Have you ever felt that intuition and poetic inspiration come from the same place?

[chaosbloom]

You might have been confused in reading what I wrote ? The great writing is inspirational and creative and comes from super consciousness , when I referred to the unconscious, it was in relation to one of its aspects to do with intuition . I was saying that, IME intuition has to do with an aspect of the unconscious and great writing has to do with a connection with the super consciousness , part of which is considered 'non-local'.

Where do you see the confusion? I said that inspiration and intuition for me come from a lighter place which is completely unlike the deep place that is dark and full of monsters. Again, for me, nothing comes from the deep place. Both inspiration and intuition seem to come from the same place. That is unlike your experience. What someone calls those places and whether he's using Jungian or Freudian terminology is besides the point.

That is a door in, the door to the super conscious is a door out .... and its pretty BIG 'out' there.

I don't really ascribe to the Jungian view or its variations. There are many reasons for that and I'd have to go very off-topic to explain but when I have to choose a non-scientific explanation, between Jung and religion I pick religion.

I believe that all humans have an actual need to create and that, if you're a Bible scholar, the passage of the Bible that says man is created in God's image always struck me as meaning that the need to create was part of that shared image. I used to be a Sunday School teacher many years ago and I've done a lot of studying of the Bible in my younger days. I'm not in that mindset anymore (thankfully) but I still remember a lot, of course.

Most people who don't know better say that they're not creative, but that's not true. Everyone, including even babies, are creative and need an outlet to express that side of themselves.

I absolutely believe that everyone can be creative in some form or another. But it seems that people are trained not to be. There's much buried talent out there, more than we'll ever know. Very sad thing.

http://www.druidry.org/library/modern-druidry/awen Here's an article on Awen. It helped me to get a better grasp on the subject.
http://www.druidry.org/library/awen-revisited-whats-word-part-2 Here's another

http://www.druidry.co.uk/what-is-druidry/awen-the-holy-spirit-of-druidry/ < A historical look a Awen. I haven't read through it just yet but it looks promising.

Thank you very much, I'll have a look soon.

I'm a believer that divinity is subjective. When people speak of divination, their form could range from magicked scientific by nature.

I personally believe that mankind (and most likely other life) has an innate ability to edit the energy around us to better serve us. We harness running water and electricity. We edit light rays by creating bulbs and even by painting a canvas to reflect the colors we want. We take sound waves and layer them and arrange them in specific ways to be "pretty" or meaningful.

Love of sports or cooking or driving. We constantly alter the energy around us, and I think this is our inherent ability: to find the divine in the mundane, and to make use of it. I believe this is why tarot or crystal healing or reiki, etc., is plausible.

So in my mind, divinity can be scientific and vice versa. The great pool of energy in the universe is bigger than me and can't be put in a box. I won't try to label it, but I acknowledge it exists and I am a part of it. So to me that is divine.

Just my thoughts

I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about the existence of deities or being able to predict the future? Or both at the same time?

 

[youareafool]

Where do you see the confusion? I said that inspiration and intuition for me come from a lighter place which is completely unlike the deep place that is dark and full of monsters. Again, for me, nothing comes from the deep place. Both inspiration and intuition seem to come from the same place. That is unlike your experience. What someone calls those places and whether he's using Jungian or Freudian terminology is besides the point.







I don't really ascribe to the Jungian view or its variations. There are many reasons for that and I'd have to go very off-topic to explain but when I have to choose a non-scientific explanation, between Jung and religion I pick religion.







I absolutely believe that everyone can be creative in some form or another. But it seems that people are trained not to be. There's much buried talent out there, more than we'll ever know. Very sad thing.







Thank you very much, I'll have a look soon.







I'm a bit confused. Are you talking about the existence of deities or being able to predict the future? Or both at the same time?

