It seems reasonable then seriously to explore the suggestion that a mode of thinking that starts instead from the most encompassing possible whole, and goes down to parts (sub-wholes) in a way appropriate to the actual nature of things, would tend to bring about a different reality, one that was orderly, harmonious, and creative. But for this actually to happen, it is not enough that we explore this notion only intellectually. It must also enter deeply into our intentions, actions, and indeed, into our whole being. That is to say, we have to mean it, with all that we think, feel, and do. To bring this about requires an action going far beyond what we have discussed here (David Bohm, The Implicate Order: a New Approach to the Nature of Reality).

Practical Applications Of Animaterialism

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 01:47:00 +0000

In the Sierras, by Albert Bierstadt, 1868

I feel that, of late, I've been putting out much theory to the exclusion of praxis. Therefore, this article will attempt to show some practical applications of the animaterialist worldview.

If we believe the universe is a living organic reality, and all things are interconnected, the way we treat all creatures will be affected. Our current milieu, being based on a dualistic materialistic capitalism, acts toward all things with one thing in mind: profit. Its most vocal proponents pay lip service to the Jesus of the Gospels. But the Jesus of the Gospels wanted nothing to do with those who greedily manipulated the people. He spoke out against it time and time again. We should too. If we are related to each other and to all things, as we are, animaterialism necessarily infers we treat all things with lovingkindness, respect, empathy, and magnanimity. This is the primary practical effect of accepting the animaterialist worldview.

There are many areas of life where we can apply this ideal. For one, let's stop thinking we have dominion over our planet, and that we can treat it in a manner in which we must squeeze the most profit from it. In reality, we are the earth and earth is us. When we harm our planet, we harm ourselves. I speak only of the earth at this time, but there will come a day when mankind will acquire the knowledge to colonize other parts of the cosmos. These ideas do not apply only to this planet, but to the entire universe. If profiteers believe they can exploit other parts of the universe, they will undoubtedly attempt it. The animaterialist will understand that we are the universe and the universe is us. When we do disservice to the universe, we do disservice to ourselves.

Most of the harm currently being done to our world is because of greed. As the scriptures tell us, "Love of money is the root of all evil." Well, the root of all evil has greatly damaged our world. It will be up to those who adopt the principles of animaterialism to put a halt to the rape of the planet, and then to repair what has been done. How do we go about this? Currently, I am not sure. I am certain that violence is not the way. Violence only breeds more violence. I am a great believer in the fact that things change very gradually, over many years, if we continue to sow the seeds of oneness, unity, and love, mighty trees will someday soar into the heavens.

Capitalism is based on a deeply fragmented worldview, where the haves rule over the have-nots. There is a yawning abyss between the two. It is hierarchical, and thus anti-immanence. It is mostly patriarchal, where women are paid much less than men. The upper class rules the lower class and what's left of the middle class. Capitalists see Nature as something to be exploited for profit, therefore it is perfectly fine to drill for oil anywhere and everywhere; it is perfectly fine to pollute our oceans; it is perfectly fine to pump toxins into the atmosphere, as long as the corporations continue to make a profit. It is wrong, plain and simple. The animaterialist will not accept these things, but will work to change them by either implementing an ethical capitalism (I believe this is possible), or abolishing it altogether in favor of a more equitable system.

I don't know yet what an animaterialist politics would be like. Socialism has failed so far to make any progress in the battle for ethical treatment of Nature and its creatures. I don't really think the answer lies in politics, but in a particular mode of consciousness. A majority of people must come to a certain awareness concerning the universe and how it should be treated. This will come with the next evolutionary leap of awareness.

Typically, we think that humans will be the only creatures that will enjoy such a leap of consciousness. I think all things will increase their modes of consciousness. If all things are interconnected, why should everything but humans be omitted from such blessing?

The animaterialist viewpoint sees all entities as possessing value. We are laterally interconnected; we grow toward each other. We respect each other. We do not seek to take advantage of each other, and we certainly do not seek to profit financially from each other.We can begin by simply being kind to others, basically to carry out the Golden Rule, i.e. Do unto others as you would have them to unto you. This is still a revolutionary notion. This principle alone could change the world.

Now, I don't like labels, so I am not advocating that anyone start referring to themselves as animaterialists. Labels don't work and they create confusion. It is enough to apply the principles. Think through the ramifications for yourselves. If all things are interconnected, what harm you bring to other entities of the universe, you bring to yourselves. This is nothing new. Sages, mystics, and philosophers have taught this for thousands of years. If enough of us do this, we will truly change the world and the universe.

Light And Animatter

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:03:00 +0000

Claude Monet: Soleil Levant, 1872

What physicists have discovered concerning the nature of light is that it behaves as both wave and particle. This profound and paradoxical characteristic makes light a very attractive metaphorical image in explaining the true nature of reality, if one may be so bold as to attempt such a difficult task. I have said that our universe is filled with "animatter," or ensouled matter. There is no dichotomy at all in animatter. Our language brings differentiation between the abstractions we call matter and Soul. We also hear much of the so-called "mind-body problem" (which is not a problem at all, if you reject dualism). These are mere mental constructs. Animatter is a monistic reality, where all entities in the universe share the same Soul. This is what we refer to as the World Soul, or the Anima Mundi.

Soul is not a substance, but a perspective. It is a way of seeing, of hearing, of experiencing the universe as it actually is. Soul is an experience of the divine animaterial universe. It mediates our experiences, leading us down into the depths of reality, of true animaterial existence. Soul is the experience of the depth in life.

Light has always been a powerful image in religion and spirituality all over the world. We have only scratched the surface in our knowledge of the nature of light. At least we do know that its behavior is contrary to rational thought. I contend that all reality, at its root, is also contrary to rational thought; it is paradoxical.

Looking at light as a metaphor, it exists in both visible and invisible forms. Humans, typically, cannot see the entire electromagnetic spectrum. In the same way, animatter has both visible and invisible forms. Typically, with our bodily senses we experience only the explicate manifestation of animatter. I borrow the term "explicate" from David Bohm. There is also an implicate form of animatter, which I will call Soul.

Animatter is like a scroll in that, when rolled up, it contains, in potentia, what the entity is and shall become. This mode of being is associated with its Soul. When the scroll is unrolled, its truth is fully manifested. The word, "explicate," derives from the Latin word, explicare, which means to unfold or unravel. The word, "implicate," comes from the Latin word, implicare, meaning to entwine, wreath, or roll up. The enfolding and unfolding of animatter is infinite in our universe. It has always occurred and always will. Animatter exists both potentially and actually. It is continuously bringing forth new forms from the womb of all things, the Mater Materia, as Bruno called it. I call it Mater Animateria, or "Mother Animatter."

Light helps us to understand these kinds of truths. It has always served humanity as an exemplary symbol of the nature of reality. It provides illumination and warmth when in its explicated form; in its implicated form, it is a womb of potential, a matrix of creativity that is to come. There is light in animatter, but there is also darkness. The darkness is not necessarily evil, as we have been taught through our Judea-Christian tradition. Darkness can symbolize the unconscious, for instance, which is dark because its contents have not yet arisen into consciousness. It is the same principle as a child enfolded in the darkness of its mother's womb. The birth of the child is its unfolding.

The Entelechy Of Animatter

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 05:38:00 +0000

Without Title, by Hugo Ohne (1854)

We might think of the daimon as the ego of one's entelechy, the personification within one's psyche of the higher presence (Jean Houston, A Mythic Life, page 130). . .

