Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Good and evil - the integration of the collective shadow
9 views
Skip to first unread message
M Winther
Jul 15, 2012, 1:03:06 AM7/15/12
to
The only way for the world to return to harmony is the enhancement of
consciousness by the assimilation of the darkness of human nature, and
to begin to understand our collective shadow. By the integration of
dark nature, we can do what is good in the long perspective. An
all-encompassing goodness, on the other hand, has evil consequences.
We must connect with our instinctual nature and our heart. Our good
deeds should be rooted in our heart instead of in an ideology that has
been programmed into our heads, and which intellectually defines what
is good. Such goodness isn't rooted in nature, and therefore has
long-term evil consequences.
We must go along with nature. Everything becomes much easier, and
things will run smoothly. Always listen to your heart, but don't stop
thinking for that matter. Such thinking permeates Eastern traditional
philosophy. It also coincides with the Taoist thinker Chuang-tsu. We
must go along both with inner and outer nature, and not try to build
airy-fairy castles of ideology and thought. In this way we can follow
Tao, by going along with the flow. The feminine principle of Yin can
come to expression. The one-sided standpoint of Yang, characteristic
of Western civilization, leads to the same fate as befell Icarus.
Obviously, goodness is not a substance. But this archaic substantive
thinking is what makes people give money to charity, because money is
viewed as a substantial good. But this won't contribute to the
solution of the alarming pace at which species become extinct. It
won't solve the financial crisis, the expansion of Islamism, peak oil,
bullying at schools and workplaces, etc., etc. It doesn't work that
way. What helps is the advancement of consciousness. The more people
who undertake the arduous journey of individuation, the better will
the world approximate a balanced state. Inner balance coincides with
outer balance. Integration of the shadow is essential. We can only
fight evil by advancement in individuation, not by doing good deeds.
Many debaters today hold that the aid to developing countries has
contributed nothing to the development of Third World countries. It
has done equally much damage than good, perhaps even worsening things.
It is very, very typical. This is "doing good" on a massive scale, in
the form of thousand of billions of dollars. But it has led to
nothing, only to passivation. The population expands rapidly in the
Third World. The rain forest is cut down. People join guerrillas and
fundamentalist groups, and commit mass rapes. These are the same
people that we have supported, even nurtured like babies. Now the
majority of them want to come to Europe and America.
Our patriarchal rectilinear solar consciousness must adopt the older
god Seth as his son, as Horus adopts Seth in Egyptian mythology. This
amounts to an integration of matriarchal thoughtways, that is, to
accept death as a precondition of life, view time as circular rather
than merely linear, tolerate suffering as a natural condition of life.
Our modern consciousness is very scientific and advanced. But it is
becoming more and more evident that we are unable to cope with the
challenges of life. People are neurotic, the earth's resources are
being depleted. The moonlight consciousness is a necessary complement
to sunlight consciousness. But the dark aspects of Mother Nature must
be tolerated, unlike in the the airy-fairy New Age spirituality. The
Magna Mater in the history of religion is ambivalent, representing
both death and life, suffering and enjoyment.
People are very false and hypocritical today. They pretend to be good
citizens, but they are really very mean. They are politically correct
multiculturalists and cultural relativists, but behind the smiling
mask they are very nasty. It is a sign of collective neurosis. This
divided and hypocritical character is a consequence of the lack of
integration of the collective shadow.
The relation to nature is essential, I think. In the glade outside my
window, a roe deer with a white face keeps returning for a time of
rest. He has been there since he was a kid. Now he is almost grown-up,
a handsome buck with antlers. It is necessary to keep contact with
nature, and remain among the growing things, to keep our feeling
rooted in nature. I don't know how it goes when people spend more and
more time away from nature. I think that many would rather spend time
on Facebook than go hiking or fishing, or cultivating the garden. I
fear the consequence is atrophic instinct and alienation from nature.
If we love our beautiful earth, and if we love democratic freedom,
then we we would want coming generations to inherit what our
generation has enjoyed. But today, species become extinct at a rate
1000 times the normal, and the rate is increasing rapidly. We allow
mass immigration of ethnicities that have no understanding of
democracy and nature, highly unsuitable for the continuation of our
legacy. Now Mali is threatened by famine. But nobody mentions that the
average woman gives birth to 6.35 children. In Niger it's 7.52.
Humanity must expand at all costs, nature and other creatures suffer,
the rain forest is cut down. Nothing matters except the expansion of
humanity, both in terms of number and material well-being.
