Re: Thesis Topic
And this morning
Here it is 4am, awoke with pain about 20 minutes ago, took some more
medication and am now awake, sort of loll. When u say "You make some good points
about the Levy thesis and I think basically it is best to stick with what you
have done such an amount of study on", the initial thread I read in the intro
book review does fit in, along with that which I have been studying so far in
"R.D. Laing Contemporary Perspectives" edt by Salman Raschid. My argument with
regard to there being no unified collective unconscious, considers the
distinction between inner and outer worlds, humanity's loss of conscience "the
voice of Nature within" which now appears alien. It also considers the
distinction between a collective unconscious as an original collection of
innate/instinctive symbols/tokens and the inherent collection of additional
symbols/tokens, which results in a multiplicity of differing emotions, ideas,
desires and dreams. With this differentiation, it cannot now be said that there
is a unified collective unconscious.



While it cannot be said that we share a unified collective unconscious, it can
be said that we share a unified collective of innate feelings, which give access
to conscience, to the voice within. However, there must be a distinction between
innate/instinctive feelings and inherent feelings. There must also be a
distinction between existing in a state of unconsciousness and a state of
consciousness. In consciousness, there is a unified collective, where in
consciousness one is conscious not only of all external to the self, but also of
inner innate/Instinctive feelings which give access to conscience. While
existing in a state of unconsciousness, one tends to adhere to mere public
opinion reflected in relation to inherent feelings rather than instinct, where
inherent feelings founded upon fear and uncertainty add differing symbols/tokens
as shadows within the unconscious. The ego exists in a state of unconsciousness,
the illusionary personal ego consciously discriminating between tokens/symbols
held as shadows within the unconscious, where only in relation to these shadows
do those existing in an unconscious state formulate values. As Jung suggested
the illusionary personal ego consciously discriminates between tokens/symbols to
formulate values and, in turn, it is this function of discrimination, which
seemingly formulates shadows within the unconsciousness mind. Jung warned of the
misconception of perceiving the shadow as objective. The shadow in
unconsciousness is subjective,[1][1] for it is the personal ego's proposition
and judgement, which gives discriminative value to a token/symbol. However,
there is also the issue to being born not only into a family, but also into a
society, a culture, religion and language. Each differing society, culture and
religion reflects a differing utility of language, each carrying a differing
collection of symbols/tokens, where differing symbols/tokens reflect differing
shadows within the unconscious, differing views of reality and in turn a
multiplicity of difference when it comes to one's experience of
being-in-the-world. Given this multiplicity of differentiation, there can be no
unified collective unconscious and given as the greater majority of humanity
adhere to the delusion of an ego self, it could be said there is no collective
unconscious.



Please remember that i have written this at 4am loll.



Just realized that I should have said that while existing in a state of
unconsciousness, adhering only to public opinion and with utility of a
social/cultural language which carries its own collective shadows in
unconsciousness, one may be drawn into a social/cultural collective form of
obsessional madness, each individuated ego self with its own inherent
symbols/tokens in the shadows of the subjective unconscious has its own unique
experience of psychosis brought on by a social/cultural collective form of
obsessional madness.



I would welcome all comments and a discussion on this topic ;)))))



Love & Massive Hugs

Elaine





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1][1] Ibid. p. 333.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]