Subconscious God

You are correct, your subconscious = GOD.
He tell's the stories in your dreams, does all the things scientist have figured it does.
People think everything comes automatically, but the subconscious is the first disision maker & then the conscious = we come in to play.
You can't see GOD, you can't see your subconscious, but you know it's there.
Now where the line is between we beeing in control and thus having free will, I can't say.
Probably heard this before - "When you die you will see your life flashing before your eyes."
He knows your every thought and sees every thing you see and can recall it.
Think about what can be explained by this:

ever thought about the fact that the subconscious gives/tells the story in your dreams. And the fact that the subconscious controlls you.
Take in to acount a sixth sense, possession and psychiatric diseas, sleepwalking, g. d. l. tourettes, visions, and so on.
That the subconscious can actually communicate and interact with you.

That the subconscious is in fact that what we see as 'God' or in case of demonic possession a demon. Or that what controlls your state of mind. Again where the line is between 'GOD' or anything else if there even is anything else but one thing, I can't say.

www.nytimes.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

Your subconscious is not god. God is imaginary. In this case I don't even see "god" or your subconscious as part of the equation.

It was your conscious mind at work. You consciously believed that some outside entity controlled things, even insignificant things like alarm clocks, in your life. You consciously credited the good or bad things that happened to this entity. You later consciously recognized that you were just being silly: it was time to own up to your own behavior and recognize life's contingencies for what they are.

TD

God is imaginary.

OK, so you believe that God doesn't exist.

But then we would expect that intuitions about God would reside in the unconscious, erupting from time to time into consciousness. Which is also what we would expect if God weren't imaginary, but some complicated real thing which we were trying to understand from imperfect reflections of it, and our own imperfect deliberations about it.

What the OP is telling us is that the contents of the unconscious were presented to consciousness. The form of initial presentation was familiar enough, projection. What happened next does indeed deserve the name epiphany, the OP has achieved conscious awareness of the usually unconscious process of projection.

That's a big deal. It is worth extended conscious contemplation. It is valuable to follow up on, whether the path leads to God, or leads into better self-knowledge. And, as some posters have pointed out, those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Good thread, Myendica. Sorry I missed it the first time around. S&F.

Originally posted by eight bits
OK, so you believe that God doesn't exist.

But then we would expect that intuitions about God would reside in the unconscious, erupting from time to time into consciousness. Which is also what we would expect if God weren't imaginary, but some complicated real thing which we were trying to understand from imperfect reflections of it, and our own imperfect deliberations about it.

Why should any of those things be expected? If god(s) were real why would it/they only be understood by the operations of the subconscious mind?

What the OP is telling us is that the contents of the unconscious were presented to consciousness. The form of initial presentation was familiar enough, projection. What happened next does indeed deserve the name epiphany, the OP has achieved conscious awareness of the usually unconscious process of projection.

How is actively and consciously assigning blame to god(s) for things like alarm clock failure in any way a subconscious thing?

That's a big deal. It is worth extended conscious contemplation. It is valuable to follow up on, whether the path leads to God, or leads into better self-knowledge. And, as some posters have pointed out, those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Contemplating our consciousness is always a good thing. Mixing god(s) into the equation in unnecessary and simply complicates matters.

Originally posted by Myendica
Is that it? are we, or our subconscious the true God?

"[The] personal unconscious rests upon a deeper layer, which does not derive from personal experience and is not a personal acquisition but is inborn. This deeper layer I call the collective unconscious. I have chosen the term "collective" because this part of the unconscious is not individual but universal; in contrast to the personal psyche, it has contents and modes of behavior that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals. It is, in other words, identical in all men and thus constitutes a common psychic substrate of a suprapersonal nature which is present in every one of us." -Carl Jung

The collective unconscious is God. Not the personal unconscious. The trouble is, it takes a measure of psychic ability to connect our personal unconscious to the collective unconscious and to put them in accord. When a persons belief system precludes spiritual ability or psychic ability they cut themselves off from it. Like a branch cut off from the tree.

The process of putting the personal psyche into accord with the collective psyche is traditionally understood as the spiritual quest.

Originally posted by Student X
The collective unconscious is God.

No it isn't. Not only did Jung not prove any such thing to exist, even if it did your redefining such as thing as "god" is unjustifiable conjecture.

The trouble is, it takes a measure of psychic ability to connect our personal unconscious to the collective unconscious and to put them in accord. When a persons belief system precludes spiritual ability or psychic ability they cut themselves off from it. Like a branch cut off from the tree.

On what basis do you make such a claim about "psychic ability" or about "spiritual ability"? Is there anything in your post that isn't based on stuff that people just made up?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Student X
The collective unconscious is God.

No it isn't. Not only did Jung not prove any such thing to exist, even if it did your redefining such as thing as "god" is unjustifiable conjecture.

I'm sorry Sir, but yes it is and yes he did and it is justifiable. If you don't believe me then you are welcome to perform your own survey of Jungs work and your own ethnographic comparisons. Sir.