This mad expansive ideology must be abandoned. Let's listen to Mother
Nature. She is cruel, it's true, but we must get used to the idea of
people suffering. Everything we love faces destruction just because we
have a fixation on the expansion of humanity. It seems we are
extremely cruel to nature and other beings today, yet extremely
concerned about every brown-skinned human in all parts of the world.
At the same time we commit mass murder of fish and throw many of them
back in the sea. Dolphins and albatrosses are killed, too. Sharks have
their top fin cut off, and are then thrown back to a slow death. Our
cruelty against nature is immense, but we pretend to be such caring
people. But in our caring for our fellow humans everywhere on earth,
we only aggravate the cruelty against Mother Nature. So there is a
split in our nature. On the one hand we are extremely humane, from
another perspective we are extremely inhumane. There is no better word
than neurosis to designate this split condition. Neurosis is
ubiquitous, today.
Mats Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
consciousness by the assimilation of the darkness of human nature, and
to begin to understand our collective shadow. By the integration of
dark nature, we can do what is good in the long perspective. An
all-encompassing goodness, on the other hand, has evil consequences.
We must connect with our instinctual nature and our heart. Our good
deeds should be rooted in our heart instead of in an ideology that has
been programmed into our heads, and which intellectually defines what
is good. Such goodness isn't rooted in nature, and therefore has
long-term evil consequences.
We must go along with nature. Everything becomes much easier, and
things will run smoothly. Always listen to your heart, but don't stop
thinking for that matter. Such thinking permeates Eastern traditional
philosophy. It also coincides with the Taoist thinker Chuang-tsu. We
must go along both with inner and outer nature, and not try to build
airy-fairy castles of ideology and thought. In this way we can follow
Tao, by going along with the flow. The feminine principle of Yin can
come to expression. The one-sided standpoint of Yang, characteristic
of Western civilization, leads to the same fate as befell Icarus.
Obviously, goodness is not a substance. But this archaic substantive
thinking is what makes people give money to charity, because money is
viewed as a substantial good. But this won't contribute to the
solution of the alarming pace at which species become extinct. It
won't solve the financial crisis, the expansion of Islamism, peak oil,
bullying at schools and workplaces, etc., etc. It doesn't work that
way. What helps is the advancement of consciousness. The more people
who undertake the arduous journey of individuation, the better will
the world approximate a balanced state. Inner balance coincides with
outer balance. Integration of the shadow is essential. We can only
fight evil by advancement in individuation, not by doing good deeds.
Many debaters today hold that the aid to developing countries has
contributed nothing to the development of Third World countries. It
has done equally much damage than good, perhaps even worsening things.
It is very, very typical. This is "doing good" on a massive scale, in
the form of thousand of billions of dollars. But it has led to
nothing, only to passivation. The population expands rapidly in the
Third World. The rain forest is cut down. People join guerrillas and
fundamentalist groups, and commit mass rapes. These are the same
people that we have supported, even nurtured like babies. Now the
majority of them want to come to Europe and America.
Our patriarchal rectilinear solar consciousness must adopt the older
god Seth as his son, as Horus adopts Seth in Egyptian mythology. This
amounts to an integration of matriarchal thoughtways, that is, to
accept death as a precondition of life, view time as circular rather
than merely linear, tolerate suffering as a natural condition of life.
Our modern consciousness is very scientific and advanced. But it is
becoming more and more evident that we are unable to cope with the
challenges of life. People are neurotic, the earth's resources are
being depleted. The moonlight consciousness is a necessary complement
to sunlight consciousness. But the dark aspects of Mother Nature must
be tolerated, unlike in the the airy-fairy New Age spirituality. The
Magna Mater in the history of religion is ambivalent, representing
both death and life, suffering and enjoyment.
People are very false and hypocritical today. They pretend to be good
citizens, but they are really very mean. They are politically correct
multiculturalists and cultural relativists, but behind the smiling
mask they are very nasty. It is a sign of collective neurosis. This
divided and hypocritical character is a consequence of the lack of
integration of the collective shadow.
The relation to nature is essential, I think. In the glade outside my
window, a roe deer with a white face keeps returning for a time of
rest. He has been there since he was a kid. Now he is almost grown-up,
a handsome buck with antlers. It is necessary to keep contact with
nature, and remain among the growing things, to keep our feeling
rooted in nature. I don't know how it goes when people spend more and
more time away from nature. I think that many would rather spend time
on Facebook than go hiking or fishing, or cultivating the garden. I
fear the consequence is atrophic instinct and alienation from nature.
