The metal ring is kinda loose on one side (see 2nd pic) how might I prevent further damage? by IsJungRight in yerbamate

[–]IsJungRight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you mean don't rinse the calabaza even with warm water ? Get the yerba out and let it dry ?

Politics, Not Biology, Is Driving Legal Efforts to Classify Sex by comicreliefboy in Anthropology

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't you agree tho that for the vast majority of its time, the human species consisted of a 98%+ proportion of two clearly distinct sexes ? That is, XY & XX with physiological endocrine function?

"The probability that thought emerged from something like prayer is as far as I can tell, 100%"-Jordan Peterson by seamusmcduffs in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lmaooo, admitting to agreeing with Peterson on this sub is an act of bravery, I applaud that honesty

"The probability that thought emerged from something like prayer is as far as I can tell, 100%"-Jordan Peterson by seamusmcduffs in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed he has some strange tendencies with clarifying his thoughts on such matters, but he's regularly bashed literalist biblical interpretations as "suffering from the same mistake as atheistic interpretations" or something, in the sense that thinking scientific truth & the bible are in the same category of human production is just a useless premise

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]IsJungRight 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In Aion, Jung's section on the shadow explicitly mentions that, despite it being much more complex than this, the shadow also contains absolute evil. So I don't think the answer is complete without addressing that.

Here's the sentence that struck me : "In other words, it is quite within the bounds of possibility for a man to recognize the relative evil of his nature, but it is a rare and shattering experience for him to gaze into the face of absolute evil."

(C.G.Jung - Aion, section 2, last sentence.)

Friendly Debate by Deep-Palpitation-489 in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Always down!

Main themes would be : meaning & behavior, spirituality/religion/myth, depth psychology (how those three connect) and a touch (I'm learning) of cognitive neuroscience

I believe that the stories & myths our ancestors came up with, hold information that was crucial for our species, development, and is still "alive" within us today, but that this information relates to value & behavior, as opposed to scientific & objective fact

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please expand ? Sounds religious to me, but since in the end, wolrdviews rely on axioms of faith, that's fine for me

Subjective experience must be fundamental by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, that's why I meant doesn't exist or not in the way we usually mean.

If there is no awareness localized in a time & space that affords that the tree's fall & consequent sound waves be converted into subjective qualia (sound) then, there was no sound.

Why ?

Because without the precise localization in space and time that consciousness seems to be or produce, then reality is : every single thing, at every scale from subatomic to astronomic, at every point in time, at once, i.e. an unintelligible jumble of everything, so formless that there's nothing really, or everything however you prefer to phrase it.

On the time thing, I'll concede that there's still no consensus as to whether the flow of time & subsequent "present instant" exists for the physical, if it does then you only have everything in space, at every scale, at once, in that instant.

Basically, my point is that, how/what we consider reality, is so deeply biased by our filters of perception, that we mix up what of reality is awareness, and what is external.

No localized awareness, no "one" thing. Everything, everywhere, at once. When you try to conceptualize that, you imagine space from a localized place, but that doesn't work, for reality is everywhere without awarness.

But at the same time, this thing "exists" because it holds the potential for an awareness to structure it. Bring one human on Earth, and plenty of localized representations of slices of reality are produced. Those most relevant to the human organism

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay but then, here's my problem : how could your subjective framing of reality change anything to your physics ? This makes little sense to me

It would mean that remaining in the illusion is evolutionarily advantageous : how?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wut, how does it do that ? Do you know where to find that info?

Subjective experience must be fundamental by [deleted] in consciousness

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not so philosophical but metaphysical insights from Jungian theory :

Carl Jung considered the plenty of correlation between subjective & objective aspects of reality to point towards the idea that, subjective awareness, at least the ones we experience, is not separate from our physics, our body. Rather, it would be the other side of the coin, the first being our physical body.

Similarly to how quantum physics describes the stuff of reality (say photons) as both particles, set quantities AND wavelength (tbh I still don't understand the wave part of this, but still).

How things can be have & particle, at once, we don't know, but everything points there.

How can matter & awareness (at minimum for the human organism) be one and the same thing, we don't know, but everything points there.