We know that matter is not dead and lifeless. There is a power innate to matter that we call Soul. There is no distinction between these two ideas. Soul acts as the entelechy (Greek word entelecheia) of matter, the telos inside matter that compels it to become what it truly is, to strive and emerge into its own manner of Being. We have named all such entities (which, of course, includes all things) animatter. The entelechy of all animatter is Soul.

Joe Sachs, translator of Aristotle (the inventor of the word), says this concerning entelechy:

Entelecheia, as can be seen by its derivation, is a kind of completeness, whereas "the end and completion of any genuine being is its being-at-work" (energeia). The entelecheia is a continuous being-at-work (energeia) when something is doing its complete "work". For this reason, the meanings of the two words converge, and they both depend upon the idea that every thing's "thinghood" is a kind of work, or in other words a specific way of being in motion. All things which exist now, and not just potentially, are beings-at-work, and all of them have a tendency towards being-at-work in a particular way which would be their proper and "complete" way (Sachs, Joe (1995), Aristotle's physics: a guided study).

The telos of an entelechy is not to be understood as a static endpoint. The notion here is that the entelechy is a "continuous being-at-work." An animaterial entity does not suddenly arrive at full completion and then remains static. The process is endless.

Soul in-forms an animaterial entity, thus transforming it into that which it was destined to become. This does not just occur in humans. All animaterial entities have Soul as their entelechy. They are in continuous and endless motion.

Christian de Quincey, in his essay Stories Matter, Matter Stories, writes

In this new (and very ancient) view, mind is neither outside nor inside matter, but is part of the very essence of matter—interior to its being. Mind, consciousness, or soul is that which is responsible for matter’s ability to become what it is—what Aristotle called entelechy.

We know that Soul is image. The unconscious images we know as archetypes form the Soul and give us a glimpse of the driving force of the entelechy. We cannot perceive how the process of the entelechy compels other animaterial entities to evolve and emerge, but we can experience it within ourselves. By knowing ourselves, we can know the processes behind all things, for we are all interconnected. As above, so below.

This is very similar to the acorn theory, presented by James Hillman in his book, Soul's Code. Hillman is speaking primarily of human beings, but I am of the opinion that all animaterial entities possess such a power of actualization that compels them to fruition.

Matter And Soul Are Interchangeable

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 00:42:00 +0000

Alexanderschlacht, by
Albrecht Altdorfer (1480–1538)

What I call animaterialism is really very similar to hylozoism. In animaterialism, there are not two distinct substances that compose our universe; there is one. I call it “animatter.” It is not a “substance” in the sense that a substance possesses mass and takes up space. Animatter is not only the material stuff we experience with our physical senses; it also includes all the animative power of Soul. Animation is used in the original sense of the root of the word, anima. This is the Latin word for “soul.” Actually, neither matter nor anima are substances, if we take the meaning of substance to be, “something which exists in such a way as to stand in need of nothing beyond itself” (Descartes). Nothing exists in isolation, therefore, in this sense, substance is devoid of meaning. All animaterial entities need one another for their existence.

If we redefine substance to mean something like, "that which exists in organic unity with all other existents," then I believe we are closer to the truth of the substance of animatter. There is never a sense of dichotomy in animatter. There is variety, but these are the many faces of the same entity. Just as our Souls have many faces and personalities, so do the Souls of animaterial entities.

Animatter is a potentiality. It has the capability to evolve, arise, emerge into being. It is never a static actuality because change is the nature of all entities in the universe. “Emerging into being” does not mean stasis. It is a nisus, but it never arrives at an endpoint. When we discuss matter, we must also discuss Soul, for they are interconnected and interpenetrate one another. An image I frequently use for this idea is the vortex, or “Soul’s Maelstrom.” The vortex is Giordano Bruno’s Mater-Materia, i.e. “matter mattering.” This is the womb from which all forms arise. Matter and Soul interpenetrating one another and emerging into the animaterial, organic universe.

Animatter is a process that is ongoing and infinite. Nothing exists that is not animaterial. The phrase, “inanimate object” is an oxymoron, since there are no inanimate objects. All entities in our universe are animative, i.e. they are soulful entities. This is akin to the saying of Thales, “All things are full of gods.” We should take no entity lightly; all are important and play a crucial role in the theater of the universe.

The Great Masquerade

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sat, 18 May 2013 02:55:00 +0000

Mask and Books, by Władysław Ślewiński (1854–1918)

Nearly all of us wear masks. It is almost impossible not to do so in a world so gripped by Ego. Most of us feel we must present a certain face to our employer, another to our spouse, another to our friends, and yet another to those who don't know us. The typical mask is usually diametrically opposed to the way we really are on the inside. Many go through life without ever knowing their true face.

From childhood, we mold our masks to fit a certain image that is inculcated throughout our formative years. Many factors create this phenomenon: family, societal norms, religion, social standing, education, etc. Sometimes, it's just easier to wear a mask than to be true to ourselves and our true face. In being someone else, it is easier to navigate the social waters we sail in. Even though it is, at times, a necessary fact of life, it's kind of a lazy way to live.

We know that Jung called this archetype the Persona and that this word is derived from the Greek word for "mask," specifically, the masks worn by ancient Greek actors. Referring to the Persona, Jung wrote:

Whoever looks into the mirror of the water will see first of all his own face. Whoever goes to himself risks a confrontation with himself. The mirror does not flatter, it faithfully shows whatever looks into it; namely, the face we never show to the world because we cover it with the persona, the mask of the actor. But the mirror lies behind the mask and shows the true face (Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious" (1935). In CW 9, Part I: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. P.43).

A gaze into this mirror can be dangerous, if one has identified with a particular mask, but no one said our journey would take the easily trodden path.

Of course, the idea of the Persona is intermingled with transformation. J.E Cirlot wrote:

All transformations are invested with something at once of profound
mystery and of the shameful, since anything that is so modified as to become
‘something else’ while still remaining the thing that it was, must inevitably be
productive of ambiguity and equivocation. Therefore, metamorphoses must be
hidden from view—and hence the need for the mask. Secrecy tends towards
transfiguration: it helps what-one-is to become what-one-would-like-to-be; and
this is what constitutes its magic character, present in both the Greek theatrical
mask and in the religious masks of Africa or Oceania. The mask is equivalent to
the chrysalis (A Dictionary of Symbols, p. 205).

Our mask is our chrysalis, if we allow it to be. First, however, we must be aware that we are not displaying our true face to the world. Once we realize that our true visage lies buried beneath a thin veneer of pretense, we can begin to become familiar with the person we truly are.

Animaterial Intercommunication

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 12 May 2013 00:24:00 +0000

The Artist's Garden at Giverny by Claude Monet

Plants have scientifically been shown to draw alternative sources of energy from other plants. Plants influence each other in many ways and they communicate through “nanomechanical oscillations” vibrations on the tiniest atomic or molecular scale or as close as you can get to telepathic communication (From the article, How Plants Help Each Other Grow By Near-Telepathic Communication, Michael Forrester.

Science is beginning to recognize the conjunctive, interactive, and participative nature of the universe. This is no surprise to we who have long held an animaterial point of view. The above article describes experiments which are simply more tangible evidence to the fact that Nature is connected down to the tiniest atomic particle. As I've said before, the phrase, "inanimate object," is an oxymoron. All things are animated, or are permeated with Soul.