If we love our beautiful earth, and if we love democratic freedom,
then we we would want coming generations to inherit what our
generation has enjoyed. But today, species become extinct at a rate
1000 times the normal, and the rate is increasing rapidly. We allow
mass immigration of ethnicities that have no understanding of
democracy and nature, highly unsuitable for the continuation of our
legacy. Now Mali is threatened by famine. But nobody mentions that the
average woman gives birth to 6.35 children. In Niger it's 7.52.
Humanity must expand at all costs, nature and other creatures suffer,
the rain forest is cut down. Nothing matters except the expansion of
humanity, both in terms of number and material well-being.
This mad expansive ideology must be abandoned. Let's listen to Mother
Nature. She is cruel, it's true, but we must get used to the idea of
people suffering. Everything we love faces destruction just because we
have a fixation on the expansion of humanity. It seems we are
extremely cruel to nature and other beings today, yet extremely
concerned about every brown-skinned human in all parts of the world.
At the same time we commit mass murder of fish and throw many of them
back in the sea. Dolphins and albatrosses are killed, too. Sharks have
their top fin cut off, and are then thrown back to a slow death. Our
cruelty against nature is immense, but we pretend to be such caring
people. But in our caring for our fellow humans everywhere on earth,
we only aggravate the cruelty against Mother Nature. So there is a
split in our nature. On the one hand we are extremely humane, from
another perspective we are extremely inhumane. There is no better word
than neurosis to designate this split condition. Neurosis is
ubiquitous, today.
Mats Winther
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/
M Winther
Jul 15, 2012, 4:51:31 AM7/15/12
to
What I am saying is that genuine goodness exists, when it originates
in the heart, when it's connected with our inner being, and rhymes
with our instinct. I am not against helping hapless people. What I am
against is making a world-enveloping industry of it according to an
ideology programmed into the head. We shouldn't make the whole world
into one single machinelike society with welfare institutions, because
it is self-defeating. One of the many deleterious consequences is that
it's dysgenic on a grand scale.
M. Winther
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> skrev i meddelandet
news:50024f1a$0$4137$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
in the heart, when it's connected with our inner being, and rhymes
with our instinct. I am not against helping hapless people. What I am
against is making a world-enveloping industry of it according to an
ideology programmed into the head. We shouldn't make the whole world
into one single machinelike society with welfare institutions, because
it is self-defeating. One of the many deleterious consequences is that
it's dysgenic on a grand scale.
M. Winther
"M Winther" <ml...@swipnet.se> skrev i meddelandet
news:50024f1a$0$4137$c83e...@weathergirl-read.tele2.net...
Andy Wainwright
Jul 15, 2012, 9:40:55 AM7/15/12
to
Ignorance can indeed be bliss, but it is not a sustainable situation.
If things were so much better in the past, life wouldn't have changed to
the present.
You may be right about modern neurosis, but many would claim that is a
natural part of waking up, from the innocent but ignorant position to
one of coming to terms with our personal issues and that of the human
race. Without realising there is a problem, any solution is impossible.
M Winther
Jul 15, 2012, 10:10:40 AM7/15/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i
meddelandet news:jtuh9u$n3a$2...@dont-email.me...
Where on earth did you read that I endorse unconsciousness? I advocate
the enhancement of consciousness with a subset of the paradigm of
traditional man, i.e., that we come to realize that life on this earth
could not exist without suffering and death. I am talking about
changing our perspective a litte bit. We should not endeavour to
create a world void of human suffering.
M. Winther
meddelandet news:jtuh9u$n3a$2...@dont-email.me...
the enhancement of consciousness with a subset of the paradigm of
traditional man, i.e., that we come to realize that life on this earth
could not exist without suffering and death. I am talking about
changing our perspective a litte bit. We should not endeavour to
create a world void of human suffering.
M. Winther
Andy Wainwright
Jul 15, 2012, 1:45:10 PM7/15/12
to
. We should not endeavour to
> create a world void of human suffering.
>
> M. Winther
>
>
I might well be inclined to agree that creating a world free of human
> create a world void of human suffering.
>
> M. Winther
>
>
suffering might have to wait until the end of time itself.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It might be impossible by the laws
of science today to send a manned space ship beyond the solar system,
but I don't believe we should give up on space travel, for the same reason.
It is the act of trying that defines meaningful life. Helping the less
fortunate is by no means a political ideology such as communism- in fact
some of the world's richest businessmen are also the most generous. Many
of today's world famous hospitals and universities were founded on the
charity of successful entrepreneurs.