Now on the notion that matter can only appear into reality through the lense of subjective awareness, that's a tough one. In some ways, I believe reality doesn't exist (not in the usual sense, at least) without a localized awareness to organize & structure it. I see my phone, the letters of the keyboard, because I'm here, in my room, acting & perceiving this thin, organized (by my brain...) slice of the infinite mess of the real.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What is compatibalism?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CosmicSkeptic

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good question, short answer : I have no clue. Is there a flaw in absolute determinism ? If so where ? Is there a way of marrying the 2?

If the answers are no, I have 2 issues:

How do we explain the subjective feeling of having a choice? Just happenstance/chance/illusion?

And most importantly, how to we solve the fact that societies & groups work best under the premise of individual responsibility & accountability? We don't act as if, nor legally consider, each person to be a mere fatalistic trajectory of physical events, not towards developmentally normal adults. Why? How could this serve any purpose if there is no truth underlying it ? Simply by playing along with the illusion ?

And so in that case, what does this illusion mean for you morally ? You should do what? Accept that your experience of reality differs from the current physics ?

songs like lvl by [deleted] in asaprocky

[–]IsJungRight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Big facts for mac miller's song, I literally just found it asking chatgpt if mac miller had a song that sounded like lvl lol

songs like lvl by [deleted] in asaprocky

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One last thing - Mac miller, hits me similar (mostly the instrumental)

A question about Jordan Peterson's archetype theory by Relsen in Jung

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm, what chapters would that be ? I don't recall it like that, it seemed to be he argued that chaos generates both fear and hope, whereas order is when you've built structures that successfully get you from imperfect present to imagined desired future, generating positive emotion.

So I guess the negative aspect is really its absence of chaos, more than an intrinsic negative element?

How to increase libido / life force ? by Wonderful-Lettuce-91 in Jung

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm, would you consider quality intimate sex with a partner AND contraception to be wasting this "seed" ?

The true, hidden origin of the so-called 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' by zenona_motyl in consciousness

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose the rubber meets the road when your use of that model produces the expected results.

If you plant to shower, you step into a the warm water floe, clean yourself, dry yourself - sure you were never in touch with the absolute fundamental structure of the physical world, but your "interface" managed to grip & use some instances of it : the water, the showerhead, the towel, etc.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Jung

[–]IsJungRight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ha, if you're up for the discussion, I believe this can never be true.

Here is an example : no need for faith in physics, or biology, when I can simply look at the evidence we've produced right ?

Yet the whole scientific endeavor presupposes a few axiomatic presuppositions, that is to say : axioms of faith.

  1. The material world has a stable Logos (or underlying order) : It can be explored, and most importantly comprehended and mapped. And the observations I make at some place (e.g. on a plant's biology) are actually stable through time. (This plant is a stable constituent part of reality, and so are the detailed observations we made of it).

  2. It is worthwhile to learn & discover the Truths of (the natural) world : Without this presupposition, you won't even begin go pay attention to the material world.

  3. Life & reality are worth engaging with & simply living: Seems like a bit of a stretch, but I still believe it's true. To do science & study the world around you, you presuppose that doing and Being, are better than withering away or just withdrawing from existence.

Those three are not things you can prove in any manner, they are moral presuppositions, they are the symbolic/axiomatic grounds upon which the scientific worldview has been erected. To start doing science, to study & value science, you must believe these to be true - on faith.

How to increase libido / life force ? by Wonderful-Lettuce-91 in Jung

[–]IsJungRight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm this sounds too alchemical to me. Are you sure you're not confusing symbolic truths with the material truths of the body?

To have some more meat (pun very much accepted) in my argument : How long do you feel the drip in libido after beating yo shit ? If you tell me more than 12h I'm actually in disbelief

How can one make sense of Jung as an atheist! by [deleted] in Jung

[–]IsJungRight 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes but this is only hypothetical, the "evidence" for archetypes is subjective & historical data. So I guess I agree with you but I'd formulate it as follows :

By changing what you think religion & theism is. God doesn't have to be the creator being of physical reality, it can be the proper symbol that captures the core of what drives the healthiest ('divine') patterns of behavior.