This same Soul is the best hope mankind possesses. The sooner we accept our reality and our destiny, the sooner our world will improve. As with all things in the universe (The Hermetic maxim, As above, so below), we can apply the truths we are learning about plants to humankind. Read the article above and think of how these interactions should be functioning among all of us.

This process of coming into a deeper relationship with life is a process of coming into relationship with the ‘deep truth’. It is inter-relationship that is both with ourselves and with the world around us. It is a discovery, an immanent turn, available to those who have searched and found their ‘individuality’. It is a shift of focus from individuation to interrelation: from me to we. And thus immanence is love, but not libidinal love as desire. Instead, it is divine love, love for life, and love for being (Jung, The Deep Truth, by Dr. Jennifer Lilla).

May we seek the deep truth.

Ego And The Underworld

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 15:02:00 +0000

Night, by Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis, Public Domain

"Entering the underworld" refers to a transition from the material to the psychical point of view (James Hillman, The Dream and the Underworld, p. 51).

A great deal of our lives are spent walking in the light of the dayworld, where we identify with the Ego. The Ego is necessary to our survival in waking life. We function in the world of space and time via the Ego. It is three-dimensional, Apollonian, and Herculean. It is our waking Ego. This self, however, has a very special companion. The waking-Ego is shadowed by our dream-Ego, the person we identify with in our dreams. The dream-Ego is a shadow-Ego, or so we say. Is there any reason, short of our dayworld bias, that causes us to think of our waking-Ego as a more genuine self, and the shadow-Ego as the lesser, more inferior self? Is this dayworld merely the shadow of the underworld and our waking-Ego the shadow of our underworld-Ego? In my opinion, these two modes of presence, dayworld and underworld, shadow each other perfectly. Because we are so thoroughly identified with our dayworld-Ego, we critically need to become more familiar with our underworld-Ego by journeying down into Hades, boarding Charon's ferry, and making our way across the Styx, past Cerberus, and into the realm of the Dead.

The underworld is the realm of the Dead because Death is the ultimate unconsciousness. Those who die do not cease to be; we in the dayworld simply become unconscious of them. They will always exist. We may not be aware of them, but this doesn't preclude their existence. What is most crucial is that the underworld is the realm of Soul. The more we become familiar with it, the more Soul we accumulate. Soul and Death are intertwined like the serpents on the caduceus. Nightly, we travel downward, where we play out stories that are as old as the human species. Instead of trying to grab the shadowy figures we meet and drag them back up into the light of the dayworld (by trying to interpret our dreams so they make some kind of sense), it is in our best interest to remain there with them for a time and learn what they have to say. As we learn to recognize the archetypal motifs in our dreams, we come to know that life and death, dayworld and underworld, are two sides of the same coin. This is underworld epistemology.

The shadows of our dayworld Egos are very valuable. We tend to think of Hades in terms of a miserable Christian Hell, but it is not that at all. Hades is as much the god of wealth and plenty as he is the god of the realm of the dead. He is often depicted holding the cornucopia, or Horn of Plenty, symbolizing nourishment and abundance. This displays the value of shades in the underworld, the same shades we come in contact with every night. These figures are considered gods in many cultures. Our shadow-Egos are interpreted by these cultures as gods.

The dayworld Ego loves literalizations and ratiocinations; it loves to disparage imagination, intuition, and myth. The underworld-Ego thrives on metaphor, darkness, mystery, and perplexity. When you meet someone who tries to be totally logical and rational all the time, you can bet that person has not accumulated much Soul, if any.

When we make our nightly sojourn to the underworld, something happens to us. There is a benevolent process in the psyche that does something beyond our rational understanding. Perhaps it prepares us for the final journey to the underworld. It is a mystery. But we know something occurs. There is definitely an intermingling of consciousness and unconsciousness, as if small fissures open from below and vapors of underworld knowledge emanate upward. The dayworld-Ego, then, becomes cognizant of it. In this way, the two Egos intermingle and Soul accumulates little by little.

What Is The Underworld?

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 23:02:00 +0000

Gate of Hell, by William Blake

Through Me Pass into the Painful City,
Through Me Pass into Eternal Grief,
Through Me Pass among the Lost People.
Justice Moved My Master-Builder:
Heavenly Power First Fashioned Me With Highest Wisdom and with Primal Love.
Before Me Nothing Was Created
That Was Not Eternal, and I Last Eternally.
All Hope Abandon, You Who Enter Here (Dante's Inferno, Canto III 1-9).

These words, inscribed above the archway of the portal to Hell in Dante's Inferno are filled with gravitas, ring ominous, and seemingly warn of impending doom for the traveler who enters therein. This portal, however, leads to the greatest adventure ever undertaken by humans, the descent into Soul.

According to Aristotle, Heraclitus took Soul to be his first principle (De Anima, a2, 405a25). This means Heraclitus may have been the first depth psychologist, at least that we know of in our Western tradition. The main point is that Heraclitus emphasized the importance of the depth of existence by positing Soul as his archon, or first principle. He was the first thinker in the West that we know of to do so. Taking this into consideration, one must read his fragments with a downward gaze, peering through the entrance to Hades, and down into the Underworld.

in Fragment 54, Heraclitus states

The unseen harmony is better than the visible.

And in Fragment 123, he says

Nature loves to hide.

James Hillman discusses this idea of the hidden in his book, The Dream And The Underworld. Soul forever pursues the hidden, the invisible connections of existence. As we delve ever deeper for hidden connections (Truth), Soul grows stronger, deeper, and we more soulful.

...we may realize that the depth dimension is the only one that can penetrate to what is hidden; and since only what is hidden is true nature of all things, including nature itself, then only the way of soul can lead to true insight (p. 26).
So, depth = truth

and

Soul = depth

therefore

Soul = truth

Hillman suggests that Heraclitus, by implying such equations, foresaw the importance of an ontological and psychological hermeneutic, which has proven to be crucial to the work of Heidegger, Henry Corbin, and Hillman himself. Since, as Heraclitus believed, there is no end to depth (Fr. 45), all things inevitably become Soul (Fr. 36).

Pursuing depth will always lead one to the Underworld, ruled by Hades. The Ruler of the Dead is quite an interesting fellow. For instance, did you know that Hades is the god of the hidden wealth of the earth? One of the common names associated with Hades is Pluto, which is derived from ploutos, meaning "wealth." Hades is god of all precious minerals and metals that are mined from the depths of the earth, for

The entire bulk and substance of the earth, was dedicated to father Dis [Haides] (that is, Dives, ‘the rich’, and so in Greek Plouton), because all things fall back into the earth and also arise from the earth. - Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.26
He is also responsible for the fertility of crops, since it was Spring when he released Persephone, the goddess of Spring's bounty.

Furthermore, Hades is known as the god of funeral rites and mourning.

Of Haides it is said that he laid down the rules which are concerned with burials and funerals and the honours which are paid to the dead, no concern having been given to the dead before this time; and this is why tradition tells us that Haides is lord of the dead, since there were assigned to him in ancient times the first offices in such matters and the concern for them." - Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 5.69.5

The Underworld is the place of the dead, so Soul and death are intimately connected, since Soul always seeks the depths of the Underworld. We must not assume that Hades is an eschatological world, where souls go after death. The Underworld is a psychological reality in our lives right now. We travel there every night in our dreams. The Underworld is a shadow of our normal world of consciousness. It is very much with us constantly in our daily lives; it is simply hidden, since "nature loves to hide."

