How To Find Your Soul with Plato, Carl Jung and James Hillman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июн 2024
- Mythopoetic psychologists like Carl Jung and James Hillman knew we needed to re-ensoul the psyche if we wanted to find real purpose in life. But what does that really mean? How do we even begin to go about understanding and finding our souls? In this transmission, I’ll attempt to answer those questions through ancient Platonic wisdom, the thought of Jung and Hillman and, of course, some speculative wonder-dipping.
Support Third Eye Drops 🌀
🥰 Support TED and join the community on Patreon:
/ thirdeyedrops
Hear our 300-plus other podcasts:
🎧 Apple Podcasts:
thirdeyedrops.com/itunes
🎧 Spotify:
shorturl.at/ahnB1
🌀 Website
www.thirdeyedrops.com
YES. A psycho-spiritual firmament. It's spiritual architecture. Thank you so much for this field of interpretation! It's been a revelation for me. Blessings!! 🐉⍺♘
✨🙏✨
Absolutely enamored with this entire thought stream.
Love to hear it. It’s a deep one and there are other places to go that I had to forego… for now!
I am utterly amazed that I’ve only just now stumbled across your channel. Your articulate and eloquent delivery is refreshing and really sets you apart from the vast majority of content creators! I’ll no doubt be binge-listening to your videos for days.
Welcome and gratitude to you for the kind words my friend.
I suck at commenting, will try to be better - but popping in to say I appreciate you soooo much! You're so good for my brain 🥴
✨🙏✨
12:50 Er's after death experience. Wow, when I was young I found a colored chart of "celestial realms" in a second hand book. I kept it for a long time, as it had a weird fascination for me. I think it had ether and Akashic records on it, don't really remember. But it seems very similar to the details of the Er story as presented here.
I had mentioned Neil Theise's "Notes On Complexity - a scientific theory of consciousness and being," having heard him on The Armchair Expert. He ends his book by exploring "the hard problem of consciousness" and in short ends up making the case for the Platonic Ideal, which I was reading last night -- synchronicity? I think he's be a great guest on your show. 'Love your work! TY
Oh interesting, thanks for bringing that one to my attention. Definitely would like a list of platonic thinkers
Your videos just keep getting better and better! 💜
Thanks brother!
To everyone reading this, I sincerely pray for that whatever is causing you pain or stress will pass. May your negative thoughts, excessive worries and doubts disappear, replaced by clarity and understanding. May your life be filled with peace, tranquility and love ❤
If you really cared 😮 u would do something about it , u would do something that matters. But you sit around and pray, prey ! Hahaha
What are you doing right now
@@coreyherr3471 Do you sincerely believe positivity is not warranted?
Amazing parallels to the Norse tree of life and the three Norns who weave our Wyrd (fate)
I love that it’s almost “weird.” I think we can safely sat that life is indeed weird.
I am so interested in all I am learning here. Thank you!
Writing this comment to support the channel! Thank you so much ❤
The displayed ideas in this video are so deep and interesting, it feels intuitively right
I’m glad it’s hitting and thank you 🙏
Incredible timing on this.
Love it
🙏
Well done, a superb video, I love your channel and am also a big fan of the works of Carl Jung. it seems to me that the collective unconscious is the afterlife, the place that all souls go to rest.
"I Ching is 64 Codon, and is the exact structured mirrored image, of the Human Genetic Code."
"The irregular fractal vicissitudes of the flowing medium of time, are quantum mechanical discontinuities, magnified to macro-physical dimensions, by the kind of chemistry we call living."
"I Ching is a dynamic picture of organism."
...
These 3 statements by Terrence Mckenna, concerning the I CHING, answers the question...
What is the 'Nature of Being in Time?' - ...The Dao ...The Way ...
I am loving this channel. One thing truly confounds me about the channel though… how is it possible, given the content I’ve already seen, that you have seemingly not mentioned Stanlisav Grof even once? You MUST know about his work… right?
