Conference hydra::dejavu

>    PS, kinda weird, how I just noticed Meredith Daniel writing something
>        almost exactly like this in 671.10, at the very same moment
>        that it came to me to write this!!!   I didn't notice until
>        I went to post this...

And I just found it now...well, what do you know!  I guess one of the parts of 
my shadow side is religious fervor - I found yours a bit too fire-and-brimstone 
for me...hmmm.

"Of the good in you, I can speak, but not of the evil,
 For what is evil but good,
 tortured by its own hunger?
 For, when good is thirsty, it drinks even of dead waters..."

That's not a direct quote from Kahlil Gibran, but that is as best as I can 
presently recall.  Incidentally, Linda Goodman used that phrase to describe 
Scorpio.

                              
    	     <not necessarily relevant....but it sounded good>
    
    >	Of the good in you, I can speak, but not of the evil
    >	for what is evil but good,
    >	tortured by its own hunger?
    >	For, when good is thirsty, it drinks even of dead waters...
    	
    	and dead waters are the nurishment of the seed,
    	the seed of the living, and of life.
    
    	Behold the circle of rebirth, 
    		the cord of life,
    			you shall never fade away.
    

    
    This is too DEJAVU-ish to be believed.....
    
    Here I was going through the notes in order to put this quote in
    from Jung's "The Undiscovered Self", and here Alan has already
    done a fine job in .0!                       
    
    dodododododododo
    
    What the heck - here it is anyway:
    
    {From: "The Undiscovered Self", by Carl Jung, 1957, p.102}
    
    "The individual man knows that as an individual being he is more
    or less meaningless and feels himself the victim of uncontrollable
    forces, but, on the other hand, he harbors within himself a dangerous
    shadow and opponent who is involved as an invisible helper in the
    dark machinations of the political monster.  It is the nature of
    political bodies always to see the evil in the opposite group, just
    as the individual has an ineradicable tendency to get rid of everything
    he does not know and does not want to know about himself by foisting
    it off on somebody else."
    
    Cindy

    RE: Note 685.0                     Archetypes                          
    SSDEVO::ACKLEY "Aslan"                               


Interesting that all of these types of topics are being discussed now.
I am currently doing a six-month long workshop called "Facilitating
Change - Personal Growth and Counseling Skills for Astrologers".
We meet every Wednesday night and one weekend a month.  Much of what
we work with are the alienated parts of ourselves, becoming aware
of them, and then beginning the process of re-integration.  Through
experiential exercises we can see how we project our alienated
aspects onto others, as well as how we allow ourselves to be
projected upon.  We then see how the astrological archetypes 
emerge into our consciousness and are behaviorally expressed.
So far this has been a wonderful growing and learning experience.
                                

Carole

    
    	Over the years, when I've "met" my own archetypes, they've
    seemed like strong mental images.   Like pictures of people, in
    the mind.   Now as I see it, each of us owns a whole "deck" of 
    archetypes, but we do different things with them.   Perhaps they
    are *active* images, more like videotapes than photos.   Personal
    archetypes are passive, and have to be activated by paying attention
    to them.   Collective archetypes seem to have a life of their own,
    but that's another day's note, not part of what I wanted to say
    here.   Here I am only talking about the *personal* archetypes.
    
    	Some of our own archetypes we can identify with.
    We can accept this is *me*, and we build our conscious ego out
    of the images we approve of consciously (for me ego includes such
    images as student : teacher : lover : child : parent .... )
    each exemplified in the mind as a particular picture, a thought
    form.   The image of the person or movie or from a book where through
    example, imposition,  or raw creation you somehow *accepted* each
    of your ego archetypes.

    	Other images we reject.  We never visualize these images as
    being inside ourselves.   Since we reject them they live outside
    our body, and outside our consciousness unless they get reflected
    in some other being.   We will continue to project the image, so
    long as we deny that *it is our own creation*, a tool we use for
    a specific purpose.   Just because you only see the image in others,
    doesn't mean you don't do it, whatever it is.   For example:
    The man who rejects his own femininity, nontheless may act
    feminine when he is not looking at himself.   The person who hates
    manipulators, may manipulate, in those very moments when their
    attention is *all* on the other person.
    
    	Interesting Carole (re .4) what you say about using astrology
    symbols for reintegrating the psyche.   I think this is the
    primary value of astrology, tarot or similar systems, to be used
    as tools for psychic integration.    As I see it, the process is
    to accept all projections back into the self.  I think this is
    the same as what Carl Jung called individuation.   It is natural
    to find the self, fragmented, projected off into everyone around.
    Through integration, one learns to accept back into one's self,
    one archetype at a time, as we meet them in the people around us,
    or in dreams.   If you can accept and love all types of people,
    without attachment, then you become free of the karmic ties,
    the ropes of which are the projections.
    
