[Melchior]

Originally Posted by Annemieke

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.

Sounds reasonable from what I've thought of myself, and this bit may even solve my problem of figuring out what the 'difference' between what is considered material and what is considered spiritual, or at least where the spiritual comes from in relation to the material. Now to find the equations if this is indeed the case, and I wonder what type of logic will be used here. A new branch of mathematics perhaps or perhaps the mathematics is already there, ready to be applied as it is with a lot of the theories in physics in recent years.

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.

I like the descriptors of active/passive and potential/structure, although I think there's probably some other terminology, particularly that of the potential/structure pairing, that would describe it better, just don't know what it is yet. However, I don't really think language is the fourth concept primarily because it is not general enough. I do agree that it probably has something to do with the interaction among/within the psyche though, but perhaps that was lost in translation. communication, signalling, perhaps. but because energy and matter are just forms of the same thing, I still wonder about that. I'm reminded of, and this is likely due to my personal bias towards physics, the fundamental interactions between subatomic particles and such. It would be like the matter portion is represented by fermions and the psyche portion is represented by bosons. Well, not really, because what I've described is structure only, even that the bosons are considered active where the fermions are passive, moving according to the bosons. So for me, that would leave me with the question of what the 'passive potential' of the language is, essentially what exactly is the psyche. Something like energy, but currently I have not read enough to know how it's measured and so on, or what it would represent at a fundamental level. Although, according to these descriptions, if they are accurate, I'm sure there is and either I can't think of it right now (even if it might be right under my nose) or we don't know it yet (and it is still right under our noses... ). This is due to symmetry, of course.

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.

I wonder if the associated statistics with the two types of fundamental particles has anything to do with the potential stuffs. I should really have read through to here before commenting on how language wasn't general enough as it seems it was just a definitional issue.

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.

Hmm, and what would the 'shadow' represent?

EDIT: screw it, I'll just read your blog.

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.

Yeah, differentiation is certainly useful when it comes to communicating what you mean.

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.

It is also similar to what spacedout has shared about the experiential method in how the individual (subjective) experience cannot be exactly known for someone other than you except perhaps by way of sharing what it feels like through language and attempting to come to a consensus on the parts that share similar objective characteristics. And so language (as we regularly communicate with words, anyway) would be some sort of high level interaction.

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.

Of course, I ask about the transition phase between moving from something entirely unconscious to something that begins to have that hint of consciousness. But anyway, this is a good answer if I can apply it to the idea that unconscious development gives way to consciousness. This is also similar to what Anagogy has posted with his stuff about Ra, albeit that terminology has something to do with densities and such which makes the thing a bit more confusing than it actually should. Although, I'm sure it makes sense to those who know it, right Anagogy?

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, because chaos is always on my mind, I couldn't help but relate this unconscious to chaotic activity, random processes, that create the patterns necessary for consciousness to occur. But it's not completely random stuff, I don't think so anyway, but a bit more directed, although perhaps the initial conditions, just as in what Michael brought up in the Game of Life are what caused for such evolving patterns to occur, or perhaps the evolution of chaos is simply due to another property of our universe, although I'm not so sure what yet, maybe entropy or something.

Well, just my views at this moment.

Well, thank you for sharing them, and hopefully my responses have given you a bit more to think about as well.

EDIT 2: So, you know what I was talking about earlier on figuring out what the the 'psyche' could be (in terms that I could understand)? Well, as I was reading a few articles on your blog, it dawned on me that it most closely resembles what we consider "information". Let's see: passive, check, potential, check, mediated by an active structure such as language, check, etc., I think it fits the criteria for psyche quite well. Now then, what to do with it..... >.>