Indeed I do, yes he’s definitely someone I should be referencing. And thank you!
as I am watching this video, I started reflecting on Carl Jung and what he'd think or say if he was still alive today. then I thought, I'd love to see a video where you share your thoughts (maybe with a guest) on exactly that question; what Jung would say about our society in the West, his work being spoken of on RUclips and on podcasts and in healing circles (for a lack of a better term) online etc. just thought I'd throw that out there.
Thank you for sharing this knowledge in such a pleasant way.
✌️✌️✌️
YOU ARE THE BEST! I DO WISH I WAS BETTER EDUCATED AND HAD A BIGGER VOCABULARY BUT NONE THE LESS. I WORK HARD AT MY SPIRITUAL GROWTH EVERY DAY!
thank you!
Love your videos! So good!!!
Hard work-great work you are doing here with full sincerity, dedication and humbleness. You are helping creating the new future society. 🎩
Beautifully presented and produced! Some of the images you use are stunning.
Killing it homie 🤙🏻
Thank you my friend!
Just finding you page! Loving what I'm finding!
Wow. Just wow. Blown away ... subbed!
✨🙏✨
It's exciting to move from developing a model to utilising it as a kind of foci of attention through which meaning for concrete actions be formulated.
Quality videos man! Incredible progress in every aspect. Inspirational.
✨🙏✨
Well done sir!
✨🙏✨
very deep and interesting !! the most useful and educational video I have seen lately: every body should watch it❤️❤️
🙏🙏🙏
JEZUS. Amazing vid. Thank you for your work. I perhaps have some strengths in quick poetic wit, however your ability to break this shit down so succinctly is far beyond me. Brilliante!
Great work. I've been working on a video that dives into the physical aspect of this topic, and yours has helped me gather some good viewpoints.
Thanks for taking the time to make this
✨🙏✨
Big fan! Particularly loved your conversation with Bernardo Kastrup !
Thanks! Working on getting him back ✌️
Thank you so much. I've been going through so much and these are things I've been feeling and I needed to know there was space for that. Thanks for turning up the dial on mystery.
🙏🙏🙏
Indeed. Thank you : )
✨🙏✨
Fantastic video, great explanations. Thank you
Thanks friend. Nice name too!
@@THIRDEYEDROPS Thank you ❤️
There are so many plausible hypotheses of objective meaning.
At some point though one remembers that happy people don’t need to seek, for they are at journey’s end. 🙂
Absolutely love this channel.
Its a breath of fresh air with all the copy pasta channels and "spiritual fad" stuff goin on.
Much appreciated my friend. Doing what I can 🙏
@@ArtfulRascal8I find the copy linguini ones the most annoying. Lol. 😊
@@kathyannk lol!
This myth is excellent. I want to go read it in more detail and Joseph Campbell interpret it personally. Finding an easter egg that speaks to you personally in an allegory… it can really pluck a note inside.
On your dead turtle Hermes lyre you play a psychic note. lol
This is amazing 🎉
🙏🙏🙏
Only 18 seconds in and the first quote really reminds me of Nietzsche’s Pale Criminal passage from Zarathustra.
Where in essence, he states that a lot of the type of men who would have been heroic warriors in ancient times, are now being imprisoned and deemed mentally ill because they have no where to release their overbearing instincts and be socially accepted, or even glorified.
Now I don’t take some cringy monosphere footing and say this account is 100% true and that war would be awesome. But there is some degree of truth to that statement.
The modern individual, especially in early childhood development, needs space to roam and roar.
Without that space, many problems, as illustrated in the zeitgeist of the modern psyche, will arise and flourish.
Excellent well constructed video. The Myth of Er I have found invaluable. If you would like to extend your knowledge of Platonic mysteries, I recommend you study "The Ten Books on Architecture" by Vitruvius. Use the translation by Morris Hicky Morgan. Especially become familiar with the mathematical specifications for the ideal man. They are in Book 3.
