Quote:
Originally Posted by Melchior  It's still tricky though because doing this requires the swapping in and out of different world views for discussion of each separate train of thought. |
Yes, I totally agree that it is tricky, so I will try to explain as good as possible where it comes from. My thinking is based on that of Jung, but above that on something I read years ago.
It is something I read about the thinking process of a French philosopher Jean Carteret. As far as I know, Carteret did not put anything on paper (I think there are only tapes) but a Dutch writer, George Bode, wrote a book about his life. And somewhere in that book there is a part that I found extremely interesting.
It is a piece where Carteret elaborates on something Jung talked about. Jung wrote somewhere that matter and psyche are two aspects of the same phenomenon.
But although Carteret agreed with that, he then asked himself where that would leave energy. Because energy and matter are also two aspects of the same phenomenon. So where does that leave the psyche.
For the following I used my own words and my own understanding because it is an English translation of a Dutch book of a French thought process. And the only way to make it understandable, is by using the words that seem the best in my understanding.
He formulated something like: the energy inside the matter is an ‘active potential’, while matter itself is a ‘passive structure’.
But besides this couple of energy/matter there is also the psyche. And his reasoning was that there should also be a fourth concept that is to the psyche what energy is to matter.
And his conclusion was that that fourth concept was language. Language that shares with energy that it is also active, but shares with matter that it is a structure.
So besides the couple energy/matter (active potential/passive structure) there is also the couple psyche/language (passive potential/active structure).
Or two that have structure (matter and language) and two that have no structure (energy and psyche).
Or two that are active (energy and language) and two that are passive (matter and psyche).
Now I could also use consiousness and unconsious. But that would mean that I could not just translate language into consiousness and psyche into unconsious.
The reason for that is that there is also a language that is not so conscious (bodylanguage for example or how animals communicate). And the psyche is something that can be seen as unconsious, but the word psyche is usually meant as a personal unconscious.
So to differentiate I use three phases of unconsious. First there is a sort of collective unconscious that evolves in some way. It is what comes to us in dreams and might be something that is picked up by people who are sensitive to that.
The second is a personal unconscious, that what we experience as a child and shapes our worldview, our emotions and feelings. Not just our own, but also those of our parents and our whole cultural background. Not something that is really seperate.
But I think there is a third unconscious, one that is different from the other two. It is what is called the shadow in terms of Jung.
Of course those three are closely connected and maybe Jung sees them as one. But I think it has to be differentiated to also be able to see three types of consiousness.
And the first type of consciousness is what I would call language as we all know it. How we communicate, what we learn at schools and what we read in books.
But besides that there is also something like a consiousness that comes from being an independant individual. Communicate in a language that tries to explain personal experiences and views. There might not be words for it and a possible way would be poetry or art.
And a sharing of this individual experiences and development. Kind of what is happening now with the internet. Not the sharing of what we have learned from books, but what we experienced and discovered ourselves and made into a language.
Well, to finally come to your question ‘What creates consiousness’ my answer would be ‘personal development’ or ‘individuation’. Because that is what the individual has to create himself, combining personal and collective knowledge along with conscious and unconsious knowledge.
But deep down to the very essence I see there are two forces, energy and what I would call unconscious. Well actually it is only one force (energy) where the other (unconsious) just IS. But as soon as the unconsious becomes conscious (created by the individual) it also becomes an active force.
Well, just my views at this moment.