Discernment vs Projection
Edmond Wollmann
Analytical discernment as opposed to projection is the determination of
the momentum and bias of a belief system and its reinforcing logic,
without becoming caught up in the belief system in question. This can
only be achieved in degrees through self knowledge. Any imbalance in the
perceptive faculties of an empowered and integral person will be
reflected in the overemphasis upon either the empirical perspective
(Virgo) or the surrendering and "faith" perspective (Pisces) and it is
the efficiency with which the identity deals with information that
determines this level of discernment (Gemini/Sagittarius-information
axis) and their belief in knowingness and trust of self. Awareness and
integrity are ALWAYS the keys. A word to the wise is sufficient. The
lines are fine and there are many.
"The recognition and taking to heart of the subjective determination of
knowledge in general, and of psychological knowledge in particular, are
basic conditions for the scientific and impartial evaluation of a psyche
different from that of the observing subject. These conditions are
fulfilled only when the observer is sufficiently informed about the
nature and scope of his own personality. He can, however, be sufficiently
informed only when he has in large measure freed himself from the
levelling influence of collective opinions and thereby arrived at a clear
conception of his own individuality . . . "The collective attitude
hinders the recognition and evaluation of a psychology different from the
subject's, because the mind that is collectively oriented is quite
incapable of thinking and feeling in any other way than by projection."
Carl G. Jung
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the
sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to
whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt
in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really
exists, manifesting itself as highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty
which our dull falculties can comprehend only in their most primitive
forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true
religiousness."
Albert Einstein
"According to general relativity, the concept of space detached from any
physical content does not exist. The physical reality of space is
represented by a field whose components are continuous functions of four
independent variables-the coordinates of space and time. It is just this
particular kind of dependence that expresses the spatial character of
physical reality.
Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of
physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or
material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of
motion."
"Just as Maxwell and Faraday assumed that a magnet
creates certain properties in surrounding space,
so Einstein concluded that stars, moons, and other
celestial objects individually determine the properties
of the space around them. And just as the movement of a
piece of iron in a magnetic field is guided by the structure
of the field, so is the path of any body in a gravitational
field is determined by the geometry of that field."
Lincoln Barnett in "The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Some covered theories (in this text) will meet the scientific criteria
better than others.
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to appropriate
criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed in other ways.
But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of failure to meet
scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include theories that do
not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths in the
non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than some more
scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
Therefore the unbalanced shall remain killfiled.
53,937,075,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. -5.393707075 x 10 58th- Is greater than the population of a
million earths, but the smallest possible number of astrological factor
combinations, and from that like any other data you can infer what you
wish. If a client of mine is suffering from self efficacy concerns, and
through astrological and psychological awareness finds levels of stress
factors associated with it that interfere with developmental growth
diminished, and understanding and efficacy enhanced, neither the number
above, nor studies a mile long, would create sufficient developmental
tension for either of us to attempt to fix something that isn't broken,
only so persons so needing this evidence in order to make the same
progress, can supposedly let go of these strictures and live their lives
with as much trust as those of us who realize the futility of such
numbers. Skeptics will not regardless of "factors" anyway because it is a
matter of belief. It would therefore be foolish to ignore sure results
experienced with such clients in order to chase the obviously futile and
speculative arguments with skeptical minds. Analytical discernment begs
for efficiency. I therefore respectfully beg to differ with the cynical
view and offer sincere success in your future search for truths. There is
no one truth EXCEPT that THE truth is the composition of all truths.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence-it may be a difference in
root assumptions.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
So do not give so much power to belief systems. They are just ideas, and
the Multiverse is full of the infinite expression of them-forever.
"Therefore recognize that in physical reality one primary belief will
always extend itself to create a seeming system of beliefs with which it
becomes surrounded and supported so that the primary belief can have an
existence in physical reality. No belief will exist unto itself in a
void; every belief brings with it a complete and total entourage, a set
of props, backdrop and stage, and a complete and total audience receptive
to that particular play." Bashar- Life works when you let it.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
axys
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Analytical discernment as opposed to projection is the determination of
> the momentum and bias of a belief system and its reinforcing logic,
> without becoming caught up in the belief system in question.
Analytical discernment gets caught up in its own momentum and bias, and carries with it its own belief system.