    	Jung taught that individuation proceeds in four stages, that
    in each stage a person would integrate one of the four basic
    "functions":  Sensation, Thought, Intuition and Emotion.
    (Earth, Air, Water, Fire;  Are the symbols that correspond.)
    Each person starts at their own point, and integrates in the
    order natural for them.   When all four are integrated, the
    person becomes completely mature.   You may be asking, what
    do these four symbols have to do with those mental videotapes
    I was talking about above?   Well, usually people are only
    accessable to their archetypes when they are going through
    some major transistion in life.   The opportunity to meet your
    projections is one you should not pass up, even if it be painful,
    for such lessons are only offered a few times in each person's
    lifetime.   If a person can recover a projection, then they
    may become aware of a whole new facet of life:   The thinker
    may learn to use intuition;  The emotional person may learn to
    feel "grounded";  The intuitive person may learn emotional control;
    The earthy person may learn to be abstract; etc...
    
	Learning to accept what we have rejected, to understand what
    we have ignored is the basic act of psychic growth.  Opportunities
    to learn these lessons may be rare, when you get a chance to meet
    yourself in others, but you can prepare for these chances to make
    more of each one.   The basic act of preparation is to *be aware*
    of the nature of projection, so you can catch yourself in the act
    next time it happens to you.  Be aware the next time you feel hate
    or rejection for someone, and ask yourself what part of *yourself*
    you are rejecting.

    	Alan.

    PS,  thanks Cindy for the great Jung quote!

    Re .5 (Alan):
    
    >PS,  thanks Cindy for the great Jung quote!
    
    She's Jung at heart. :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    
    
    RE .5
    
    Alan,
    
    Very nicely expressed.  I agree that the key to it all is *awareness*.
    
    Carole
    

    re: .6
    
    Steve, 
    
    The Save the Pun Foundation is having its annual
    dinner next Monday in Chicago...perhaps you
    ought to attend? Or maybe you'll just be there
    in spirit...;-)
    
    -Amy.

 What is the anima/animus?

 Is the shadow a nessisary part of the whole or is it simply
the sourse of evil in the world.

 The following is my personal opinion only,I have not done
any reading on the subject.I think that the shadow is only
one part of ourselves and that all of the parts together
influence our actions. I have a hard time believing that
the shadow part of our selves can be changed by love.My
personal shadow is by every definition I can think of evil.
I do not believe I can change it by love. It is however only
a part and is modified by the rest of myself,the loving side
for example.As a part of the whole I think the shadow may
have value.


                   George D.
  

re; < Note 685.9 by MTBLUE::DUCHARME_GEO >
                        -< Does the shadow have value? >-

You bet!

>Is the shadow a nessisary part of the whole or is it simply
>the sourse of evil in the world.

The shadow is the qualities that you have (that we all have) which you reject 
about yourself, be these *labelled* positive, or negative.

>The following is my personal opinion only,I have not done
>any reading on the subject.I think that the shadow is only
>one part of ourselves and that all of the parts together
>influence our actions. 

Yes.  The shadow is not the totality of our being, but rather, that part of our 
being of which we are unaware on a conscious level.

>I have a hard time believing that
>the shadow part of our selves can be changed by love.My
>personal shadow is by every definition I can think of evil.

Some define "evil" as that which is unconscious, so, in a roundabout sort of a 
way, you're right.  Evil provokes fear; fear is the largest enemy that any of 
us will have to conquer; fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of 
ourselves, fear of others.  That which you do not know about yourself, can be 
used against you, and can seem evil in that sense.

The true magician knows that magic (magick?), in its ultimate form, is nothing 
more, nothing less, than the balance of personal energies.  When one operates 
from an unconscious level, one tries to change the surrounding elements of the 
world to fit his/her perceptions; for example, I know of a female (I wouldn't 
define her as a "lady")  who refuses to change her perception that people on 
the outside want to hurt her, so she must know ultimate protection of her Self. 
She is violent; threatening; and often abrases people away; the very same 
people who would help her when she is needy.  Rather than going that route, 
when she is needy, she thieves.  (This is a person, about whom I have not 
previously spoken).  People who would harm others to increase their personal 
feeling of power and control over others, have very little power and control
over themselves, and are operating from an unconscious level.  Thus, the evil 
in our society. 

On the other side of the coin, when you bring into consciousness the parts of 
yourself that you fear are evil, you find out that they are no longer evil, nor 
do they control you, any longer, from that unconscious perspective.  "For, what 
is evil, but good, tortured by its own thirst; for when good is thirsty, it 
will drink even of dead waters..."

>I do not believe I can change it by love. It is however only
>a part and is modified by the rest of myself,the loving side
>for example.As a part of the whole I think the shadow may
>have value.

You can change it by loving yourself enough to make it conscious.  The shadow 
side has more control over us when it is unconscious; we have more control over 
ourselves when it is conscious.