Thank you my friend. I’ll definitely look into Vitruvius
Ambrosia indeed my friend ☺️
Soulful Synergetic Synchronizations Batman!
Thank you for another excellent, insightful video. I recently came across the Myth of Er on Patch Drury's Daimon Possessed channel and now after watching this video, I think I will have to delve into it and see what I can grok from it.
I’ll have to check that out!
Good video
Thank you!
The interaction of forms as relates to the formless indwelling self
I always knew this deep down somehow
Ambrosia, indeed.
Book in the Background is the Red Book, page 96 and 97.
book33
Wow well done
Anima Mundi - welcome back the soul
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the Strong Nuclear Force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the Strong Nuclear Force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
Theology is broken because Religious Dogmatics won't call Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 the false Elohim. If they'd only read an uncensored Bible they'd see that Yahweh is introduced as an Elohim, not El (nullifying the "no two powers in heaven" heresy).
Can the smartest person in the world get the right answer to an incorrect equation?
Physics is broken because we chose Newton instead of Leibniz (Newton said 0 is contingent and 1 is necessary/Leibniz said 0 is necessary and 1 is contingent). Thankfully that Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement and that the universe is contingent (or, in three words, "not locally real") happened a year or so ago. NASA's mirror universe theory with 0D at the center matches theology perfectly you should check it out.
Ever since that Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement, 0D is necessary and 1D-4D are contingent (just like Leibniz said well over 300 years ago) and this is a mirror universe centered on 0D. 2D is not the center of the universe anymore and probably never should have been.
The Monad (first emanation of God) is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force. Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖.
This is the contingent and less real side of the zero-of you. Logos side.
The other side of the zero-of you is the necessary and more real side. Theos side.
There's Evil here because God (Theos, El, Deus) is on the other side of 0D. Kabbalah says that God's first act of creation was the "self-withdrawal" to allow emptiness/ space for creation to take place in.
This side of 0D is Holy Trinity (Genesis 1 true Elohim) vs Unholy Trinity (Genesis 2 false Elohim).
"Deus" means "God", "Dea" means "Goddess", and "Dei" could either mean "gods" (plural) or "God's" (possessive) based on context.
The Hebrew counterparts to the Latin above are El, Elah and Elohim. The Hebrews "syncretized" these three titles into all just meaning "El". The sheer amount of biblical contradictions that has caused is staggering.
Simply use the NOG translation on Bible Gateway to avoid the nearly 70,000 biblical contradictions this causes in most every Bible on earth. Also, it's nice to see where and how El, Elah and Elohim are used your Old Testament.
God (El/Theos/Deus, etc.) is right on the other side of the zero-of you. Don't let anyone tell you they (or their Institution) are between you and God (El/Theos/Deus). They are not.
There's a mathematical construct called a Rindler Horizon at the quantum scale with the Monad and at the cosmological scale with black holes. 1D, 2D, 3D spatial extension stuff cannot pass this barrier. Everything 1D, 2D, 3D is created at the quantum and destroyed at the cosmological, including our contingent persona.
Closed-system entropy is a failed theory, it's now ectropy (always has been).
2D gravity is a failed theory, it's now 0D ether (always has been).
Yahweh Elohim (not El) from Genesis 2 is the false Elohim (always has been).
We have the Logos and the best of all possible worlds, pack your shit we're going to a wedding (the marriage of theology and physics).
Where’s this from?
I am tickling the algorithm. 🙃❤
🫶🫶🫶
"The Psychic Coil chooses the Mental Sheath at birth."
Thus man's reincarnations unveil the Collective Unconscious, giving rise, to the Collective Dream, in the quest of Archetypal Resonance.
Jung's Mythopoeic interpretation, parallels the Waking Sleep of Anthroposophy, and the Turiya of the Eastern philosophies.