Analysis implies, perforce, the bases of education/conditioning/skew, and as you mention later,
an intrinsic and generally unrecognized paradigm/basis, which is in reality relative, but which
must be taken up as an absolute by intellect, in its attempt to form a foundation for its subsequent analyses.
> This can only be achieved in degrees through self knowledge.
Do you mean analytical self-knowledge? Direct perception, not filtered through the brain-based
bias of conditioned response would seem to fit the bill more so, though some will object I am
referring to a mythical faculty.
> Any imbalance in the perceptive faculties of an empowered and integral person
> will be reflected in the overemphasis upon either the empirical perspective
> (Virgo) or the surrendering and "faith" perspective (Pisces)
Intellect vs. emotion. There is a third alternative.
> and it is the efficiency with which the identity deals with information that
> determines this level of discernment (Gemini/Sagittarius-information
> axis) and their belief in knowingness and trust of self.
Self and its environment are interrelated processes in motive flux. Boundaries are mythical.
All this is unintelligible to discursive intellect, though it will try valiantly to put it all into words.
Brain has its place. The proper instrument for the proper function, and not otherwise.
> Awareness and integrity are ALWAYS the keys. A word to the wise is sufficient. The
> lines are fine and there are many.
Integrity is the direct result of perception.
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ...
I like that. One cannot prove something does NOT exist.
N.E.O.
Edmond Wollmann
axys wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Analytical discernment as opposed to projection is the determination of
> > the momentum and bias of a belief system and its reinforcing logic,
> > without becoming caught up in the belief system in question.
Since we create our reality by our belief and definition, it is the
analytical discernment of these definitions that allows us to percieve
our own system of reinforcing logic and redefine it if it is not our
preference.
> Analysis implies, perforce, the bases of education/conditioning/skew, and as you mention later,
> an intrinsic and generally unrecognized paradigm/basis, which is in reality relative, but which
> must be taken up as an absolute by intellect, in its attempt to form a foundation for its subsequent analyses.
Only the discernment of a reality construct objectifies awareness and
places it within a parameter from which to then observe its relativity to
the dimensional construct. I am speaking of understanding that it is a
construct at the very least so as to remove some sort of value judgment
or biult-in meaning which then biases any further delineation of that
construct.
> > This can only be achieved in degrees through self knowledge.
> Do you mean analytical self-knowledge?
Self knowledge through the recognition of belief definitions since within
the construct of physicality experiences are had based on the injected
meaning or significance into these "props" within the construct. The
reality then reflects back to the observer its own definitions of the
observed. If these definitions are recognized for what they are rather
than some universal construct or inherently meaningful ideation, the
identity, which is the creator of them, is then free to recreate any
other ideation it prefers rather than fixing it through the placing of
"real" definitions upon it. This solidification of belief definition is
what creates the reality to be experienced as solid to begin with,
therefore boundries must be dissolved (Picses) before realities can
change.
> Direct perception, not filtered through the brain-based
> bias of conditioned response would seem to fit the bill more so, though some will object I am
> referring to a mythical faculty.
Well yes, to some degree, because everything is created and filted
through the reality of the observer. The observer and the observed are
essentially the same thing. However the RECOGNITION of that is the
discernment that frees creation to more fluid redefinitions.
> > Any imbalance in the perceptive faculties of an empowered and integral person
> > will be reflected in the overemphasis upon either the empirical perspective
> > (Virgo) or the surrendering and "faith" perspective (Pisces)
> Intellect vs. emotion. There is a third alternative.
Well they are parameters of the same thing, a scale of a single function.
I will post a reflection upon this idea next. Intuition and intellect.
E-motion is simply the momentum of an ideation, that then is experienced
as a "feeling". Unconscious though it may be.
> > and it is the efficiency with which the identity deals with information that
> > determines this level of discernment (Gemini/Sagittarius-information
> > axis) and their belief in knowingness and trust of self.
> Self and its environment are interrelated processes in motive flux. Boundaries are mythical.
Yes, self and environment are one thing. The processes observed are the
effects of time/space continuum and are basically an illusion.
> All this is unintelligible to discursive intellect, though it will try valiantly to put it all into words.
> Brain has its place. The proper instrument for the proper function, and not otherwise.