   RE: .10  Thanks ,I agree with most of your reply ,but I am confused
 about whether the shadow is still considered the shadow when it becomes
 conscious. 

 >Yes.  The shadow is not the totality of our being, but rather, that part
 >of our being of which we are unaware on a conscious level.

 I had interpeted the meaning of the shadow as the totally selfish,
ruthless,etc. part of ourselves.It could be that I just happen to be
very conscious of myself and do not have much of one hidden in my
subconscious or that I misinterpited the meaning of the shadow.

 If the selfish,ruthless part of ourselves is not the shadow what is it?



                            George D. 

    
    Some book recommendations for you:
    
    	"The Unexplored Self", by Carl Jung (very short, quite readable)
      	"People Of The Lie", by Scott Peck
    	"The Sacred Journey", by Lazaris (negative ego = shadow)
    
    From reading all of these, I believe that a person must first
    acknowledge that they have the 'capability' within them to create
    heinous crimes against humankind.  The trick then is to recognize
    that and then master it at a conscious level as opposed to having
    it master you on the unconscious level.
    
    In every decision on every action you take, you have the ability
    to choose between good and evil at some level.  It's so easy to
    repay evil with evil.  It's far more difficult to master our negative
    ego and to overcome evil with good.  But that's what we must do.
    
    Cindy

re; < Note 685.11 by RANGLY::DUCHARME_GEO >
                    -< The shadow knows(could not resist) >-
{snicker}

>   RE: .10  Thanks ,I agree with most of your reply ,but I am confused
> about whether the shadow is still considered the shadow when it becomes
> conscious. 

I think that we, in our human form, have very little likelihood of becoming 
totally conscious!  Some may think the gurus, etc are totally conscious beings; 
my perception is that there are different levels of being conscious-vs-uncon-
scious; there isn't really a known universal scale for measuring at what level 
you are (if anyone has some type of scale, be my guest, please!) other than the 
feedback you receive from your barometers (that which is, and those who are,
around you).

> I had interpeted the meaning of the shadow as the totally selfish,
>ruthless,etc. part of ourselves.It could be that I just happen to be
>very conscious of myself and do not have much of one hidden in my
>subconscious or that I misinterpited the meaning of the shadow.

You project your strong points, as well as your weak ones.  Check out the topic 
titled "Philosophy for the Doodler" - the Shadow is brought up in terms of the 
Magic Mirror.  Otherwise, I think I'll only be repeating myself.  (I already 
have, but what the heck ;-)

> If the selfish,ruthless part of ourselves is not the shadow what is it?

It is the Unconscious parts of ourselves.  Once again, ref. to Philosophy for 
the Doodler.  

Meredith

  Thanks for the replies.I will have to do some reading.

   I am wondering if the wizard Merlin might be an archetype.I was 
told this story by two different people.They were both described
having the mental picture of an eye with concentric circles
coming from it.They recognized it as Merlin from the eyebrow.
The circles became larger and larger until the image was purposely
broken out of fear just before the circles had grown large enough
to encompass them.Pretty strange if you ask me.


                   George D.   

Hi, Meridith.

>I think that we, in our human form, have very little likelihood of becoming 
>totally conscious!  

Depends on what you mean by 'totally conscious'.  If you mean 'complete
consciousness 100% of the time' and we have a good understanding of
consciousness, then I agree.  If you mean 'complete consciousness for a
fixed/short period of time', and that consciousness means complete union
with the All (samadhi), I disagree.  I forget the author, but I once read
that consciousness is a function of the brain (intellect) and self (soul)
while ideas are 'excretions' of the above.  How do you measure the union
of the mental and spiritual selves?  Could not the subconscious just be
the result of our seeing the results of 'censorship' that we do at some
conscious (mental) level?  If that is the case, a union of the conscious
and the subconscious can be obtained by determining where we are doing this
censorship and 're-programming' the censor.

>Some may think the gurus, etc are totally conscious beings; 
>my perception is that there are different levels of being conscious-vs-uncon-
>scious; there isn't really a known universal scale for measuring at what level 
>you are ...

Again, what is consciousness?  Self knowledge?  Separation of yourself from
the (let's see if I get the term right...) Zeitgeist?  The 'group mind'
that governs primitive actions.  Are the voices in our heads part of that
world view??  Or rather, are the supernatural entities??  Maybe they're
collective archetypes created by the 'group mind'.

>> I had interpeted the meaning of the shadow as the totally selfish,
>>ruthless,etc. part of ourselves.It could be that I just happen to be
>>very conscious of myself and do not have much of one hidden in my
>>subconscious or that I misinterpited the meaning of the shadow.
>
>You project your strong points, as well as your weak ones.  

True, but are negatives "weak points?"  Some psychologists look at negatives
as weak points, but this view is based on social mores.  I liked the comment
about negatives traits being those that we reject in ourselves.