Here is how I worked it out, so far - Appetite level is symbolized by the goat, Pan.
Passion level is symbolized by Ares/Mars/"Ar"/War and his wife "Art" which means using your passion to create beautiful things, not war. Mars has a level of "I just go berserk"/murderous rampage/destroying all the beautiful things. The highest level I call "alphabet", which is like logos. Mind without body. It means turning your mind to studying symbols, meanings, patterns, systems. Learning. Abstract concepts. I include the monkey with writing tablet images from ancient Egypt and China at this level, but I am not sure what they mean. I think the meaning is something like "the uncanny" which is weirdness, which is what triggers you to start thinking "What does this mean?" The wife at this level would be the rescued female of many myths. Rescued from the underworld, the dragon, the evil father, etc.
We have free will that is bound by higher spiritual powers, until we become the higher spiritual powers, where we surrender to divine wills
Continue!
he probably means the flower of life as a symbol
What does paradagma mean? I love this video as well.
Thank you. It means pattern, model, plan, paradigm. I’m using it as a synonym for an individual pattern of fate as Hillman did. Not sure how common that is 🤷♂️
Please do a show on Enantiodromia
Eros is much much more than that, you are describing the three parts of the souls, logistikon, epithemetikon and theymoid. But Eros is the connecting force between the world of Ideas and the Physis. Oue natural world. This Eros, belongs to the Ourania (Etherial, skybound) Aphrodite. Aphrodite represents the beauty, the cosmic beauty. Eros is what the creator used to construct the physis. In the book symposium Socrates tells us also that Eros as a Demon, and as a great demon is in between the mortal and the immortal. He transfers to the humans whatever is coming from the gods and to the gods what ever comes from the humans. Eros is the medium si that the universe can have an internal connection. (Ether?)
The name Eros comes from the verb eroeo means quick, and decisive flow, orbit, motion. This quick and decisive motion is given by Hermes and his name comes from Eiro "speak, connect, putting things together. Hermes is the one who created the Logos as in languages, and logic and synapses... Bonded with Aphrodite.... Beauty. Logos is God Pan the son of Hermes... Pan in greek means "everything" and has to do with the true logos that connects you to true Logos with a capital L (that takes tou to the world of ideas) or the fake logos (see our reality) that takes you to the lower instincts, passions, suffering etc... thats why the God is presented as half goat half man. The human top part tales you to the true Logos, the lower instincts, greed, egoistic living etc take you to the illusion of self. Goat in greek is tragos. Thats where the name tragedy comes from .... If youre loving with your lower instincts you're running straight to your tragedy...! Literally means Tragos + Ode. "Singing your Goat Blues" so to speak 😂
All these meanings connect via greek words, Hero as a word is connected to Eros. In Greek "questioning" is Erotisi... Even the word "freedom" in Greek has Eros inside... It's "Eleytheria". long analysis Eley-theria... It goes all the way to the Eley-sinian Mysteries..
I found your channel the other day i am really enjoying it! Greetings from Greece 🏛️
❤️
🙏🏻💫💖
✨🙏✨
👏👏👏
how do i begin reading jung?
Or like, the first 3 book should i read?
And should i read the red book as the last one?
Im concern to have a good experience as i read and put all his thoughts together
It can be challenging to approach. I always recommend Jung, A Very Brief Introduction first. Very well written overview by a Jungian Psychiatrist, Anthony Stevens
Tickle
Justice=balance=ma’at in egypt= dharma in India
Wonder tickle…
You dont feel comfortable saying?? What? Please tell. At least a link or something to ehat you are refering to.
Ha ha. Not trying to withhold information, I’m just trying to stick to the evidence and not speculate too deeply into Plato’s hidden intentions. Which sadly we’ll probably never know for sure, though I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
Oh haha oki. Was beginning to wonder there. But for sure, yes i agree.
To be rewarded for a thousand years is to not have to reincarnate for centruies