Well "proper" may place a definition or value judgement upon the
functions that may or may not describe it or define it without
limitation. Intuition can verify intellect and vice-versa, because they
are the effects of the spectrum of perspective and are one thing.
> > Awareness and integrity are ALWAYS the keys. A word to the wise is sufficient. The
> > lines are fine and there are many.
> Integrity is the direct result of perception.
Integrity is the effect of the functioning as an integrated whole being,
not as separated parts, which is what the conscious mind and the
experience of physicality can delude the self (the conscious ego self)
into believing is all it or there is. It is the recognition that you are
as powerful as you need to be to create whatever you desire to create in
your reality without having to hurt yourself or anyone else in order to
create it. Primarily because there is no external reality, it is within
us. So there is not "battle", this is what destroys integrity, and what
discernment allows to be restored.
> > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ...
> I like that. One cannot prove something does NOT exist.
Of course to be fair, it is not evidence of presence either. But there
are other ways to discern the presence-once the fixity and convinced
perspective of "one truth" is dissolved.
> N.E.O.
----
"Preference will be the identification of the idea that you are WILLING
to be. It will be differentiated from JUDGEMENT, because prefer-ence is
not an invalidation of all ideas that you are not, but simply a
recognition of the idea that you ARE." Bashar "The New Metaphysics"
axys
axys wrote:
> > Analytical discernment gets caught up in its own momentum and bias, and carries with it its own belief system.
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Since we create our reality by our belief and definition, it is the
> analytical discernment of these definitions that allows us to percieve
> our own system of reinforcing logic and redefine it if it is not our
> preference.
Does not the analytical discernment of definitions lead only to more
definitions?
> Only the discernment of a reality construct objectifies awareness and
> places it within a parameter from which to then observe its relativity to
> the dimensional construct.
I have been proposing this very fact, but have not been able to induce
anyone to see it.
> I am speaking of understanding that it is a
> construct at the very least so as to remove some sort of value judgment
> or biult-in meaning which then biases any further delineation of that
> construct.
'cube'
In perceiving the dimensional construct and one's objectified awareness
in relation to it, then it is not the analytical mind which is viewing
it, correct?
> Self knowledge through the recognition of belief definitions since within
> the construct of physicality experiences are had based on the injected
> meaning or significance into these "props" within the construct. The
> reality then reflects back to the observer its own definitions of the
> observed. If these definitions are recognized for what they are rather
> than some universal construct or inherently meaningful ideation, the
> identity, which is the creator of them, is then free to recreate any
> other ideation it prefers rather than fixing it through the placing of
> "real" definitions upon it. This solidification of belief definition is
> what creates the reality to be experienced as solid to begin with,
> therefore boundries must be dissolved (Picses) before realities can
> change.
We impart unnecessary meaning to otherwise vacuous and arbitrary parts
of The Whole. Their given meanings are both relative and unnecessary. We
habitually attribute absolute values, resulting in a concretization and
objectification of both self and 'not-self', both of which should be
percieved at once, in relation to each other, and in relation to our
perspective.
> > Intellect vs. emotion. There is a third alternative.
> Well they are parameters of the same thing, a scale of a single function.
> I will post a reflection upon this idea next. Intuition and intellect.
> E-motion is simply the momentum of an ideation, that then is experienced
> as a "feeling". Unconscious though it may be.
Yes. 'third alternative' would be the faculty of direct perception
through identification. No media. This direct percption is the 'stuff'
of which perception through media is an analog (vision/touch ...). Here
we percieve by proximity,contact,and proxy, hence we must have
media/messenger. As a result we percieve second hand, rather than
experience the thing itself.
> > > and it is the efficiency with which the identity deals with information that
> > > determines this level of discernment ...
> > (snip)...Intuition can verify intellect and vice-versa, because they
> > are the effects of the spectrum of perspective and are one thing.
Elegant.
> > > Awareness and integrity are ALWAYS the keys. A word to the wise is sufficient. The
> > > lines are fine and there are many.
> > Integrity is the direct result of perception.
> Integrity is the effect of the functioning as an integrated whole being,
> not as separated parts, which is what the conscious mind and the
> experience of physicality can delude the self (the conscious ego self)
> into believing is all it or there is. It is the recognition that you are
> as powerful as you need to be to create whatever you desire to create in
> your reality without having to hurt yourself or anyone else in order to
> create it. Primarily because there is no external reality, it is within
> us. So there is not "battle", this is what destroys integrity, and what
> discernment allows to be restored.
ergo... integrity is the direct result of perception ;-)
> > > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ...