Hillman says, "all soul processes, everything in the psyche, moves toward Hades" (ibid., p. 30). We are "dying out of life" (ibid.). We spiral out of life into the deep places of the earth. We move from the visible to the invisible; from the shallows to the depths of Soul. This is not referring to literal death! We are dealing in metaphors. What is the deepest, most hidden thing we know of? Of course, it is death. We live daily with the angst of knowing the certitude of its arrival. Death is invisible, but ever present.

Hillman has an interesting idea about the words on the archway of the portal to the Underworld.What is the hope we must abandon at the entrance to the Underworld?

Again, we can follow Heraclitus (fr. 27): "When men die, there awaits them what they neither expect nor even imagine." The word translated here as "expect" is related in Greek to "hope" (elpis), so that the specific hope that is abandoned (Dante, Inferno 3) on entering the underworld perspective is the fantasy of daylife expectations and flesh-and-blood illusions. Souls in Hades are "incurable" said Plato. There is no alteration to be hoped for. Such hope would be to hope for the wrong thing (ibid. p. 43).

Hillman is here referring to the Jungian hope of wholeness, Jung's process of individuation, where all disparate elements of the Soul are gathered into a unified central Self. The Underworld entities, spoken of in Greek mythology, are always plural. The Underworld is a place of myriad figures. Even individual dead persons were not referred to as singular (ibid. p. 41) in mythological writings.

It is also important to remember that our dreams are very closely related to death and the Underworld, for they have their origin in the realm of Hades. Memento mori.

Monadic Soul

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:11:00 +0000


Cyclops, by Odilon Redon

As early as the Presocratic philosophers, the idea of non-reducible, indivisible units had been expressed as monads. For Pythagoras, it was the "all-including ONE" (Manly P. Hall). The universe is also a monad, but all the individual parts are as well. For Plato, the monads were likened to the Ideas. So, it is directly in line with this tradition to suggest that monads are indeed archetypal images, and therefore irreducible, and that everything derives from them.

It is fitting to match god with the monad, since god is in a seminal way (spermatikos) all beings in nature, as the monad is [potentially all things] in number; for things which appear in actuality to be extreme opposites, in absolutely every mode of opposition, are potentially contained within it, just as we saw, throughout the Introduction to the Arithmetic, that the monad took on every form, by a certain ineffable nature...The monad is absolutely the most authoritative of all things, like a pure light, sunlike and governing, (hegemonikos), so that it may resemble god in these respects, and above all in being a source of friendship and union for things multifarious most diverse, as god has harmonized and unified this universe from things similarly opposed (Nicomachus, qtd. by Charles H. Kahn, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History, p. 116-117).

I propose that these Pythagorean monads that I refer to as images, as in archetypal images, are the bases for, not only all empirical experiences, but any and all experiences we have in this life. I would equate the archetypes, as in Jung's archetypes of the collective unconscious, with monads and atoms (not the physical balls of matter we are so familiar with, but atoms in the ancient sense, as being indivisible and irreducible). These are the gods of Greek mythology.

What are archetypes images of? Of this we can only say, "All Monads are mirrors of the Universe. " (Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and Goethe, A Lecture given by Rudolf Steiner, Berlin, Architektenhaus, January 26, 1911). This was also the opinion of Giordano Bruno. Steiner goes on to explain that,

Such a Monad is the human soul, and they are many. Indeed, the human body itself is composed of many Monads, not of one. If we understand the truth about the physical body according to the ideas of Giordano Bruno, we shall not see the fleshly human body, but a system of Monads; these Monads cannot be clearly seen, just as we cannot distinguish the separate midges in a swarm; the chief Monad is the human soul. When the human soul comes into existence at birth, so said Giordano Bruno, the other Monads which belong to the soul collect together and, by this, the existence of the Chief-Monad, of the Soul Monad, is made possible (ibid).

Fascinating, no? So, now we know, according to Bruno, the so-called Chief-Monad is the Soul in each of us. Not only are the archetypes monads, but Soul is Monad. I don't really care for Steiner's hierarchical emphasis, as in "Chief-Monad," but I understand what he is trying to say. The main point in all of this is to link Soul to the ancient idea of monad. This was the view of the Pythagoreans. They believed all things emanated from the monad. An idea that has endured for over two millenia deserves to be reexamined.

A Tripartite Anthropology

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:10:00 +0000

Har and Heva bathing, Mnetha looking on, by William Blake

Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age (William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell).

Human being is tripartite in nature, but it is just an illusion of our language, a convenience of Western thought and communication that has evolved in the Western psyche, having become archetypal. When we discuss our nature, the Western tendency is to dissect and analyze our subject, so we speak of the tripartite nature of humans. In all reality, Body, Soul, and Spirit are actually one.

In the passage above, Blake prefers to discuss only Body and Soul, but stresses that they are indistinct. He calls Body "a portion of Soul discerned by the five senses." Perhaps he does not discuss Spirit because of the overemphasis that has been placed on Spirit in the West for many centuries. Western culture is primarily a Spirit-seeking society, even though many would deny this. We have been obsessed with Spirit for a long, long time. Spirit is ubiquitous in our culture. It is the driving force behind many Western standbys, like capitalism, technology, industry, religion, and even some mysticism and new age teachings. Anytime you hear someone talking about transcendence, you can bet Spirit is close by. Spirit is overemphasized at the expense of Soul. Many have forgotten about Soul, since it is much messier and less glamorous. We would rather soar in the heavens than slog through the morasses and quagmires of Soul. I believe Blake recognized what the overemphasis of Spirit had done to his world.

Spirit, however, is also a portion of Soul. Soul is actually the Mediatrix, the in-between of Spirit and Body. Speaking of Neoplatonism, James Hillman writes,

This tradition holds to the notion of soul as a first principle, placing this soul as a tertium between the perspectives of body (matter, nature, empirics) and of mind (spirit, logic, idea). Soul as tertium, the perspective between others and from which others may be viewed, has been described as Hermetic consciousness (Lopez-Pedraza 1977), as "esse in anima" (Jung [1921], CW 6, §66, §77), as the position of the mundus imaginalis by Corbin, and by Neoplatonic writers on the intermediaries or figures of the metaxy (Archetypal Psychology, p. 5).

Western thinking has been primarily focused on Body and Spirit alone, matter and mind in the Cartesian manner. This sort of dualism goes back much further, to perhaps the 9th century, at the Eighth General Council of Constantinople. In Canon 11, the council ruled that,

...the Old and New Testaments teach that man has one rational and intellectual soul, and this is the teaching also of all the fathers and doctors of the Church... (Medieval Sourcebook:
Eighth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople IV 869-70).

Basically, the Church said that only the rational mind is the Soul, but it is really an element of Spirit, thus leaving human being with only Body and Spirit. This is a gross misunderstanding. The rational mind originates with Spirit. Spirit has been the driving force behind Western progress ever since. The constant need for ascent and transcendence is the classic archetypal motif of Spirit. Spirit soars into the very upper regions of the atmosphere. It is most at home in very high places, where the air is thin and light, where one can sit atop and apart from the world and be superior to it. Spirit is cold, since the higher one ascends, the lower the temperature and the thinner the air. There is a snowy whiteness about spirit that makes it chilly and vapid, if taken to extremes. When you hear someone refer to "spiritual detachment," you'll know that the archetype of spirit is present.

