What do you understand by "Transcendence"?

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:51 am

Ron, I think it was Kafka who said "The whole is not just greater than the sum of its parts, its something entirely different."

8)

That being said I agree with Campbell when he said that everything is meditation. Also, for me, transcendence has to provide inner peace otherwise I see no value in it.
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:21 pm

Andreas,

Thank you or the Kafka quote. It makes sense to me. I like to think of a painting when I think about this. A painting is made up of paints of various colors and a canvass, but its meaning, beauty, and value are not found in these pieces, they belong to the whole.

I hate to be so agreeable, but I also think inner peace is essential. But I don't see that these two meditations are mutually exclusive. In my imagery my consciousness is like my right arm and my intellect is like my leftt. I need the cool, peaceful practices of Buddhism, but because I am on the intellectual path, I also need a practice to strengthen that arm.

There is a mystic named Andrew Harvey, who I have mentioned before. He is a fiery, emotionally centered person, who emphasizes love in action. However, he says that his cool Buddhist practices are absolutely essential. You might say he alternates between fire and water.

I think two arms are better than one.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:21 pm

I agree Ron, they are not mutually exclusive but if u want to exclusively practice one and not the other it still holds the same impact.. Besides I am of the opinion that u can't separate them(the meditations) anyway... They speak of the same thing. Just in different language..

Seems to me..
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:20 pm

Andreas,

IMHO consciousness and the intellect have different paths. Zen Buddhism is for me the perfect example of how Buddhism separates itself from intellectual dominance. The rules for the intellect and intuitive consciousness are not the same.

I think Jung was correct when he said that we each have a dominant function, either intuitive, sensual, emotional, intellectual, and to this I add willful.

It seems to me that if a person's intuitive consciousness is dominant them quiet meditation is enough, but even if you are on another path quiet meditation is useful. However, the person also needs a technique for their dominant function.

Unfortunately our intellects have been enslaved for "practical purposes" for more than 1,500 years, and our intellects don't have a well established path like the Buddhist path for consciousness.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:09 pm

I dont know Ron, they might use different roads to reach the same destination. Even for Zen someone has to be there to explain it..

Anyways... that's my opinion. :)
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:49 pm

Andreas,

I'm not sure i follow you. I think that things, like people, exist. I look at immanent and transcendent reality as if it were a giant multidimensional jigsaw puzzle. It may be one puzzle, but it is also a bunch of funny shaped pieces.

For me it is not either-or, but both-and. It is not that I am either an individual or the whole. I am an individual and I am the whole.
That being said, I think our relationship to reality is more complicated. The way I see it our consciousness is not separate, it only seems that way, but our wills, intellects, emotions, and sensations are separate. Each of these relate to the mystery in a different way.

In order to be brief I'm going to use some Christian mythology to demonstrate my opinion.

I once read that we should love God in every way possible, as mother, father, child, etc.. Our wills love God as father or authority figure. Our hearts love God as child or mother. Our intellects love God as teacher. Our artistic sensuality loves God as lover and co-creator, and our consciousness loves God as self.

Now we can change the names from "God" to "mystery" and "love" to "relate to", but I think it makes the point that we experience the relationship in different ways.

When a fundamentalist Christian says he must do God's will or a Hindu says there are no separate things, they are both correct from the perspective of their function of the psyche.

That's my opinion.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

I wanted to point out that in the redefining elderhood thread, James is posting some really good stuff about Jung and Depth Psychology.

In one of the articles about Depth Psychology they point out the need to maintain communication between consciousness and the subconscious, so my intellectual meditation might not be so wacky after all.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:50 pm

Alright thanks for the examples.

Also nobody said that your meditation was wacky on the contrary what I was trying to explain is that all meditations aim to achieve the same goal seems to me.

8)
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:16 pm

Andreas,

Thanks for the comment. Wacky was self criticism.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:07 pm

Andreas wrote,
Also nobody said that your meditation was wacky on the contrary what I was trying to explain is that all meditations aim to achieve the same goal seems to me.
Would you elaborate on the same goal idea? What goal? I am looking for ways to fine tune my metaphor.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:51 pm

To find some inner peace I guess...
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:02 pm

Thanks.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
Roncooper
Associate
Posts: 907
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:51 pm
Location: Eastern Tennessee

Post by Roncooper » Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:34 pm

Andreas,

I think the transcendent experience comes in flavors like ice cream. One flavor might feature inner piece and another blazing love. Different people relate to different flavors.