> Of course to be fair, it is not evidence of presence either.
In abstract, absence implies... hence the thing in question exists, at
minimum, on a semantic level.
"A word to the wise ... may be one word too many." :-@
N.E.O.
el...@earthlink.net
axys <ax...@tiac.net> wrote:
>axys wrote:
>> > Analytical discernment gets caught up in its own momentum and bias, and carries with it its own belief system.
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> Since we create our reality by our belief and definition,
Is this reality or is this the projection of an intellectual cons-
truct?
> it is the
>> analytical discernment of these definitions that allows us to percieve
>> our own system of reinforcing logic and redefine it if it is not our
>> preference.
>
>Does not the analytical discernment of definitions lead only to more
>definitions?
I suggest perception of the thought process itself, and how those
thoughts are perceived against a background of chaos, which is perceived
against a background of consciousness.
Three levels or structures of consciousness: consciousness itself, a
background meaninglessness or chaos (nonverbal) and meaning structured
in intellectual definiations: the first three horses in the Revelation
of John can be understood as symbols for these elements.
>
>> Only the discernment of a reality construct objectifies awareness and
>> places it within a parameter from which to then observe its relativity to
>> the dimensional construct.
>
>I have been proposing this very fact, but have not been able to induce
>anyone to see it.
>
>> I am speaking of understanding that it is a
>> construct at the very least so as to remove some sort of value judgment
>> or biult-in meaning which then biases any further delineation of that
>> construct.
>
>'cube'
>
>In perceiving the dimensional construct and one's objectified awareness
>in relation to it, then it is not the analytical mind which is viewing
>it, correct?
Analysis implies thought and comparison on the basis of an intellectual
construct, It also implies breaking down into component parts.
Can something be understood in such a way?
I perceive NOT.
>
>> Self knowledge through the recognition of belief definitions since within
The self is conscious PRIOR to belief and definitions. It is constructed
in response to the fear of death.
>> the construct of physicality experiences are had based on the injected
>> meaning or significance into these "props" within the construct. The
>> reality then reflects back to the observer its own definitions of the
>> observed. If these definitions are recognized for what they are rather
>> than some universal construct or inherently meaningful ideation, the
>> identity, which is the creator of them, is then free to recreate any
>> other ideation it prefers rather than fixing it through the placing of
>> "real" definitions upon it. This solidification of belief definition is
>> what creates the reality to be experienced as solid to begin with,
>> therefore boundries must be dissolved (Picses) before realities can
>> change.
>
>We impart unnecessary meaning to otherwise vacuous and arbitrary parts
>of The Whole.
What is the origin of 'parts' if not the intellect?
> Their given meanings are both relative and unnecessary.
An example of conditioning vs. perception.
> We
>habitually attribute absolute values, resulting in a concretization and
>objectification of both self and 'not-self', both of which should be
>percieved at once, in relation to each other, and in relation to our
>perspective.
>
>> > Intellect vs. emotion. There is a third alternative.
>
>> Well they are parameters of the same thing, a scale of a single function.
>> I will post a reflection upon this idea next. Intuition and intellect.
>> E-motion is simply the momentum of an ideation, that then is experienced
>> as a "feeling". Unconscious though it may be.
>
>Yes. 'third alternative' would be the faculty of direct perception
>through identification.
Not sure about this.
> No media. This direct percption is the 'stuff'
>of which perception through media is an analog (vision/touch ...). Here
>we percieve by proximity,contact,and proxy, hence we must have
>media/messenger. As a result we percieve second hand, rather than
>experience the thing itself.
>
>> > > and it is the efficiency with which the identity deals with information that
>> > > determines this level of discernment ...
>
>> > (snip)...Intuition can verify intellect and vice-versa, because they
>> > are the effects of the spectrum of perspective and are one thing.
>
>Elegant.
Peerception can contradict intellect because it relativizes intellect.
>
>> > > Awareness and integrity are ALWAYS the keys. A word to the wise is sufficient. The
>> > > lines are fine and there are many.
>
>> > Integrity is the direct result of perception.
>
>> Integrity is the effect of the functioning as an integrated whole being,
Integrated from WHAT?