Spirit is a valid, necessary human experience. A problem arises, however, when it is pursued to the exclusion of Soul. Spirit is height, but Soul is depth. What would we be like without depth? We would be cold, inanimate automatons, going around making positive affirmations, bathing in the light and rejecting the darkness. Spirit seeks intelligence, while Soul seeks imagination. We need both, of course, but we must never overemphasize one over the other. So many problems in our world have been caused by just this.

Even though there are three valid archetypal images of the human makeup, when all is said and done, all three are one, as are all things in our universe. All is animaterial, the intermingling of Body, Soul, and Spirit into one animaterial whole. Three in One, in all things, according to their various modes of presence. Humans have one mode of presence; animals another; and even stones have their mode of presence. In all things, however, human and otherwise, Soul is the tertium.

Animatter Is Equilibrium

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 23:42:00 +0000

Public Domain painting for NASA, by Donald David

This post is dedicated to Giordano Bruno

If we were conscious of the spirit of the age, we should know why we are so inclined to account for everything on physical grounds; we should know that it is because, up till now, too much was accounted for in terms of spirit. This realization would at once make us critical of our bias. We would say: most likely we are now making exactly the same mistake on the other side. We delude ourselves with the thought that we know much more about matter than about a "metaphysical" mind or spirit, and so we overestimate material causation and believe that it alone affords us a true explanation of life. But matter is just as inscrutable as mind. As to the ultimate things we can know nothing, and only when we admit this do we return to a state of equilibrium. This is in no sense to deny the close connection of psychic happenings with the physiological structure of the brain, with the glands and the body in general. We still remain deeply convinced of the fact that the contents of consciousness are to a large extent determined by our sense-perceptions. We cannot fail to recognize that unalterable characteristics of a physical as well as a psychic nature are unconsciously ingrained in us by heredity, and we are profoundly impressed by the power of the instincts which can inhibit or reinforce or otherwise modify even the most spiritual contents. Indeed, we must admit that as to cause, purpose, and meaning the human psyche, wherever we touch it, is first and foremost a faithful reflection of everything we call material, empirical, and mundane. And finally, in face of all these admissions, we must ask ourselves if the psyche is not after all a secondary manifestation-an epiphenomenon-and completely dependent on the physical substrate. Our practical reasonableness and worldly-mindedness prompt us to say yes to this question, and it is only our doubts as to the omnipotence of matter that might lead us to examine in a critical way this verdict of science upon the human psyche (C.G Jung, CW, Vol. 8, §657).

I see this as a very important passage of Jung's writing. He is commenting on the emphasis of Western thought on materialism, and why we should not be surprised that it has come to be this way. For centuries, during the Middle Ages, the balances were tilted in favor of spirit, to the exclusion of matter. The message Jung is conveying here is that reality is inscrutable, mysterious. We go through periods of compensation after experiencing extreme views, such as materialism. We go from one extreme to the other trying to untangle the web of truth, but both poles are deeply enigmatic. And of the ultimate things, like God, we can know nothing. When thinkers admit these truths, perhaps then equilibrium can be found. This current age of post-materialism I have deemed the Epoch of Soul, since the metaxical nature of Soul is equilibrium. This period has already dawned. We are gradually edging into balance.

The following is not a reductionist statement by Jung when he tells us that the psyche itself is a "secondary manifestation-an epiphenomenon...completely dependent on the physical substrate." Jung, unlike James Hillman, makes a distinction between psyche and soul. In one passage, he says,

I have been compelled, in my investigations into the structure of the unconscious, to make a conceptual distinction between soul and psyche. By psyche, I understand the totality of all psychic processes, conscious as well as unconscious. By soul, on the other hand, I understand a clearly demarcated functional complex that can best be described as a "personality". (Psychological Types, Collected Works, Volume 6).

So, in essence, the Anima and Animus archetypes are what Jung means by "soul." Psyche is the entire sphere of psychic activity. James Hillman does not differentiate between the two, but uses them interchangeably as "a deliberately ambiguous concept resisting all definition in the same manner as do all ultimate symbols which provide the root metaphors for the systems of human thought" (Suicide and the Soul, p. 46).

A conceptual outlook concerning these matters can quickly lead us into a trap. Our language limits us when discussing such things. Jung clearly believed the psyche, with its archetypes, was very closely tied to physical matter. His writings concerning the archetypes make it clear that he considered them the psychic correlates of biological instincts. Above, he says, "We cannot fail to recognize that unalterable characteristics of a physical as well as a psychic nature are unconsciously ingrained in us by heredity..." Evolution produced both our biological as well as psychic instincts (the archetypes). The only reason we speak in dualities is because of the extraordinary difficulty of writing about what I call Animatter. Actually, the process of evolution produced human-being-theres, in the sense of Heidegger's Dasein. These being-theres are animaterial, interrelated creatures that possess several modes of presence, one of which happens to be physical, one of which happens to be psychic. I close with this passage from Jung:

Since psyche and matter are contained in one and the same world, and moreover are in continuous contact with one another and ultimately rest on irrepresentable, transcendental factors, it is not only possible but fairly probable, even, that psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing (CW, Vol. 8, §418).

Images Are Prior To Experience

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:16:00 +0000

Odysseus in front of Scylla and Charybdis, by
Johann Heinrich Füssli

In the beginning is the image; first imagination then perception; first fantasy then reality...Man is primarily an imagemaker and our psychic substance consists of images; our being is imaginal being, an existence in imagination. We are indeed such stuff as dreams are made on (James Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology, p. 23).

Prior to our perceiving anything in this world, there are images that create our reality. Jung said, "The psyche creates reality every day." Our consciousness is totally dependent upon this vast storehouse of images we call Soul. Soul is Image and Image is Soul. The only way we experience anything in this world is because of our ability to imagine. We imagine and create constantly. Our consciousness would not exist without images. Images are the irreducible elements inherent in all animatter. At bottom, all is Image.

British philosopher, John Locke, claimed we are, at birth, a tabula rasa, a blank slate. He meant we are born without any innate psychological content. Locke proposed that all knowledge derives from empirical experience and perception. This is an egregious error. We are all born with a foundation of archetypal, imaginal content that is innate to our species.

Carl Jung claimed the archetypes are much like instincts. According to Jung, the archetypes are analogous to human instincts in that they are images of the instincts. They are inborn and unlearned, just like instincts. And just as instincts evolve from repeated experiences of a species, so have the archetypes evolved in the human species from repeated inner experiences. For example, the archetype of the hero, which Joseph Campbell spent considerable time writing about, is a process that is seen in all cultures, and which seems to have evolved as a means of overcoming what we call schizophrenia. According to Campbell (who is quoting a Dr. John Perry), the way a schizophrenic loses touch with reality and turns inward corresponds to the mythical journey of the hero, who

ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder; fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won; the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow men (Joseph Campbell. Myths to Live By, p. 209).

In the human experience, there arises an image in the imagination, one that is distinct from a daydream type of image (Henry Corbin would call a daydream image imaginary.) The image arises from unconsciousness to our conscious awareness. Many times, the images become metaphors in myth and literature, or are brought to life in works of art, or make their way into our moods and impulses. These images come to light in personified form as the heroes and villains of myths and legends. They also come to life through us, sometimes possessing our personalities. I am thinking here of someone like Adolf Hitler, who I believe was in the grip of a collective Shadow archetype.