Here's an interesting exercise... draw a line down the center of a sheet
of paper.  Meditate on your positive qualities, and then write them down
on one side of the paper.  Do the same with your negative qualities on the
other side.  Since we're working with 'personal' archetypes, take the
characteristics and group them into your 'personal' view of Earth, Air,
Fire, and Water 'elements'.  Do you have a balance (equal number of light
and shadow traits in ALL of the 'elements')?  Think about this for a day
or two, adding to the lists as your perception of yourself is broadened.

See if the light (positive) characteristics are balanced by a shadow (negative)
characteristics.  How does this correspond with your *conscious* view of
yourself?

>> If the selfish,ruthless part of ourselves is not the shadow what is it?
>
>It is the Unconscious parts of ourselves.  Once again, ref. to Philosophy for 
>the Doodler.  

Hmmm... is it?  Or is the part of ourselves that the conscious mind rejects
and the censored subconscious part of ourselves embraces?

I'm not disagreeing with you... I'm just saying that I think we need to
take this explanation with a grain of 'psychological' salt.


				Salting away... :^)
				-- Mike

re; < Note 685.15 by THE780::WOODWARD "I am NOT this illusion." >

I'm a proponent of taking everything with a grain of salt until you've checked 
with your own inner sense of self to see what's right for you.

>>I think that we, in our human form, have very little likelihood of becoming 
>>totally conscious!  

>Depends on what you mean by 'totally conscious'.  If you mean 'complete
>consciousness 100% of the time' and we have a good understanding of
>consciousness, then I agree.

Thanks for clarifying my definition.  This is what I meant.  I have reached 
that point where "it all falls away" (the games and separations) and I have 
merged/become one with a universal energy that is beautiful; I don't know if it 
is "total consciousness" but I do know that it is "consciousness at a different 
level".  It feels like it is a higher level, so until I find out differently, I 
will believe that it is.

>How do you measure the union
>of the mental and spiritual selves?  

I usually guess. ;-)

>Could not the subconscious just be
>the result of our seeing 

If it's subconscious, you're not seeing it.  To see it is to make it conscious.

>the results of 'censorship' that we do at some
>conscious (mental) level?  

I, the Ego, accept that these qualities are Me, and these are Not Me.  You bet 
it's censorship.  It's what happens *after* the censorship that gets 
interesting.

>If that is the case, a union of the conscious
>and the subconscious can be obtained by determining where we are doing this
>censorship and 're-programming' the censor.

And a good way to do this is to watch what's going on in the reality around us, 
where our own repressions are projected for our viewing pleasure.

>>Some may think the gurus, etc are totally conscious beings; 
>>my perception is that there are different levels of being conscious-vs-uncon-
>>scious; there isn't really a known universal scale for measuring at what level 
>>you are ...

>Again, what is consciousness?  

I figure that, if we knew what it really was, we'd have a scale for it ;-) but 
when you've been there, you know it (for those brief enlightened periods we 
talked about above, where you helped me clarify my definition...if, of course, 
we can accept the definition, since it all boils down to belief)

>Zeitgeist?  The 'group mind'
>that governs primitive actions.  Are the voices in our heads part of that
>world view??  Or rather, are the supernatural entities??  Maybe they're
>collective archetypes created by the 'group mind'.

I absolutely don't follow you, and I'm not sure I want to.  Scary to think that 
some 'group mind' is governing my primitive actions.  By the way, what *are* my 
primitive actions?  Wait - I'm not sure I want to know that answer.  I don't 
think there can be any pat, universal, 100%-known-to-be-true answer for your 
questions, and I just bet we could hypothesize on them forever.

>>> I had interpeted the meaning of the shadow as the totally selfish,
>>>ruthless,etc. part of ourselves.It could be that I just happen to be
>>>very conscious of myself and do not have much of one hidden in my
>>>subconscious or that I misinterpited the meaning of the shadow.
>>
>>You project your strong points, as well as your weak ones.  

>True, but are negatives "weak points?"  Some psychologists look at negatives
>as weak points, but this view is based on social mores.  I liked the comment
>about negatives traits being those that we reject in ourselves.

By the way, watch out; the comment about being "...very conscious of myself and 
do not have much hidden in my subconscious" is one of those that can trip you; 
seems like, as soon as you say it, something happens to show you that it's 
untrue.  I think a very conscious person would not say that s/he was; that's 
my opinion, anyway...

Pardon my English; of course, it's better to say "rejected traits" than it is 
to say "weak ones" although by "weak ones" I was referring to "ones we do not 
use for our betterment, and therefore, are weak within us".  Better?

>Here's an interesting exercise... 

I like the exercise.  Thanks.

>See if the light (positive) characteristics are balanced by a shadow (negative)
>characteristics.  How does this correspond with your *conscious* view of
>yourself?