On what basis do you make such a claim about "psychic ability" or about "spiritual ability"? Is there anything in your post that isn't based on stuff that people just made up?

Are any of your objections to things I say based on anything other than your personal incredulity? Sir?

My basis is Jungs work, comparative mythology, parapsychology, comparative mysticism, comparative religion. Are you an expert in these fields Sir, or a mere armchair critic?

TD

Why should any of those things be expected? If god(s) were real why would it/they only be understood by the operations of the subconscious mind?

I don't think you could tell whether gods were real based on that. But I do think you could learn a lot about the hypothesis of gods from looking in that direction. Since I am interested in whether or not gods exist, it makes sense to me to find out what they might be like.

"Understanding," I think, requires cooperation between both conscious and unconscious resources of the mind. I don't think there is an "unconscious mind," btw, just a mind. But I do believe that there is an unconscious, and that it has contents. Things that go bump in the night, for example.

That's where I'd look for gods.

How is actively and consciously assigning blame to god(s) for things like alarm clock failure in any way a subconscious thing?

Projection. Googlebing is your friend.

But, as I say, what makes the OP report sing is the coming to awareness of one's own projection.

I suppose if somebody doesn't see how attributing purpose to the operations of an inanimate object might say something about the architecture of the mind, then that would prevent somebody from appreciating how rare the OP's "jumping out of the system" is.

Contemplating our consciousness is always a good thing. Mixing god(s) into the equation in unnecessary and simply complicates matters.

Why? Once the gods become part of someone's consciousness, what do propose they do to accomplish that which is "always a good thing?" Pretend that the elephant isn't in the living room, and just vacuum the rug around her?

Since you and Student X are talking about Carl Jung, I have a few more remarks.

That there is a collective unconscious is fairly straightforward to argue. That there is an unconscious is pretty much uncontroversial. That your long term memory is a memory, not entirely confabulated, and that almost none of its contents is available to consciousness at any given time suffices for the demonstration.

There are two possibilities for how the unconscious acquires content. Was all of it once conscious contents, or passed unattended through the organs of perception? Freud said yes. Jung said no. The Freudian subconscious is more or less Jung's personal unconscious. The collective unconscious is the rest. That there is a rest is evidenced by similarities in dreams across times and cultures not in contact. Dream content, then, is not always personal to the dreamer. What is not personal is collective.

Architectural claims about the collective unconscious are always in play. Jung did not claim to have produced a complete description anyway.

I don't think Jung can be cited in support of the idea that the collective unconscious is God, although, of course, Student X is entitled to his own opinion about that.

Jung did have an interest in the relationship between what people call psychic phenomena (among other names) and the operations of the unconscious. His dissertation was about that, and there's stuff about it in his very late work, his autobiography (or, if you prefer, authorized or supervised biography by Aniela Jaffe).

Since the phenomena can be discussed without the assumption of a supernatural agency, I am unsure why the subject would be so energizing to an atheist. Even if a meaningful coincidence is "just a coincidence," it is no less meaningful for that, and what the human mind finds meaningful would seem a fit and proper subject for study by a psychologist.

-

Originally posted by eight bits
But I do believe that there is an unconscious, and that it has contents. Things that go bump in the night, for example.

That's where I'd look for gods.

That indicates much about the nature of these so-called gods. Also, with such things what would indicate to you that these alleged gods exist anywhere outside of human minds and human perception?

Projection. Googlebing is your friend.

But, as I say, what makes the OP report sing is the coming to awareness of one's own projection.

Sure, blaming one's shortcomings onto an imaginary entity could be classified as projection.

Why? Once the gods become part of someone's consciousness, what do propose they do to accomplish that which is "always a good thing?" Pretend that the elephant isn't in the living room, and just vacuum the rug around her?

Once gods become a part of someone's consciousness it's too late. Hence, why introducing gods into the equation is problematic. We both agree that this situation can be reduced to projection, and all because of this concept of gods.

I don't think Jung can be cited in support of the idea that the collective unconscious is God, although, of course, Student X is entitled to his own opinion about that.

True, and I don't see the reasoning in such a claim at all.

Originally posted by eight bitsI don't think Jung can be cited in support of the idea that the collective unconscious is God, although, of course, Student X is entitled to his own opinion about that.

Well of course the devil in the details. I certainly wouldn't mind going over such details with an informed critic. But to put it in the simplest possible terms the archetype of wholeness, which manifests in the form of mandalas, is God.