I believe that individuation, specialization, and diversity are the products of our various experiences.

I like to use the hand as an image for this. The hand is much better because it has five fingers rather than one, and humanity as a whole is much better when there are several paths to the transcendent mystery.
If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton
JamesN.
Associate
Posts: 2187
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:46 am
Location: Nashville, Tn.

Post by JamesN. » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:25 pm

Roncooper wrote:Andreas,

I think the transcendent experience comes in flavors like ice cream. One flavor might feature inner piece and another blazing love. Different people relate to different flavors.

I believe that individuation, specialization, and diversity are the products of our various experiences.

I like to use the hand as an image for this. The hand is much better because it has five fingers rather than one, and humanity as a whole is much better when there are several paths to the transcendent mystery.

Ron I hope you'll pardon the intrusion but from my understanding I think (process) would be a much more "precise" way to frame the term. You may want to read this definition from the Lexicon regarding "Individuation".

http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html

Individuation.
A process of psychological differentiation, having for its goal the development of the individual personality.
In general, it is the process by which individual beings are formed and differentiated; in particular, it is the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from the general, collective psychology.[ Ibid., par. 757.]
The aim of individuation is nothing less than to divest the self of the false wrappings of the persona on the one hand, and of the suggestive power of primordial images on the other.["The Function of the Unconscious," CW 7, par. 269. ]
Individuation is a process informed by the archetypal ideal of wholeness, which in turn depends on a vital relationship between ego and unconscious. The aim is not to overcome one's personal psychology, to become perfect, but to become familiar with it. Thus individuation involves an increasing awareness of one's unique psychological reality, including personal strengths and limitations, and at the same time a deeper appreciation of humanity in general.
As the individual is not just a single, separate being, but by his very existence presupposes a collective relationship, it follows that the process of individuation must lead to more intense and broader collective relationships and not to isolation.[Definitions," CW 6, par. 758.]
Individuation does not shut one out from the world, but gathers the world to itself.["On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 432.]

Individuation has two principle aspects: in the first place it is an internal and subjective process of integration, and in the second it is an equally indispensable process of objective relationship. Neither can exist without the other, although sometimes the one and sometimes the other predominates.[The Psychology of the Transference," CW 16, par. 448.]
Individuation and a life lived by collective values are nevertheless two divergent destinies. In Jung's view they are related to one another by guilt. Whoever embarks on the personal path becomes to some extent estranged from collective values, but does not thereby lose those aspects of the psyche which are inherently collective. To atone for this "desertion," the individual is obliged to create something of worth for the benefit of society.
Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral and-more than that-suicidal. . . .
The individuant has no a priori claim to any kind of esteem. He has to be content with whatever esteem flows to him from outside by virtue of the values he creates. Not only has society a right, it also has a duty to condemn the individuant if he fails to create equivalent values.["Adaptation, Individuation, Collectivity," CW 18, pars. 1095f.]
Individuation differs from individualism in that the former deviates from collective norms but retains respect for them, while the latter eschews them entirely.
A real conflict with the collective norm arises only when an individual way is raised to a norm, which is the actual aim of extreme individualism. Naturally this aim is pathological and inimical to life. It has, accordingly, nothing to do with individuation, which, though it may strike out on an individual bypath, precisely on that account needs the norm for its orientation to society and for the vitally necessary relationship of the individual to society. Individuation, therefore, leads to a natural esteem for the collective norm. [Definitions," CW 6, par. 761.]
The process of individuation, consciously pursued, leads to the realization of the self as a psychic reality greater than the ego. Thus individuation is essentially different from the process of simply becoming conscious.
The goal of the individuation process is the synthesis of the self. [The Psychology of the Child Archetype," CW 9i, par. 278.]
Again and again I note that the individuation process is confused with the coming of the ego into consciousness and that the ego is in consequence identified with the self, which naturally produces a hopeless conceptual muddle. Individuation is then nothing but ego-centredness and autoeroticism. But the self comprises infinitely more than a mere ego, as the symbolism has shown from of old. It is as much one's self, and all other selves, as the ego.[On the Nature of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 432.]
In Jung's view, no one is ever completely individuated. While the goal is wholeness and a healthy working relationship with the self, the true value of individuation lies in what happens along the way.
The goal is important only as an idea; the essential thing is the opus which leads to the goal: that is the goal of a lifetime.["The Psychology of the Transference," CW 16, par. 400.]