Wait a minute, though; the Shadow is those qualities that we have within 
ourselves of which we are unaware.  A negative characteristic is different.  A 
shadow quality can also be a positive thing, that you project around you so 
that others show you what is your own "good stuff".  "Conscious" is "aware"; 
"Unconscious/subconscious" is "unaware".  If you know points about yourself 
which you consider to be negative, you are conscious of that negativity.  (Of 
course, the definitions of "positive" and "negative" are subjective, unless 
you're speaking electrical charges.)

>>> If the selfish,ruthless part of ourselves is not the shadow what is it?
>>
>>It is the Unconscious parts of ourselves.  Once again, ref. to Philosophy for 
>>the Doodler.  

>Hmmm... is it?  Or is the part of ourselves that the conscious mind rejects
>and the censored subconscious part of ourselves embraces?

Hey, it all sounds like the same deal to me; I mean, when you consciously see 
something and reject it to your subconscious, you are no longer conscious of 
it.  Repressed memories will serve as an example here.  It happened, but got 
shoved into the unconscious.  Awareness, i.e., consciousness about the event, 
is, no longer.  Of course, some people are selfish and ruthless consciously, 
although I believe that "negative" traits such as those are simply lower-plane 
manifestations of a higher ideal.  (She caught her breath as she wrote the 
line, wondering if he would take the bait...)

>I'm not disagreeing with you... I'm just saying that I think we need to
>take this explanation with a grain of 'psychological' salt.

"We"?  I am speaking here about things that work for me.  If they don't work 
for you, then please share, what does.  I'm always willing to try other 
methodology, but I have to see something that will work *for me*, first.  
Actually, I think you don't disagree as much as have different ways of 
expressing the same thing.

re:< Note 685.16 by GENRAL::DANIEL "If it's sloppy, eat over the sink." >
                          -< Back to the Salt Mines. >-

>I'm a proponent of taking everything with a grain of salt until you've checked 
>with your own inner sense of self to see what's right for you.

>I have reached 
>that point where "it all falls away" (the games and separations) and I have 
>merged/become one with a universal energy that is beautiful; I don't know if it 
>is "total consciousness" but I do know that it is "consciousness at a different 
>level".  It feels like it is a higher level, so until I find out differently, I 
>will believe that it is.

This sounds a lot like what the Yogis refer to as Samadhi.

>>Could not the subconscious just be
>>the result of our seeing 
>
>If it's subconscious, you're not seeing it.  To see it is to make it conscious.

True... unless consciousness implies control.  (my *own* bait... ;^))

>>the results of 'censorship' that we do at some
>>conscious (mental) level?  
>
>I, the Ego, accept that these qualities are Me, and these are Not Me.  You bet 
>it's censorship.  It's what happens *after* the censorship that gets 
>interesting.

Ahh.. the Taoist comes out!!  :^)

>>Again, what is consciousness?  
>
>I figure that, if we knew what it really was, we'd have a scale for it ;-) but 
>when you've been there, you know it (for those brief enlightened periods we 
>talked about above, where you helped me clarify my definition...if, of course, 
>we can accept the definition, since it all boils down to belief)

There are those who believe that if it cannot be measured, then it's not
science.  This isn't precisely the case.  There are _qualitative_ as well
as _quantitative_ experiments.  In the case of measuring consciousness,
it may well be that we must have many qualitative experiences before we
can assign quantitative measures.

I would assume, from your experience, that you would agree with me saying
that experiencing the varied states of consciousness is something very
different than reading about other's studies and experiences.

>I absolutely don't follow you, and I'm not sure I want to.  Scary to think that 
>some 'group mind' is governing my primitive actions.  

By 'group mind' I mean a 'world viewpoint' or perspective.  At various times
in history we have had cultures invent various gods, religions, social
structures that represent the structure of their viewpoint.

Part of becoming conscious is stepping out of that world view and forming
your own.  This allows us to make our own decisions and take over
responsibility for our own destiny.

>By the way, what *are* my 
>primitive actions?  Wait - I'm not sure I want to know that answer.  I don't 
>think there can be any pat, universal, 100%-known-to-be-true answer for your 
>questions, and I just bet we could hypothesize on them forever.

Dr. Lilly, in his research in altered states of consciousness, uncovered
certain 'proto-human' survival instincts.  Above these, are what he called
'supra-metaprograms'... common responses based on primitive experiences
that seemed common in all of the subjects.  Above these were the 'metaprograms'
that our environment gives us.  (Metaprograms are 'programs that have the
capability of generating other programs while they modify their own
programming'.)  Though the analogy of programming may be unpleasant, it
is OUR responsibility to examine the 'programming' that we have picked up
and become our own 'metaprogrammers'.

Before anyone fries me on this one, I *am* *not* saying that we are simply
biocomputers... it's just that over time we tend to develop certain responses
to given situations based on our view of the universe.