Hillman says, "To live psychologically means to imagine things" (ibid.). Images are ordered by the archetypes. At their behest, images travel down particular, patterned pathways, motifs and mythologems. These ancient Gods constellate around certain mythemes, from which the world's great stories, fables, and sagas have been created.

Our lives are living metaphors. We all have a story. We all have a vault of images from which our particular world is fashioned. Our story is created by the archetypes, but it is up to us to bring it into manifestation. In order to do so, we must ponder the images, our personal dreams and imaginings, and act on them until they attain plasticity.

The Aphroditic Soul

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:30:00 +0000

Geburt der Venus, by Odilon Redon

...beauty is an ontological necessity, grounding the sensate particularity of the world. Without Aphrodite, the world of particulars becomes atomic particles. Life’s detailed variety is called chaos, multiplicity, amorphous matter, statistical data. Such is the world of sense without Aphrodite. Then sense must be made of appearance by abstract philosophical means - which distorts philosophy itself from its true base (The Thought of the Heart and the Soul of the World, by James Hillman, p.45).

The old proverb, "Beauty is only skin deep," attributed to Sir Thomas Overbury (1581-1613), is far from the truth. Sir Thomas was only thinking of carnal allurements when he coined this phrase. True beauty, as I stated earlier, is an essential characteristic of Soul. Without it, there is no Soul in this universe, nor any other. Western thinking, over the centuries, has stripped Beauty of its true value and meaning. By Sir Thomas' day, it meant no more than a pretty lady, a handsome gentleman, or some superficial material object.

Whenever Soul is presented to the senses, be it through a walk in the forest, a lovely sunset, or the smell after a Spring rain, the Goddess, Aphrodite, is unveiled to us. The truth we learn when experiences like these occur is that Soul is Aphroditic in nature. We usually think of Aphrodite as the Goddess of love and beauty; that is true, but what did the Greeks think and believe about Her? How did they understand Her gifts to the world?

Aphrodite was born, of course, when Cronus castrated Uranus and threw his genitals into the sea. Aphrodite emerged from the sea foam that formed around them. One of her names is, Anadiomeni, "one who emerges." This sense of emergence is quite important in understanding the nature of Soul and its accompanying Beauty.

James Hillman writes,

In pursuing what we mean by beauty we are obstructed by the word beauty itself. It strikes the ear as so effete, so ineffectual, lovely and etheric, so far removed from the soul’s desperate concerns. Again we see how our notions are determined by archetypal patterns, as if beauty had become relegated only to Apollo, the examination of invisible forms like music, belonging to collectors and subject to disputes in journals of aesthetics. Or, beauty has been given over wholly to the soft hands of Adonis and Paris, beauty as violets, mutilation and death. In Plato and Plotinus, however, beauty does not have this glabrous, passive and ungenerative sense at all, and it is rarely brought into relation with art. In fact beauty is not ‘beautiful’ and Socrates’ person is witness. Rather, the beautiful in Platonic thought can only be understood if we can enter an Aphroditic cosmos and this in turn means penetrating into the ancient notion of aisthesis (sense-perception) from which aesthetics derives (ibid., p. 41-42).

I don't know about you, but I want to enter this "Aphroditic cosmos." It is not far off somewhere in another world; it is right here, where we are! We just need to learn to open ourselves to the Aphroditic experience, the emerging and unconcealing of Her beauty in her role as Anima Mundi. I believe this level of experience occurs when Soul mediates sensory data via the Imagination, transforming the experience into a powerful noumenal encounter with the Gods. How difficult it is to put these things into words!

This is what the Romantic poets discovered in their day. Read these words of Goethe and feel how Soul brings these images to life in your heart. Soul makes these images live to the point of becoming sensate, to where there is no separation between physical sense and spiritual sense:

Now I leave this little hut,
Where my beloved lives,
Walking now with veiled steps
Through the shadowy leaves.
Luna shines through bush and oak,
Zephyr proclaims her path,
And the birch trees bowing low
Shed incense on her track.
How beautiful the coolness
Of this lovely summer night!
How the soul fills with happiness
In this true place of quiet!
I can scarcely grasp the bliss!
Yet, Heaven, I would shun
A thousand nights like this,
If my darling granted one (Goethe, The Lovely Night).

This is Soul. This is Aphrodite's emergence from the world.

The Beauty Of Soul

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:59:00 +0000

Geburt der Venus, by Lovis Corinth

Some may wonder why I spend so much time writing about Soul. I decided many years ago that Soul was the most beautiful, the most fascinating, and the most perplexing of pursuits among all human endeavors. As little free time as most people have, including myself, I want to spend it, for these reasons, thinking and writing of Soul. What better path to travel than the vortical highway that is the Soul, for along the way there are many wondrous things to see and learn. As James Hillman wrote,

...psyche is the life of our aesthetic responses, that sense of taste in relation with things, that thrill or pain, disgust or expansion of breast: these primordial aesthetic reactions of the heart are soul itself speaking (The Thought of the Heart and the Soul of the World, p. 39).

In a nutshell, Soul is Beauty. The man who most likely was responsible for initiating the European Renaissance, Francesco Petrarca (20 July 1304 – 19 July 1374), better known as Petrarch, fell in love with Soul on April 6, 1327, when his eyes fell upon a beautiful young girl named Laura:

It was on that day when the sun's ray
was darkened in pity for its Maker,
that I was captured, and did not defend myself,
because your lovely eyes had bound me, Lady (The Canzoniere)

Petrarch never had a relationship with this young woman, but he carried her in his heart the remainder of his days. In her, he realized the beauty and truth of Soul. This is, of course, what Jung called the anima archetype, that unconscious feminine Person that men possess within them.

There are many examples of this in literature. Some of the most famous are Dante and Beatrice, Arthur and Guinevere, and Tristan and Isolde. These stories relate the relationship of man with the Soul. The Soul is, indeed, beautiful beyond comprehension, but it is also dangerous and powerful, not something to be taken lightly. One feels sometimes as if one were standing at the precipice of a bottomless abyss. There are the deepest dangers there. But, if we remain in harmony with Soul, She will always comfort us, even if we do happen to plunge downward occasionally.

Soul is essentially aesthetic in nature. All of the beauty we experience in life derives from Soul. If one does not recognize this source of Beauty, one cannot realize the fulness of Soul. Remember Aphrodite. Remember that "Beauty is the manifest anima mundi" (James Hillman).

Beauty is not an abstraction, as is much of Aesthetics in academic Philosophy. Beauty is actually sensate, perceptible, and is revelatory. Beauty is a revealing, a theophany of the Gods in all their splendor. Beauty is in the Greek sense, aisthesis. The image is not transcendent or immanent within the object at hand, but lucidly perceptible. This is one very essential characteristic of Soul.

This discussion reminds me of my Heidegger studies, particularly his revival of truth as unconcealment (aletheia) and his idea of ready-to-hand. This also corresponds nicely with something zoologist and anthropologist, Adolf Portmann (1897-1982), said,

Visible appearance itself must be understood above all in the widest sense as ’self-presentation’ of the protoplasmic individual. Not only are optical, acoustic, and olfactory features of the individual in a state of rest part of this self-presentation, but so are its movements, its forms of expression, all of its manifestations in space and time… The taking into account of self-presentation as a primary property of life justifies by itself a complete and autonomous theory of forms.… Beings in relationship with the world are not just living machines which live in function of their activities and metabolism. They are above all beings which display themselves in their singularity without this self-presentation being primarily related to sense organs. (Adolf Portmann on the New Biology, by Gianna Maria Gatti (translated by Alan N. Shapiro).