Trying to avoid a religious discussion, but I feel that that "special" feeling we attach to deities, cards, science, music, art etc. all comes from the same seed of us being hyper aware- we recognize the divine in these things. We manipulate the cards and art and song, with prayers and affirmations and poems and thought. Regardless of individual beliefs I think it all stems from the same ability. So in answer to your question, I absolutely think intuition and poetry come from the same place

 

[ravenest]

Where do you see the confusion?

In a few places . But if you feel your own unconscious is full of horrors and monsters that you want to avoid ... and you dont like psychology and prefer religion then, no, this approach to understanding what is going on, certainly isnt for you.

The source of 'intuition' has long been identified ... there are a few good articles around. some are referenced in the many posts in some of the threads here on the subject , but some might involve valid psychological ( not religious) research and findings . Also, regarding terms used , aside from 'unconscious' there were no Jungian or Freudian terms used ; super consciousness is more of a 'Yogic' terminology or, in western writings see Fichte, Schopenhauer, or in a religious context Schleiermacher , Theosophy ( which leads back to the 'yogic view' ) .

There are no 'valid research and findings' in religion. One is empirical, the other speculative.

 

[chaosbloom]

Trying to avoid a religious discussion, but I feel that that "special" feeling we attach to deities, cards, science, music, art etc. all comes from the same seed of us being hyper aware- we recognize the divine in these things. We manipulate the cards and art and song, with prayers and affirmations and poems and thought. Regardless of individual beliefs I think it all stems from the same ability. So in answer to your question, I absolutely think intuition and poetry come from the same place

Okay I understand you now. The word divinity was throwing me off.

In a few places . But if you feel your own unconscious is full of horrors and monsters that you want to avoid ... and you dont like psychology and prefer religion then, no, this approach to understanding what is going on, certainly isnt for you.

The source of 'intuition' has long been identified ... there are a few good articles around. some are referenced in the many posts in some of the threads here on the subject , but some might involve valid psychological ( not religious) research and findings . Also, regarding terms used , aside from 'unconscious' there were no Jungian or Freudian terms used ; super consciousness is more of a 'Yogic' terminology or, in western writings see Fichte, Schopenhauer, or in a religious context Schleiermacher , Theosophy ( which leads back to the 'yogic view' ) .

There are no 'valid research and findings' in religion. One is empirical, the other speculative.

Freud and Jung's theories aren't scientific, they are pseudo-scientific. There's no experimental procedure, no inference from data, not even falsifiability. You are confusing psychology with psychoanalysis. In psychology, the big boys are people like William James, B. F. Skinner, Edward Thorndike, Jean Piaget, John Watson and people like them. Freud and Jung are only mentioned in the history of psychology. What is pseudo-history and pseudo-science like theosophy doing among all that?

To restate what I said in less ambiguous terms, between pseudo-science and religion I'm picking religion.

 

[ravenest]

Theosophy was a 'religious' example of a system using 'super conscious' in a religious context, like the example of Schleiermacher ( a Calvinist chaplain )

But if 'picking religion' means only picking 'a ' religion .... which might be an exclusive one ( like Christianity or Islam ) then I guess you have to throw out other religious approaches as well.

Even if I was using a 'psychoanalytical' framework ( they use the term super ego, not super consciousness ) it is based on a " set of psychological theories and techniques' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis - and psychology is " an academic discipline and an applied science " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

 

[chaosbloom]

Theosophy was a 'religious' example of a system using 'super conscious' in a religious context, like the example of Schleiermacher ( a Calvinist chaplain )

Okay, which makes your comment that I reject "psychology" in favor of religion even stranger. How is theosophy either tangentially related to psychology or to science?

But if 'picking religion' means only picking 'a ' religion .... which might be an exclusive one ( like Christianity or Islam ) then I guess you have to throw out other religious approaches as well.