But, Meredith, you're correct.  We could hypothesize forever.  :^)
  
>By the way, watch out; the comment about being "...very conscious of myself and 
>do not have much hidden in my subconscious" is one of those that can trip you; 
>seems like, as soon as you say it, something happens to show you that it's 
>untrue.  I think a very conscious person would not say that s/he was; that's 
>my opinion, anyway...

... and one that I agree with...

>>See if the light (positive) characteristics are balanced by a shadow (negative)
>>characteristics.  How does this correspond with your *conscious* view of
>>yourself?
>
>Wait a minute, though; the Shadow is those qualities that we have within 
>ourselves of which we are unaware.  A negative characteristic is different.  A 
>shadow quality can also be a positive thing, that you project around you so 
>that others show you what is your own "good stuff".  "Conscious" is "aware"; 
>"Unconscious/subconscious" is "unaware".  If you know points about yourself 
>which you consider to be negative, you are conscious of that negativity.  (Of 
>course, the definitions of "positive" and "negative" are subjective, unless 
>you're speaking electrical charges.)

Hold on, *you* defined the Shadow as the 'unconscious'... if you can list
the quality as 'negative' is is not unknown to your conscious self, just
rejected as negative behavior.  Also, unconscious and subconscious are not
necessarily the same thing.

>>Hmmm... is it?  Or is the part of ourselves that the conscious mind rejects
>>and the censored subconscious part of ourselves embraces?
>
>Hey, it all sounds like the same deal to me; I mean, when you consciously see 
>something and reject it to your subconscious, you are no longer conscious of 
>it.

*blush* right again.  I guess I was caught up in another thought... something
like there isn't any real subconscious, just a veil that exists between
the two that, with practice, can be penetrated with relative ease.

>Repressed memories will serve as an example here.  It happened, but got 
>shoved into the unconscious.  Awareness, i.e., consciousness about the event, 
>is, no longer.  Of course, some people are selfish and ruthless consciously, 
>although I believe that "negative" traits such as those are simply lower-plane 
>manifestations of a higher ideal.  (She caught her breath as she wrote the 
>line, wondering if he would take the bait...)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'lower-plane'... do you mean, like, Qliphotic??
(The Qliphoth are the 'dark mirrors' of the Tree of Life's Sephira.)  In
any case, any positive quality, taken to excess, is out of balance and
destructive... unless the quality is absolutely pure.  Even love can become
fanatical.  (nibble, nibble... ;^))  Since nothing seems completely pure
in this world, I might be convinced of the possibility that anything that
man may accomplish, taken to extreme, may be harmful.

>>I'm not disagreeing with you... I'm just saying that I think we need to
>>take this explanation with a grain of 'psychological' salt.
>
>"We"?  I am speaking here about things that work for me.  If they don't work 
>for you, then please share, what does.  I'm always willing to try other 
>methodology, but I have to see something that will work *for me*, first.  

"We" as collective humanity, DEJAVU readers, my collective self... I wasn't
in any way impugning your methodology.

My own method consists of mental and nervous system gymnastics that can
trigger consciousness changes within myself... various forms of Yoga combined
with various symbols within a belief structure that allows me to define
and redefine my reality.

>Actually, I think you don't disagree as much as have different ways of 
>expressing the same thing.

I *don't* disagree... I was just seeking clarification.


						-- Mike

re; < Note 685.17 by THE780::WOODWARD "I am NOT this illusion." >

>unless consciousness implies control.  (my *own* bait... ;^))

	I have this problem with food that recurs.  I know I overeat; I eat
	when I'm not hungry; I eat to stuff emotions.  I don't know why.
	I am conscious of the problem, but, at the present time, very little
	in control of it.  I am pursuing answers.  By being conscious of the
	problem, I hope to gain control over it, instead of gaining weight.
	It's one of the most self-defeating things I do to myself.

re: Consciousness;

>There are those who believe that if it cannot be measured, then it's not
>science.  This isn't precisely the case.  There are _qualitative_ as well
>as _quantitative_ experiments.  In the case of measuring consciousness,
>it may well be that we must have many qualitative experiences before we
>can assign quantitative measures.

>I would assume, from your experience, that you would agree with me saying
>that experiencing the varied states of consciousness is something very
>different than reading about other's studies and experiences.

	Yes, I do agree. (Have you ever been in sales? ;-))

>By 'group mind' I mean a 'world viewpoint' or perspective.  At various times
>in history we have had cultures invent various gods, religions, social
>structures that represent the structure of their viewpoint.

	I see.  And these perceptions are hard to avoid, when one is
	considering the current culture.  After all, when we are children
	we learn what is our culture and structure;  I wonder if this
	is something of a Grand Projection ;-) ; what I mean is, if we
	can recognize repression/projection on an individual basis, can
	we then recognize it as it exists in society?