The idea of self-presentation seems related to the Greek idea of aletheia in its sense of self-presenting reality as theophany. Such is the nature of Soul.

By the way, Portmann was one of the founding lecturers, along with C.G. Jung, at the Eranos conferences in Switzerland.

This is a fruitful line of discussion which I will undoubtedly continue to pursue.

Musings On Metaphor And Allegory

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:11:00 +0000

Corbin's distinction between the imaginal and the imaginary, discussed in the last article, runs parallel to the distinction between metaphor and allegory. Corbin claims that

...the general tendency is to juxtapose the real and the imaginary as if the latter were unreal, utopian, just as it is customary to confuse the symbol with allegory, or the exegesis of spiritual meaning with allegorical interpretation. Allegory, being harmless, is a cover, or rather a travesty of something that is already known or at least knowable in some other way; whereas, the appearance of an Image that can be qualified as a symbol is a primordial phenomenon (Urphaenomen). Its appearance is both unconditional and irreducible and it is something that cannot manifest itself in any other way in this world (Mundus Imaginalis, translated from French by Ruth Horine, 1972).

This German word, Urphaenomen, is an idea from Goethe that refers to an archetypal phenomenon, particularly in Nature. Much of Goethe's theory of science rests on this principle. An image as Urphaenomen is Nature (as Gestalt) revealing Herself primordially as an irreducible element of the complex whole. This order of image is a complex unveiling of truth that will always remain mysterious, for the true symbolic image possesses infinite meanings. One will never plumb the depths of the image of Soul, for instance.

These primeval symbolic images are best presented, not as allegories, but as metaphors. Metaphorical language is the language of Soul. Thus, there is a correlation between imaginal reality and metaphor, just as there is a correlation between imaginary reality and allegory. The imaginal, presented as metaphor, is much deeper and more complex in describing those aspects of reality that have infinite layers of meaning, such as the metaphor, God.

An allegory is nothing but the use of something known to represent some moral truth or trope in figurative terms, such as in the book, Pilgrim's Progress, written by John Bunyan in 1678. No new truths were revealed in this work, just the retelling of the Gospel story. In a lecture on Pilgrim's Progress, Ian Johnston of Malaspina University-College (now Vancouver Island University), comments that

Allegories need to be distinguished from symbolic stories. Both allegorical structures and symbolic structures derive their full meaning from something beyond the literal meaning of the word, event, image, or character in the fiction. That is, they both point to a range of meanings beyond themselves. The major difference is that in allegories the reference point is clear and relatively unambiguous; whereas, with symbols the range of meaning is more ambiguous and uncertain.

The metaphor is the preferred language of the unconscious because metaphors are images that catapult one beyond the literal to the Mundus Imaginalis. The unconscious speaks through imagery. This is not the imaginary kind of images, but imaginal symbols, which originate from the realm of the Imaginal.

Imagination Takes Us Beyond The Mountain Of Qaf

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:50:00 +0000

In his classic essay, Mundus Imaginalis, Henry Corbin attempts to articulate the distinction between the imaginal and the imaginary. This distinction has been necessary for discussion since Western scholars took a turn towards Averroism in the twelfth century. At this fork in the Western philosophical road, the acceptance of aspects of Averroes' philosophy, particularly his cosmology, over that of Avicenna, led to the disparagement of imagination even down to our day and age.

There is a confusion in the West about imagination. We have been led to believe, since the twelfth century, that all things imagined are not as important as material things, or even that they are unreal. Corbin draws the distinction of 1) imaginatio vera, true Imagination, which corresponds to the Mundus Imaginalis; and 2) personal fantasies, which he calls "imaginary."

Prior to this cleavage of being, the ancient world enjoyed an undifferentiated consciousness:

The ancients--and by the ancients I mean the Greeks, the Romans, and the Graeco-Roman Christians--the ancients experienced an awareness open to what lay around them, and they experienced no sense of dichotomy between their awareness and everything else. What they found in their own minds or intellects was of like character with much of what was outside it; what they found in the world could in large part move directly into their minds and be possessed by it. There was an ontological continuity between what happened in their intellects and what happened in the kosmos or world (F. Edward Cranz, unpublished ms, The Reorientation of Western Thought c. 1100 A.D., qtd. in The World Turned Inside Out, by Tom Cheetham, pg. 120.).

Tom Cheetham comments,

And, so, thanks to our "history of being," we confound the esoteric with the subjective (and therefore the "unreal") and the exoteric with the objective (and therefore the "real") (The World Turned Inside Out, pg. 120).

Cranz sees no way back to the ancients' mode of consciousness; Corbin seems to think there is a way. He believes the Mundus Imaginalis was lost due to the decadence of Western rationalism:

Whenever imagination strays and is wasted recklessly, when it ceases to fulfill its function of perceiving and producing the symbols that lead to inner intelligence, the mundus imaginalis...may be considered to have disappeared (Mundus Imaginalis, by Henry Corbin).

This realm of the Eighth Clime, as it is described in Islam, is lost to our current mode of consciousness, that of empiricism and ratiocination. The good news, however, is that our Western mode of consciousness is changing, is returning to an ontology that recognizes a reality more encompassing than simply things perceived by the physical senses. I personally feel the work of thinkers like C.G. Jung, James Hillman, Henry Corbin, and many others have led us back to the fork in the road and have enabled us to retrace our steps, thus bringing us to a better understanding of the role of human imagination in our lives. I prefer to think we already have recovered that path and are currently on a journey beyond the mountain of Qaf.

Is Consciousness The Same As Soul?

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 14:52:00 +0000

Plate from The Song of Los, by William Blake

Is Soul the same as consciousness? No. What is consciousness? It is the state of being aware. Soul encompasses both unconsciousness and consciousness. What is the origin of consciousness? How do we become aware of unconscious things? First of all, we must not reify consciousness. It is a state, not a Being in and of itself. It is a quality of Being. Many times, we tend to talk about "the unconscious" and "consciousness" as if we were referring to Beings. They are not. Rather, they are qualities of Beings. The avoidance of anthropomorphism is the best route to take when thinking along these lines. On the other hand, the unconscious is populated with living Persons who should be taken very seriously. This is where Soul becomes crucial.

For many years, it has been very common to hear talk of "Souls" being immaterial, as if a Soul were a wispy spirit floating about. There is nothing that is immaterial. These people have a confused idea of Soul. It is quite common in new age parlance to identify the "spiritual life" and "consciousness" with archetypal ideas of Soul and depth psychology, in general. Granted, Spirit is a very important idea, but it is not the same idea as Soul. There is a clear distinction between these ideas (for that is what they are), which you can read about in my article, Distinguishing Between Soul and Spirit. They are perspectives on life, not entities that float around and clothe themselves with suits of flesh.