Theosophy isn't a religion. It's a pseudo-scientific mishmash of popular scientific, historical and parahistorical theories of the late 19th century. Further more, the Blavatsky version also includes a bunch of racist drivel. These theories might have been somewhat in vogue back then, along with hollow earth theories, polar openings and wild tales of Lemurians but to call it religion today seems to follow the relatively recent pattern of disguising certain completely pseudo-scientific schemes as religion to avoid criticism of the "scientific" claims they still make. Taxation being the other major reason.

Is it a question of either including theosophy among everything else or being a bigot? Do you include Raelian beliefs in your worldview?

Even if I was using a 'psychoanalytical' framework ( they use the term super ego, not super consciousness ) it is based on a " set of psychological theories and techniques' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoanalysis - and psychology is " an academic discipline and an applied science " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

Psychology and psychoanalysis are not synonyms. Psychology is a scientific field. Psychoanalysis is a mostly untestable, largely refuted theoretical framework for a specific therapeutic approach. The therapeutic approach survives because it has been found effective in studies made. That's about the only thing that can be verified. Any introductory university textbook for psychology carries the little disclaimer that psychoanalytic theory is untestable (for example, dream interpretation) and therefore irrefutable so it's just bypassed by modern scientific approaches but the therapeutic approach survives because eventually patients see improvement. That's the diplomatic approach before they go on to destroy the majority of the theory's components under each chapter, e.g. briefly mentioning Freud's child sexual development theory for a couple of paragraphs and then devote pages upon pages to Piaget's stage theory.

The places where psychoanalytic theory still survives in (the "continental" school of philosophy, cultural studies, far left-wing political theory, Chaos magick and so on) have nothing to do with either the scientific method, or psychology as a field, even if they make claims to that effect.

I'm not sure I get the point of this anyway. My experience with the high place that I feel my inspiration and my intuition comes from and the low place where my monsters come from is perfectly valid. Having to defend not a theory but my actual experience from charges of being either anti-science or a bigot is ludicrous. Care to explain what sort of debate is this supposed to be?

 

[ravenest]

Okay, which makes your comment that I reject "psychology" in favor of religion even stranger. How is theosophy either tangentially related to psychology or to science?

I see this as getting further confused. I was using it as an example. I was explaining the concepts of the super consciousness ... it is in yoga, and a concept of philosophy, some are religious philosophers and some not. Theosophy is a sort of mish mash of all of them. And I can assure you, many Theosophists consider it a religion, they have a church and a mass

http://www.cwlworld.info/html/liberal_catholic_church.html ( click their Theosophy section)


I was trying to point out what super conscious was - you were saying I used Jungian and Freudian terms ... I might be wrong but I have never read them using those terms ... only super ego . If I am wrong, I mean it anyway in the context of the examples I gave - thats why I gave them.

Theosophy isn't a religion. It's a pseudo-scientific mishmash of popular scientific, historical and parahistorical theories of the late 19th century. Further more, the Blavatsky version also includes a bunch of racist drivel. These theories might have been somewhat in vogue back then, along with hollow earth theories, polar openings and wild tales of Lemurians but to call it religion today seems to follow the relatively recent pattern of disguising certain completely pseudo-scientific schemes as religion to avoid criticism of the "scientific" claims they still make. Taxation being the other major reason.

Is it a question of either including theosophy among everything else or being a bigot? Do you include Raelian beliefs in your worldview?



Psychology and psychoanalysis are not synonyms. Psychology is a scientific field. Psychoanalysis is a mostly untestable, largely refuted theoretical framework for a specific therapeutic approach. The therapeutic approach survives because it has been found effective in studies made. That's about the only thing that can be verified. Any introductory university textbook for psychology carries the little disclaimer that psychoanalytic theory is untestable (for example, dream interpretation) and therefore irrefutable so it's just bypassed by modern scientific approaches but the therapeutic approach survives because eventually patients see improvement. That's the diplomatic approach before they go on to destroy the majority of the theory's components under each chapter, e.g. briefly mentioning Freud's child sexual development theory for a couple of paragraphs and then devote pages upon pages to Piaget's stage theory.