	I learned a theory once that goes something like this;

	Things move in circles, toward and away from the Self; you notice
	something that happens/is in the Universe; then you notice it in
	the Galaxy; then in our solar system, then on our planet, then on
	our continent, then in our nation, then in  our state, then in our 
	city, then amongst our friends, then in the Self (reverse is true, 
	too).  Events/happenings/thoughts move in those two directions.
	(I usually start to drive much more carefully if I witness an auto
	accident, just in case that theory is true.)

>Part of becoming conscious is stepping out of that world view and forming
>your own.  This allows us to make our own decisions and take over
>responsibility for our own destiny.

	I'd like to fit this in with the Mirror theory; if you are not
	taking responsibility for defining who are you, and are unconscious
	(n. The division of the psyche not subject to direct conscious
	observation, but inferred from its effects on conscious processes
	and behavior) of who are you, or are acting out some of your stuff on
	a subconscious (adj., Not wholly conscious, but capable of being
	made conscious) level, then, through observing your surrounding
	reality, you can learn about yourself and make inner adjustments
	which will allow you to realize your responsibility to yourself
	and over yourself.

>>By the way, what *are* my 
>>primitive actions?  Wait - I'm not sure I want to know that answer.  I don't 
>>think there can be any pat, universal, 100%-known-to-be-true answer for your 
>>questions, and I just bet we could hypothesize on them forever.

>Dr. Lilly, in his research in altered states of consciousness, uncovered
>certain 'proto-human' survival instincts.  Above these, are what he called
>'supra-metaprograms'... common responses based on primitive experiences
>that seemed common in all of the subjects.  Above these were the 'metaprograms'
>that our environment gives us.  (Metaprograms are 'programs that have the
>capability of generating other programs while they modify their own
>programming'.)  Though the analogy of programming may be unpleasant, it
>is OUR responsibility to examine the 'programming' that we have picked up
>and become our own 'metaprogrammers'.

*whew* that's not as bad as I thought! (Of course, "bad" is a subjective term.)

>Before anyone fries me on this one, I *am* *not* saying that we are simply
>biocomputers... it's just that over time we tend to develop certain responses
>to given situations based on our view of the universe.

It sounds like what many refer to as "tapes".  We're given a bunch of 
information and told that it's true, and often, we react to that, rather than 
thinking of other ways, or even thinking that there *are* other ways.

>Hold on, *you* defined the Shadow as the 'unconscious'... if you can list
>the quality as 'negative' is is not unknown to your conscious self, just
>rejected as negative behavior.  Also, unconscious and subconscious are not
>necessarily the same thing.

"I consciously reject behavior A, which I realize I have/act out.  Since I 
don't like this aspect of myself, it is negative.  However, I am conscious that 
I have it/act it out."  If I were unconscious that I was behaving in a way that 
I consciously consider negative (i.e., when I see it in others, I can't stand 
it, and would have a real hard time believing that I do the same thing), then 
the behavior, in myself, would be part of my Shadow.  On the other side of the 
coin, if I see that there is another who has a quality that I consciously 
value, but do not feel I have, yet I do have and express it without realizing 
it, then that valuable ("good") quality is also part of my Shadow.  The Shadow 
contains those qualities of our Selves, of which we are unconscious; that 
includes both "perceived positive" and "perceived negative" qualities; likewise 
for the Conscious self (i.e., you are aware of what you consider your "good 
points" as well as what you consider to be your "bad points").

>*blush* right again.  I guess I was caught up in another thought... something
>like there isn't any real subconscious, just a veil that exists between
>the two that, with practice, can be penetrated with relative ease.

The above definition of Subconscious (the adjective) fits your thought.  As far 
as being penetrated with ease, I think it is capable of being penetrated; as 
far as being easy, looking into a mirror to see some of your real motivations 
is sometimes very hard, even if you're very open to self-criticism.  In the 
movie "Neverending Story", the brave warrior (albeit little boy) Atrellu (sp?) 
has to go through many "gates" in order to save his world; he makes it through 
a very difficult gate, but the scientist who helped him cries out to his 
unhearing ears that there is a more difficult gate to come; the Mirror 
confrontation with himself..."for a kind man will find that he is cruel...When 
confronted with their true selves, most men run screaming..."  Atrellu looks 
into the mirror to find that his Shadow/Mirror side is an intellectual bookworm 
who is afraid of his own imagination, as opposed to his conscious self, who is 
a brave warrior, living in the land of imagination.  However, he successfully 
passes through the gate.  (After all, being an intellectual bookworm has its 
benefits ;-))  Anyway, yes, with practice, the veil between the conscious, 
subconscious and unconscious parts of ourselves can be penetrated to varying 
degrees.  (I often use sub/unconscious together because, to both, I am 
referring.)