"The "squaring of the circle" is one of the many archetypal motifs which form the basic patterns of our dreams and fantasies. But it is distinguished by the fact that it is one of the most important of them from the functional point of view. Indeed, it could even be called the archetype of wholeness." -from Mandalas. C. G. Jung. trans. from Du (Zurich, 1955)

"... Only gradually did I discover what the mandala really is: 'Formation, Transformation, Eternal Mind's eternal creation' (Faust, II). And that is the self, the wholeness of the personality, which if all goes well is harmonious, but which cannot tolerate self-deceptions." -C. G. Jung p. v

"The goal of contemplating the processes depicted in the mandala is that the yogi shall become inwardly aware of the deity. Through contemplation, he recognizes himself as God again, and thus returns from the illusion of individual existence into the universal totality of the divine state." p. 73

"... there must be a transconscious disposition in every individual which is able to produce the same or very similar symbols at all times and in all places. Since this disposition is usually not a conscious possession of the individual I have called it the collective unconscious, and, as the bases of its symbolical products, I postulate the existence of primordial images, the archetypes. ... the identity of conscious individual contents with their ethnic parallels is expressed not merely in their form but in their meaning." p. 100

TD

That indicates much about the nature of these so-called gods.

So, there we seem to have some agreement.

Also, with such things what would indicate to you that these alleged gods exist anywhere outside of human minds and human perception?

I'm an agnostic, and I don't profess an opinion one way or the other about that. Besides, I am still working on tuning up the hypothesis. Who knows? Something testable might turn up.

Sure, blaming one's shortcomings onto an imaginary entity could be classified as projection.

Ah, come on. The OP's "shortcomings" are not the issue in this thread. And imaginary is your opinion, whose relevance to the OP's situation is... debatable?

What the OP did was to find meaning in his adversities, and then consciously realize that the immediate source of that meaning was located in his own skull.

Not bad for a day's work, IMO.

We both agree that this situation can be reduced to projection, and all because of this concept of gods.

We agree in part, that projection is what we're talking about.

You seem unimpressed that the OP moved beyond projection, to conscious awareness of the projection. I am much more impressed, if for no other reason, because of the rarity of that feat.

If gods are unconscious contents, then their expression would be the point of the projection. And from that, much can be learned about the architecture of the mind that has such things.

It wouldn't by any chance bother you that whatever the OP projected is also inside your skull?

Doesn't bother me. Shouldn't bother you, since there is no ontological consequence. Call it a hunch, though. I think it bothers you, even as a possibility. (I never realized before, or not in as many words, why atheists are so fond of the story about the ancient goat herders, sitting around the fire, making it all up, to "answer their questions." Doh!)

Student X

But the mandala is typically a symbol of wholeness and harmony of parts, not a symbol of one of the parts. You're not arguing that capital-S Self is God, you're arguing for the collective unconscious, a part of the whole, being God.

Looking at the other three quotes, it seems you have conflated the symbol, whence the symbol comes, and what the symbol points to. Collective unconscious contents include the inutition of a harmoniously balanced Self, but that Self is nowhere. Not yet, anyway. Its construction is the task to which the mandala category of symbols refers.

The task is called "individuation" in Jung speak. And despite the name, since the goal is balance, the end product (so to speak, the task is never finished) will indeed have considerable "transconscious" content, compassion, to borrow a term from Gauatma, within an individual Self (which he would dispute, I think).

I happened to run across that lovely quote from Rabbi Hilel, If I am not for myself, then who will be? If I am only for myself, then what am I? That's a nice expression of balance, of what individuation is pointing towards.

I also liked the third line of that, as something appropriate for a consciousness to ask of the eternal: If not now, when?

Maybe that's what religious folk should tack on to the end of their prayers .

-

Originally posted by eight bitsBut the mandala is typically a symbol of wholeness and harmony of parts, not a symbol of one of the parts. You're not arguing that capital-S Self is God, you're arguing for the collective unconscious, a part of the whole, being God.

Jung was fond of the axiom of Maria. "One becomes two, two becomes three and out of the third comes the one as the fourth."

"In brief, one stands for the original, paradisiacal state of unconscious wholeness (e.g. childhood); two signifies the conflict between opposites (e.g. persona and shadow); three points to a potential resolution; the third is the transcendent function; and the one as the fourth is code for the Philosopher’s Stone – psychologically equivalent to a transformed state of conscious wholeness." (Sharp, Jung Uncorked: Book Two, 2008, p. 51)

The whole is a coincidentia oppositorum, or unity of opposites. Including the opposites of harmony and disharmony, wholeness and part, symbol and literal. The mystic on the path of individuation must learn to transcend pairs of opposites and embrace paradox.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I don't believe god to be imaginary. whether god exists is a whole nother story.. but to say god is imaginary is to say you are imaginary... god very much exists, because "god" influences many everyday..

I wouldn't call myself a man of god.. I studied christianity, and I have read others on my own accord, and I feel GOD is much much more than what these "re LEGIONS" say god is,..

since starting this thread, I have had many encounters of strange occurances.. hit a bird, and in the same sense, thyought I had full control the entire time.. I felt an urge to accelerate in my car, and if I hadn't at the moment I did, I wouldn't have hit this bird...


I feel we have a huge connection to the environment around us, and whether or not we are tuned in to what is actually happening, we can or cannot control the events around us. in essence we are God.. we are all apart of his psyche.. because our psyches are tuned to "gods"..

"My future lies, on my own decisions, and all of yours.. and all of yours.."