The places where psychoanalytic theory still survives in (the "continental" school of philosophy, cultural studies, far left-wing political theory, Chaos magick and so on) have nothing to do with either the scientific method, or psychology as a field, even if they make claims to that effect.

I'm not sure I get the point of this anyway. My experience with the high place that I feel my inspiration and my intuition comes from and the low place where my monsters come from is perfectly valid. Having to defend not a theory but my actual experience from charges of being either anti-science or a bigot is ludicrous. Care to explain what sort of debate is this supposed to be?

I have no idea what you point is , it keeps moving ... you seem to think I am am somehow saying I am a Theosophist and then go down that avenue ... its them that consider their beliefs a religion, they have all the world's symbols of different religion as their symbol ... take your protests up up with them . I am not a ralean either . I have no idea about the bigot inference.

" The therapeutic approach survives because it has been found effective in studies made. That's about the only thing that can be verified "

Remember the word I actually used was 'empirical' ; based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

I would say 'found effective in studies made' is pretty similar to ' verifiable by observation or experience' .

But I am not going to go on with this, as I supplied references for people to see themselves, and trying to clear things up has surfaced all sorts of extra misunderstanding.

Quiet a few people agree with the ' keep it all locked up in that safe place' ( your monsters and horrors and fears ) ," that's what we are supposed to do ... most of us do that and we function fine " - I tell those people to watch the tv news tonight.

Obviously I dont ascribe to those views .

The other side is ' knowledge makes one forewarned and forearmed ' from a few sources including Swedenborg and Steiner

( and no I am not saying I am a follower of either )

I basically re-posted to clear up the further misunderstandings of your assumptions about my persuasions ....

But I am not going to go on with this, as I supplied references for people to see themselves, and trying to clear things up has surfaced all sorts of extra misunderstanding and projections ... raelian .... really !

 

[chaosbloom]

I see this as getting further confused. I was using it as an example. I was explaining the concepts of the super consciousness ... it is in yoga, and a concept of philosophy, some are religious philosophers and some not. Theosophy is a sort of mish mash of all of them. And I can assure you, many Theosophists consider it a religion, they have a church and a mass

http://www.cwlworld.info/html/liberal_catholic_church.html ( click their Theosophy section)

Sure, many theosophists can consider it a religion. But when they start talking about races and lost continents it becomes pseudo-science and pseudo-history. Enough of that though.

But to take it from the top, I initially said that my personal experience differs from your view. I made it clear that I'm talking about highly personal subjective experiences and I wanted to see if this is something that others experience or not. I'm not interested in scientific theories in this context because science doesn't deal with the kind of intuition we're talking about. I'm fine with reading people's theories on this while maintaining my option to agree only with those that I like. If I don't, I have no issues with those theories existing and other people continuing to support them. I was given the impression that instead of accepting the difference of views, you were making disingenuous remarks and trying to argue against the validity of my subjective experiences. If my impression is wrong then it's fine.

I was trying to point out what super conscious was - you were saying I used Jungian and Freudian terms ... I might be wrong but I have never read them using those terms ... only super ego . If I am wrong, I mean it anyway in the context of the examples I gave - thats why I gave them.

They're stemming from a common source and the concept has evolved mostly through Jung's work. But that's besides the point and we don't need to talk about it further.

I have no idea what you point is , it keeps moving ... you seem to think I am am somehow saying I am a Theosophist and then go down that avenue ... its them that consider their beliefs a religion, they have all the world's symbols of different religion as their symbol ... take your protests up up with them . I am not a ralean either . I have no idea about the bigot inference.

I've explained what my point is right above so I'm not going to repeat it here. Your response to that was to say that I somehow have an anti-psychology stance or some sort of anti-scientific stance. I don't and therefore I explained it in detail.