>I'm not sure what you mean by 'lower-plane'... do you mean, like, Qliphotic??
>(The Qliphoth are the 'dark mirrors' of the Tree of Life's Sephira.)  In
>any case, any positive quality, taken to excess, is out of balance and
>destructive... unless the quality is absolutely pure.  Even love can become
>fanatical.  (nibble, nibble... ;^))  Since nothing seems completely pure
>in this world, I might be convinced of the possibility that anything that
>man may accomplish, taken to extreme, may be harmful.

By "lower-plane" I was referring to what might be considered other 
manifestations of desired spiritual attainment.  'Scuse me while I reach for 
some notes here from Tarot...

THE FOOL's higher-consciousness manifestations are freedom, pure aspect of God, 
convention breaker, fearless, spirit in search of experience, life-breath, the 
alchemist, the basis of all systems, no-mind, pure state of mind (did you call 
that Sanadhi? sorry, I forgot the word!), full potential for knowledge, 
originality, audacity, quest, to be a complete person within one's self, 
genius, surprise, sudden change, carefree, eternal youth.  THE FOOL's lower-
consciousness manifestations are faulty or foolish choices, foolhardy, folly, 
mania, extravagence, intoxication, delirium, frenzy, negligence, carelessness, 
rebellion, iconoclasm, madness.

Once again, you may be conscious of either aspect (For purposes of not having 
to use too many words, I will call the higher-consciousness "positive" and the 
lower-consciousness "negative") of the FOOL in your daily behavior, as well as 
unconscious of positive or negative FOOL aspects in yourself.

The school in which I studied TAROT not only associated the Major Arcana with 
the Kabbalah Sephira, but also broke down the 22 cards into 44 differing 
aspects of behavior; each card had higher-consciousness (which they defined as 
"conscious") ramifications, as well as lower-consciousness (which they defined 
as "unconscious") ramifications.  The 22 cards together, all at once, were God, 
and the school taught that we, as men, had to have them broken down into 22 
because pure God energy would fry us, as humans.  There really is a synthesis 
between their "conscious" and "unconscious" and the Mirror/Shadow "conscious" 
and "unconscious" but I kind of need a breather.  If you can figure that one 
out yourself, please do be my guest.  It's another can of worms and I need to 
get some work done! ;-)

>My own method consists of mental and nervous system gymnastics that can
>trigger consciousness changes within myself... various forms of Yoga combined
>with various symbols within a belief structure that allows me to define
>and redefine my reality.

Do you do Khundalini Yoga?  If you don't want to get in to these exercises 
here, I would love to hear about them; write me at GENRAL::DANIEL; I think that 
what you describe is something in which I do have an interest, but simply have 
not gotten too deep into pursuing (like, one thing at a time! ;-))  But I do 
think that what you have begun describing could be of help to a lot of people 
who read or read-and-write in this file.

'til later
Meredith

    Re some of the foregoing:
    
    Would it be asking too much if these could be cleft into smaller
    portions?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

re:< Note 685.19 by MARKER::KALLIS "Why is everyone getting uptight?" >
                               -< [pant, pant] >-
    
>    Would it be asking too much if these could be cleft into smaller
>    portions?
    
Sorry, all.  I was getting carried away again. 

				-- Mike's_consciousness_slipped :^)

    
    On length....yes, I second Steve's request.
    
    When one is 'taking a breather' of a couple of minutes, it's easy
    to read through a 75 line note (unless it is strictly reference
    material as in the recent Lazaris tape listing) over the network
    on a slow day.  But a 200 line note tends to be more difficult,
    and I usually have to leave in the middle of it, only to try to
    pick it back up again (at the beginning) later on.
    
    Cindy

    re: last few
        I should talk about length!  :-)
        
        But it might help if people didn't repeat everything someone
    else says, for starters...it can usually be referenced without the
    verbatim transcript (which is available anyway.)
    
    Anyway, I know I am prolific at times...I should take the time to
    say it in less words...
    
    Frederick
    

    well, i like to see the passage that's being referred to, without
    having to skip back and forth between notes....  it's a great time-
    saver to have the referenced material in the same place as the reply.
    
    	bruce

    Also, when responding to a single point in a note which makes
    several, its useful to indicate precisely what you are refering
    to.  Heavy use of paraphrasing and elipses is recommended, however
    -- anyone who needs to check the exact wording can do so easily
    enough after all.
    
    					Topher

re; < Note 685.26 by PBSVAX::COOPER "Topher Cooper" >

I guess that simply referring to the note to which one is responding is 
adequate in many cases.

Briefly Yours,
Meredith West

    re: .27 (MW)
    
    >>	Briefly Yours,
    >>	Meredith West
    
    	This isn't what you told me last night.  ;-)
    
    						Carla
    

re; < Note 685.28 by BSS::BLAZEK "Dancing with My Self" >

Well, Carla, in your case, I'll make it Forever. ;-)

Hee, hee hee! *but would you have to read it from your home terminal!*