I hope I am not in any way giving the impression of sounding in didactic in tone; for that would not serve the "higher discourse" of these forums. And so not to be misunderstood with the interruption I'm going to suggest a few links so Cindy can speak for herself since she obviously is much better qualified to talk about this than I am.


(Individuation Part I):

http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 3280#53280

(Individuation Part II):

http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 8675#88675

(Individuation Part III):

http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 2712#92712




From my particular understanding of the term and it's broader application this might also be helpful; but again I think Cindy would have the final say about this. ( I will just add that I think she is definitely the most knowledgeable person that I know of on Jung and also a very nice person as well.)


(From Cats and Flowers):


http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 4911#64911


Myrtle wrote:

Is Jung saying that his personal myth is his concept of the Self?

Cindy:

My understanding, Myrtle--and I clarify this since those more knowledgeable about Jung than I might understand differently or have understood differently as expressed in various writings--is that Jung came to the realization that his "personal myth" was his very life, that is, his personal experience of living and being in the world, primarily a psychic world rooted in the unconscious, his story. Yet why this life or experience or story rather than another, a human story that shared elements with all other human dramas yet was individually his own? Eventually and over long years of self-exploration, Jung sensed that something deep within the psyche was moving him and patterning his life, something that spoke of purpose and meaning and oneness that contrasted with his purely conscious experiences of the ego. He said, "I saw that everything, all paths I had been following, all steps I had taken, were leading back to a single point--namely, to the midpoint," and he came to identify that midpoint as Self, the central archetype of the collective unconscious and of wholeness, meaning, and order. The author, so to speak, of his personal myth or story was the Self.

What do you think, Myrtle? I know that you've read a decent amount of Jung, so I'm interested in your take on this, too.

Cindy
My intension is not to hijack the topic in play and I'm not saying that your description of "Individuation" is totally incorrect. But from my point of view I'm just offering the idea that (Individuation) as a concept is a very "complex" subject. And Cindy's effort at this was a huge gift to these forums for those who really want to know more. It's easy to talk about it; but watch out for "banana peels" when you do. More than once I find that I've totally misunderstood the definitions and I certainly do not suggest at being anymore knowledgeable than the average layperson struggling through this material. But I also constantly have to remind myself that my depth at comprehension when engaged with it's meanings and context because of the usual societal misinformation and misconceptions may need readjustment concerning the very nature of it's application and that: (I am a continuing work in progress with these efforts). And often times I am swimming in waters much deeper than I realize when tackling it. Speaking only for myself it is MHO that Joseph Campbell not only realized the significance of Carl Jung's themes but time and again emphasized their importance throughout his work.

I remember a quote he made once during an interview with Michael Toms when talking about his work when he said: "People say don't bother with Joe; he's a Jungian. Well I'm not. But Jung gives me the best clues that I've got".

At any rate please forgive the intrusion on (transcendence) and continue on.


The End
:)
What do I know? - Michael de Montaigne
Andreas
Associate
Posts: 2274
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:07 am

Post by Andreas » Sat Mar 05, 2016 10:36 pm

Roncooper wrote:Andreas,

I think the transcendent experience comes in flavors like ice cream. One flavor might feature inner piece and another blazing love. Different people relate to different flavors.

I believe that individuation, specialization, and diversity are the products of our various experiences.

I like to use the hand as an image for this. The hand is much better because it has five fingers rather than one, and humanity as a whole is much better when there are several paths to the transcendent mystery.
It doesn't matter if it's one or many paths or flavors, it's the same experience.. I guess..

8)
“To live is enough.” ― Shunryu Suzuki
Locked