You also said that if religion means picking a single religion and especially an exclusive religion then that means that I'm throwing all other religious approaches away. Rejecting all religious approaches besides your own is usually called bigotry and intolerance. If you're not aware of that connection, at least I am and I consider bigotry and intolerance a big no no. It's one of my principles. Implying or suggesting that I might be doing that is insulting. Having said that, being tolerant doesn't mean that I'll start personally believing in everything under the sun in the name of tolerance or open mindedness. Therefore I had to explain why I personally don't care much for theosophy. I asked you about the Raelians because they're pretty far out in their beliefs, trying to prove the point that neither do you accept everything so what's your deal with this theosophy business anyway.

" The therapeutic approach survives because it has been found effective in studies made. That's about the only thing that can be verified "

Remember the word I actually used was 'empirical' ; based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

I would say 'found effective in studies made' is pretty similar to ' verifiable by observation or experience' .

No, even talking to regular Catholic priests about your problems and going to confession given enough time eventually helps with a range of mental illnesses somewhat. That doesn't mean that the theology behind Catholicism is either verifiable or effective. It certainly doesn't mean that it's cost or time effective.

I feel this subject is completely off-topic not just for the thread but for the entire forum. It's why I didn't want to go into detail over why I don't ascribe to Freudian and Jungian theories in the first place. I'm not sure how the entire 8th edition ended up online but here's a pretty respected textbook if you want to have a look http://www.cee.uma.pt/ron/Psychology 8th - Gleitman, Gross, Reisberg.pdf. (mods please remove the link if this looks dodgy)

I'm not going to continue talking about this particular subject because as I said, it's completely off-topic.

But I am not going to go on with this, as I supplied references for people to see themselves, and trying to clear things up has surfaced all sorts of extra misunderstanding.

Quiet a few people agree with the ' keep it all locked up in that safe place' ( your monsters and horrors and fears ) ," that's what we are supposed to do ... most of us do that and we function fine " - I tell those people to watch the tv news tonight.

Obviously I dont ascribe to those views .

The other side is ' knowledge makes one forewarned and forearmed ' from a few sources including Swedenborg and Steiner

( and no I am not saying I am a follower of either )

I basically re-posted to clear up the further misunderstandings of your assumptions about my persuasions ....

But I am not going to go on with this, as I supplied references for people to see themselves, and trying to clear things up has surfaced all sorts of extra misunderstanding and projections ... raelian .... really !

It seems to me that you often misunderstand something that you read but instead of asking for clarification, you simply go with it. I wasn't making any assumptions about your persuasions anywhere. I wasn't calling you Raelian. Is this some sort of language issue maybe? Is English your first language?

 

[ravenest]

Thats a long post for someone that is considering the subjects off topic , but I will AGAIN answer this part

" so what's your deal with this theosophy business anyway."

I used the term superconscious

you seemed to be claiming I was using Fruedian and Jungian terms

I used several examples to show different views of the superconscious . One was Theosophy.

You may as well ask , "what is your deal with this Yogic business ?" as I used that too as an example .

And railing against theosophy as being a religion because it is filled with out of date mumbo jumbo, and racists content .... really ?

Have you ever read the Old Testament ?

And no, English is not my first language .... my first language is Raelian .

 

[chaosbloom]

Thats a long post for someone that is considering the subjects off topic , but I will AGAIN answer this part

" so what's your deal with this theosophy business anyway."

I used the term superconscious

you seemed to be claiming I was using Fruedian and Jungian terms

I used several examples to show different views of the superconscious . One was Theosophy.

You may as well ask , "what is your deal with this Yogic business ?" as I used that too as an example .

And railing against theosophy as being a religion because it is filled with out of date mumbo jumbo, and racists content .... really ?

Have you ever read the Old Testament ?

And no, English is not my first language .... my first language is Raelian .

Oh no, more of the same childish sarcasm. Well, thanks for verifying my initial impression, I wasn't misunderstanding you after all. Anyway, thanks but I'm not looking for any wannabe gurus. This exchange is over.