>> not as separated parts, which is what the conscious mind
Don't believe in the mind.
> and the
>> experience of physicality can delude the self (the conscious ego self)
>> into believing is all it or there is. It is the recognition that you are
>> as powerful as you need to be to create whatever you desire to create in
>> your reality
Delusion and projection of thought-constructs.
> without having to hurt yourself or anyone else in order to
>> create it. Primarily because there is no external reality, it is within
>> us. So there is not "battle", this is what destroys integrity, and what
>> discernment allows to be restored.
>
>ergo... integrity is the direct result of perception ;-)
>
>> > > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ...
>
>> Of course to be fair, it is not evidence of presence either.
>
>In abstract, absence implies... hence the thing in question exists, at
>minimum, on a semantic level.
>
>"A word to the wise ... may be one word too many." :-@
>
>N.E.O.
Michael (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98, Column XVII of 1QM)
r...@accessone.com
This is a great subject Edmond !
I have often felt, in some way, that projection was the big surprise
here in this existence. I think cause and effect was known but
projection was a surprise.
There is a difference between cause and effect and projection. Cause
and effect may and may not be activated. Projection always works.
Who is to be the judge of whether we have done something wrong or not
- we are. If we deeply feel that our actions are justified, and our
actions are not done with any charge or spin (and this comes from
great wisdom - WHOLENESS), then there is no cause and effect. Knowing
the difference is discernment. Whereas, if we think we have done
wrong (whether we have or not), then cause and effect is guaranteed -
because of projection. We punish ourselves.
What if we don't have different astrology charts each time we
reincarnate. There is much evidence slanting this way. Most people
who have reached the heights of spiritual awakening will tell you that
they are the same - but different. They have a different perspective
but they have the same personality and destiny. Their job is to get
the one astrology chart right. All we have to do is heal ourselves,
and therefore the collective, of our specific wounding and go back
home.
If projection is true, and it is, then we will project our particular
wounding out into the physical existence of cause and effect (whether
it is ours or not) until we heal. If we are bright, whole, pure
spiritual entities then where did the wounding come from in the first
place? What if the wounding is the price of entry into this physical
existence. What if we contracturally agreed (dharma) to take on a
piece of the collective pain in order to heal it. What if we put it
on like layers of clothing.
Oh, did they forget to tell you about projection and about how you
would forget that you are a bright, whole, pure spiritual entity.
All we have to do is heal ourselves of indentifying ourselves as the
"original wounding". That is the lesson of Virgo, 6th house and
Vesta.
We believe the wounding is ours, personally - we all do for a while.
Guess what the effects of projection are when we identify ourselves as
the "original wound". What effect would there be on a new born child,
for instance. If you got the full intent of this you will understand
how absolutely sick it is for anyone to judged for their karma. They
can be judged for their resistance to healing, but then, we are all
still here (indicating we have not yet completely healed).
We do need to be shown the truth of our actions. That way we are
given a chance to see that we need to heal. If we consciously choose
not to heal after seeing the truth (seeing is not necessarily just
hearing) - then we are toying with conscious evil intent. The only
way to deal with conscious evil intent is to isolate the perpetrator/s
so they can do no more harm and so they have time to can consider the
benefits of healing.
After all, the original wounding was not be our own. We are still
bright, whole, pure spiritual entities. If we take on the wounding as
our own or place other's wounding as their own, the projection can be
very dangerous to our health. When we judge anyone it says that we
believe that we are each are "our particular collective wounding that
we came here to heal" and thus are susceptable to think that our
"wounding" is also us - the resultant projection and cause and effect
do the rest.
We will be held in a karmic Saturnian loop until we accept
responsibility for our contract to heal (dharma). We cannot heal as
long as we feel the blame, shame and guilt of thinking we are "the
wounding we took on in order to help this plane". We can either
become part of the problem (collective pain) or we can do something
about it (heal ourselves). You are the only one that can do it.
Nobody can do it for you.
Love, Power, and Passion.
Stephen Crowl
Comprehensive Synchronicity
Copyright: Stephen Crowl, Oct. 8, 1996
>Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>Analytical discernment as opposed to projection is the determination of
>the momentum and bias of a belief system and its reinforcing logic,
>without becoming caught up in the belief system in question. This can <etc.>.