Some people can enjoy a feast amidst a famine, but there's something
that tells me and others that something isn't right about that. Sure,
you can chose to be happy in an imperfect world rather than looking for
reasons to be miserable, and indeed we should. But I would call shutting
out the worlds problems a delusional state of mind, and the way you keep
trying to find reason to justify doing so - the poor are poor because
they are less intelligent than me etc- suggests that you may be
suffering from neurosis just as much as any leftwingers are.
saracene
Jul 15, 2012, 1:52:18 PM7/15/12
to
On Jul 15, 6:45 pm, Andy Wainwright
<andrewrichardwainwri...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> . We should not endeavour to
>
> > create a world void of human suffering.
>
> > M. Winther
>
> I might well be inclined to agree that creating a world free of human
> suffering might have to wait until the end of time itself.
We could easily do it by exterminating the whole human race.
> . We should not endeavour to
>
> > create a world void of human suffering.
>
> > M. Winther
>
> I might well be inclined to agree that creating a world free of human
> suffering might have to wait until the end of time itself.
Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
Jul 15, 2012, 10:24:28 PM7/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:45:10 +0100, Andy Wainwright wrote:
>It is the act of trying that defines meaningful life. Helping the less
>fortunate is by no means a political ideology such as communism- in fact
>some of the world's richest businessmen are also the most generous.
Andy, I agree with everything up to "in fact". But could you please
>It is the act of trying that defines meaningful life. Helping the less
>fortunate is by no means a political ideology such as communism- in fact
>some of the world's richest businessmen are also the most generous.
give some examples of "some of the world's richest businessmen" who
are "the most generous"? And could you please explain on what basis
you gauge generosity?
White Spirit
Jul 16, 2012, 6:10:44 AM7/16/12
to
On Jul 16, 3:24 am, Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
<abhidevana...@themarga.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:45:10 +0100, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> >It is the act of trying that defines meaningful life. Helping the less
> >fortunate is by no means a political ideology such as communism- in fact
> >some of the world's richest businessmen are also the most generous.
> Andy, I agree with everything up to "in fact".
My agreement extends as far as 'It'.
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 18:45:10 +0100, Andy Wainwright wrote:
> >It is the act of trying that defines meaningful life. Helping the less
> >fortunate is by no means a political ideology such as communism- in fact
> >some of the world's richest businessmen are also the most generous.
> Andy, I agree with everything up to "in fact".
Andy Wainwright
Jul 16, 2012, 8:05:04 AM7/16/12
to
seek domination- wanting for themselves and wanting to keep others down
or tell them what they can and can't do. I have no problems with the
rich as long as they are liberal and benevolent with it- live and let
live and champion the underdog.
Whilst there have certainly been ethical issues surrounding the wealth
of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet et at, they have announced- and followed
through- plans to give away half of their fortunes to philanphropic
causes, and recruited many more billionaires to do the same.
Here in Braintree, walk around the town and you'll see a lot of public
buildings and streets with the name "Courtauld" featuring. The Courtauld
family were immigrant Flemish weavers, refugees from religious
persecution in Europe. They built a large textile empire, and as well as
providing jobs and wealth for the locals, financed the building of
schools, hospitals and parks. It's a similar story in most English towns.
My financial aims are not particularly extensive- I'd like to pay back
all the money I've had invested in me by the state and my family, to be
able to pursue my hobbies , take a few holidays, buy some nice clothes
for the missus etc. That and be able to give gifts to friends and
family, and support charities too.
Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
Jul 16, 2012, 9:34:05 AM7/16/12
to
questions... unless I misunderstood your original remarks.
Let's take Bill Gates. In 1999, his personal wealth crossed $101
billion. Microsoft lost some stock value, and he did contribute some
of his wealth (mostly in the form of overvalued Microsoft stock) to
his own charitable foundation(s). But it was only in the year 2010
that Carlos Slim knocked Bill Gates off his throne. According to
reports, in 2006, Bill Gates announced that he did not want to be the
wealthiest person in the world... but it took another four years
before he sank to second place... inadvertently. :)
So my question to you was: Why do you consider this to be "most
generous"? As of March 2012, Bill Gates's net worth was still $61
billion, and his charitable donations - all or nearly all to a
foundation that he personally controls - amount to only $28 billion
(considerably less than 1/3 of his total net worth, in other words,
not close to the 50% that you mentioned). For details, see
http://tinyurl.com/7zcg89k.