I made a statement in the previous paragraph that I should further explicate. I said, "There is nothing that is immaterial." No, I am not a positivist or hyper-materialist. I adhere to a philosophy known as Animaterialism. According to Animaterialism, all matter is Soul and Soul is matter. Soul is not an invisible phantom living on the inside of matter. This is dualism. I am affirming the monistic unity of matter and Soul. The phrase, "inanimate object" is an oxymoron. There is nothing inanimate because all things are Soul-Matter, or, as I call it, Animatter, one reality.

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims this kind of monism as a reduction of Soul to matter. Actually, the Roman Church, following Aristotle, maintains that matter represents decay and imperfection, while the Soul represents life, energy, and perfection. Perhaps this is where people confuse Spirit and Soul; Spirit is more acquainted with light, energy, and perfection, while Soul is sometimes associated with darkness, decay, and imperfection. Soul lives close to the Earth, with all its imperfections and entanglements of everyday existence, while Spirit wants to soar into the heavens and be perfected. Matter is not death, as the Church seems to think. Matter is just as much life as is Soul. This idea of matter being evil, having its origin in negative Gnosticism, is what caused acts of self-flagellation and other strange practices by members of the Catholic Church. Viewing matter as evil is simply bizarre, in my opinion. This is why our planet has been treated harshly by Western culture. In their eyes, since matter is viewed as evil, it is something to be subdued and ruled with an iron fist.

Human existence is not a neat little tripartite box of body, soul, and spirit that we can precisely define. A human is more of a polytheistic amalgam of images and ideas. We are many persons in the same animaterial locale we call a body. Every one of our atoms is teeming with Soul, both consciousness and unconsciousness. We are of divine design and divine origin. Our land of origin is a mystery that we will not know about until we experience death. In dreams, we have a foretaste.

It is image that gives birth to matter. All material things are provided their form by the Cosmic Mind, which in my thinking, is the fusion of the Anima Mundi and the Spiritus Mundi. In our Universe, there is, for want of a better word, a Force that creates and continuously brings into being new forms of matter. At this point, I'm not sure if this Force is part of our universe, which would make my philosophy pantheism, or whether it is paradoxically separate, which I suppose would be a form of panentheism. I dislike labels like these, however. I simply write what I see in my imagination.

The Underground River

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:05:00 +0000

Our little terranean Egos are perched high above an immense underground river. Few realize the mighty current that flows beneath us. Most of us in the West have lost our Souls because we have forgotten this river. The river of which I write feeds into the ancient ocean of unconsciousness, bearing along all possible images of creation. Images are the irreducible element of human being. It is not subatomic particles, as scientists believe, but images that drive life in our universe.

Our very essence is governed by the subterranean river of imagination. The current of images that flow in this river directly influences our daily lives. The systolic and diastolic of Soul are managed by how we interact with it. If we pretend it is not there, it's raging torrent will engulf us. If we interact with it on a regular basis, it will enrich our lives beyond our wildest dreams. It is truly a river of life, but it can also be a river of death.

Many are terrified of the river . A few hearty individuals will be quite comfortable swimming in it. Those who are most at home possess shamanistic gifts. These persons spend their lives navigating the river. Shamans regularly swim in the river of imagination. Of the shaman, Mircea Eliade writes,

He commands the techniques of ecstasy - that is, because his soul can safely abandon his body and roam at vast distances, can penetrate the underworld and rise to the sky. Through his own ecstatic experience he knows the roads of the extraterrestrial regions. He can go below and above because he has already been there. The danger of losing his way in these forbidden regions is still great; but sanctified by his initiation and furnished with his guardian spirit, a shaman is the only human being able to challenge the danger and venture into a mystical geography" (Mircea Eliade, Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy).

The subterranean river of images is an integral part of the "mystical geography." As rivers on the surface wander through many different topographies, so this river meanders through the topographies of the Underworld before emptying into the Great Mother, the ocean of the unconscious. As it moves along, it gathers more and more images along the way. Sometimes, images are washed up along the banks. These are images which are no longer viable for human experience and must needs be discarded. Heraclitus said no one cannot enter into the same river twice. The flow is constantly changing. If we refuse to at least wade in its shallow places, we will be cut off from the flow of images. Our dreams are our built-in way of wading in the shallows. If we desire to venture further into the current, something like active imagination would be required.

Rivers are usually seen as boundaries. The river of imagination is no different. It is the boundary between soulfulness and soullessness. If we regularly wash ourselves in this river, our Souls will be nourished and properly cared for. If we ignore it, our Souls will wither away to the point of non-existence. Having dreams is not sufficient for the Soul's nourishment, although it does help somewhat. If we want to partake of what the river of imagination has to offer us, we must choose to participate in its imagery.

Cronus Swallows His Children

noreply@blogger.com (Zeteticus (Mark Dotson)) — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:34:00 +0000

Saturn, Jupiter's father, devours one of his sons, Neptune, by Peter Paul Rubens

Cronus was the youngest of the twelve Titans, the offspring of Gaia and Uranus. Cronus took his own sister, Rhea, also a Titan, as his wife. The union of Cronus and Rhea was a very special one. They produced several of the most powerful gods in the Greek pantheon: Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, Poseidon and Zeus. Hesiod tells us in The Theogony that Cronus was very cunning. He was the most terrible of all the Titans (ll. 116-138). Cronus hated his father, Uranus, because he was cruel to his children. Cronus' mother, Gaia, pleaded with her sons to punish Uranus for his evil ways. Cronus was the only one willing to do the deed. She fashioned a sickle with jagged teeth, made from grey flint and gave it to Cronus. When Uranus came to lay with Gaia that night, Cronus emasculated him with the adamantine sickle and threw his members into the sea.

Cronus and his wife, Rhea, became the most powerful gods at this time, beginning what is known as The Golden Age in Greek mythology, a primordial era of peace and prosperity. At some point, it was prophesied by Gaia and Uranus that one of Cronus' children would overthrow him. To prevent this, Cronus swallowed each of his children at the time of their birth. When it was time for Zeus to be born, Rhea devised a plan to deceive Cronus and save her son from being devoured. Rhea gave birth to Zeus on the island of Crete. She gave Cronus a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes, which is known as the Omphalos Stone, and kept Zeus hidden from his father in a cave. Thinking it was his son, Cronus swallowed the stone.

When Zeus was fully grown, his grandmother, Gaia, gave him an emetic that Zeus administered to Cronus, causing all the children he had swallowed to be vomited from him. The Omphalos Stone was also spewed forth. Zeus placed this stone at "Pytho under the glens of Mount Parnassus to be a sign to mortal men" (Wikipedia). Finally, Zeus and his siblings overthrew the Titans and became the supreme gods.

The myth of Cronus swallowing his children speaks to the idea of wholeness, integration, oneness, etc. It is the nature of the psyche to be multifarious, being composed of many forces and powers we call archetypes. Movements toward oneness, such as Jung's ideas of integration and individuation, are allusions to the myth of Cronus swallowing his children. Jung's idea of integration seems influenced by Christian monotheism, which also attempts to swallow all others in a quest for the One God. In the psyche, the many powers must cease their individuality and be integrated into a supreme Self in the fully-individuated human being. There is no room for the variegated powers and forces to manifest themselves as themselves.

When Cronus swallowed his children, they were in a dark place, comparable to the unconscious. When monotheistic movements swallow all other gods, they are banished to the darkness of unconsciousness, where, if continually suppressed, they eventually rear their heads as complexes and diseases.

We are creatures imbued with many powers within us. If we ignore them, we fall into great peril. Let us not be like Cronus.