You also referred to Warren Buffett. As of March 2012, his net worth
was $44 billion. Mr. Buffett says that, in accordance with Bill
Gates's pledge, he wants to give away 99% of his fortune. He says that
he would like to see it all spent within the last 10 years of his
life. (See http://tinyurl.com/cdjezvm.) Warren Buffett is 81 years old
now. I wonder how much longer he expects to live. But even if he
should manage to live to 120 - another 40 years - with even only 1%
of his current net worth, he would still have a comfortable allowance
of more than $10 million per year for the remainder of his highly
extended lifetime. :)
So, maybe compared to some other billionaires, Bill Gates - or Warren
Buffett - might be considered relatively generous. But nothing I have
read about these two men would lead me to deem either of them as
generous in a common sense. To my thinking, neither Bill Gates nor
Warren Buffett shows a fraction of the generosity of a poor person who
feels the pinch but still gives to others in need.
DVH
Jul 16, 2012, 11:03:40 AM7/16/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ju101j$f35$1...@dont-email.me...
> Here in Braintree, walk around the town and you'll see a lot of public
> buildings and streets with the name "Courtauld" featuring. The Courtauld
> family were immigrant Flemish weavers, refugees from religious persecution
> in Europe. They built a large textile empire, and as well as providing
> jobs and wealth for the locals, financed the building of schools,
> hospitals and parks.
bits now or have been degraded.
I recommend visiting Eltham Palace next time you're in southeast London:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cynama/4757664614/
abelard
Jul 16, 2012, 11:18:34 AM7/16/12
to
DVH
Jul 16, 2012, 11:56:13 AM7/16/12
to
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:p5c8089qthoj9po5k...@4ax.com...
abelard
Jul 16, 2012, 12:23:22 PM7/16/12
to
camp out at present
meanwhile...
most of the stuff posted to my site has been general guidance
rather that 'latest news'
i'm trying to get out to cominges but the day the tour goes
past is a hospital visit....damn it!
Andy Wainwright
Jul 16, 2012, 12:36:34 PM7/16/12
to
especially when you consider time as much as money. This is where the
media, and often politicians get things very wrong.
Consider the person on welfare who devotes their life to being a career
for an elderly or sick relative- maybe driving them to hospital for
chemotherapy or similar. Some portray those as being "selfish" because
they're taking money off the state- yet those same people are a lot less
wealthy than those who slag them off. It seems those who bandy about
terms like "scrounger" aren't content with being simply better off than
the unemployed or disabled, but want to be even better off.
Some neighbours of mine have spent a lot of time on the dole, been in
trouble with drugs (a result of which they have health problems) but
were always happy in their youth to help look after the elderly, often
without pay. They were also very responsible parents- both their kids
did well at school and have responsible, skilled jobs -and also have the
best garden in the village, an achievement that has taken many hours of
hard labour.
Alternatively, you could earn a lot of money at the expense of more
ethical businesses, build rather boring copycat glass and marble towers,
exploit tax loopholes to burden the honest taxpayer many times as much
as welfare claimants do- but what would you actually achieve in creative
terms?
One thing that always amazes me is how sterile "millionaire's
playgrounds" are- Monaco, Dubai etc. I don't like the puritanical
attitude that seems to go with a certain sort of wealthy people-
hypocritically towards others rather than themselves, all about image
and not getting caught as opposed to not offending. If I was an
international millionaire, I think I'd base myself somewhere relatively
poor but liberal (which can even include certain neighbourhoods in England)
JNugent
Jul 17, 2012, 6:44:31 AM7/17/12
to
On 16/07/2012 03:24, Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta wrote:
Gettys, the Gates, the Rothschilds and the Carnegies of this world?
Abhidevananda
Jul 17, 2012, 12:48:50 PM7/17/12
to
generosity greater than that of others. I was talking about the
comparative aspect of the assertion. Personally, I don't think that
generosity is measured in terms of dollars and cents or even a
percentage of one's net income or net worth. I only consider someone to
be very generous if s/he gives up to the point where it hurts.
JNugent
Jul 17, 2012, 1:08:39 PM7/17/12
to
<http://www.gogivers.org/pdfs/The_Widows_Mite.pdf>
But I don't believe that the PP meant to denigrate or trivialise the efforts
of those of modest means who (nevertheless) give generously within those
limited means. I took the message that those rich individuals give (in
absolute terms) large amounts in donations and endowments. Such large amounts
that they are able to do a lot of good in the world. On that, I'm sure you agree.
Ac. Abhidevananda Avadhuta
Jul 18, 2012, 10:43:52 AM7/18/12
to
justify the means. Hence, I doubt that I would ever describe someone
like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett as "doing a lot of good in the
world".
0 new messages