Jo men visst känner vi till det ..känner det på oss ..vimsomfå ..swimsomså Intra Family System Therapy the sacred way ..born into families that can’t see.You came to brake it
don’t cry ,don’t speak ..you felt the grief behind .
you have been living with the question. Whats wrong with you? Too soft ,too real
You are the roots of something new
Sånt som bara de som själva upplevt kan förstå DE Som råkat ut för fått testa på genom att födas in i ett speciellt sammanhang där sånt sker
testat på
ett liv som känts s om svampsoppa ….men Simsons då .Ja hur mycket klarnade upp efter att någon hade en dröm om det som på engelska heter ”swamp ” som var nån sorts gungflydamp dröm.Vad heter det på svenska gungfly sånt som man kan dras ner in som En sorts kvicksandsmossa ,som Marlen en gång berättade om att finns på ön där det växer tranbär och nån av hennes kor hade gått ner sej och suttit fast där ,svår att rädda. Tja och vad känns det som för någon som är infödd i en sån familj som beskrivs här i ytuben om inte som att sitta fast i ett swampigt segt grepp där det blir så tungt att röra sej att man hellre står helt stilla och ser på än beblandar sej . För det känns som att man skulle riskera att förlora sin själ om man bara gick med .. Alltså hur hanterar man att överleva då där utan att förlora …Ja jag tror också att man ibland måste ge upp ..bara kan ge sej iväg ,resa sej och gå Thalitha koum
Att återvända till den plats som du reste bort ifrån vad är det som får mej attåtervända hit
Igen ..jo för jag råkade vilja trycka gilla på någon annans blogg och det fungerade inte om jag inte loggade in ..Känslan av att NÅGON ANNAN också har kvar sin blogg och plötsligt använder den som komplement till övrig ..ivrigt intensiv You tube internet livestream aktivitet .
Alltså är det nån sorts ryggrads funktion ..Stabilitet som bloggens struktur erbjuder so, fattas i det förövrigt ryggradslösa slösande internet överflödet ..floding och höstens konkreta naturkatastrofer Orkanen Helene och Valencias vattenflod ..mar dröms översvämningar
På samma gång Är det informations översvämning …liveströmmar ,intressanta föreläsningar men ..fördjupande insikter gräver också hål i det äldre sättet att tänka ..hål som behöver fyllas ut undersökas mer eller täckas över med nytt hållbart material
Var går gränsen …vad väcker det hos dej för känslor ..frågor ? Att ersätta det tidigare kulturellt sakrala med ‘ det nya ¨ ..Jonathan Pageau säjer kristna har blivit så vana vid gaslighting så de reagerar inte längre. Det tog ett tag innan jag förstod vad han menade .Innan jag hamnade i att fråga mej själv ..relatera till det .Imagin ..There is no heven ..Har jag inte uppfattat det –att det har varit otillåtet att se något som heligt ..det har varit snarast som ett tecken comilfo tillåtet att misstänkliggöra, förlöjliga ironic .mocking ,dissmissing .turning up and down ,..sedan 60 talet påpekar han
i want to start off by letting you know what i really like about you and that is how you are witch you don’t seem to hide behind an academic detachment and i respect you for that i think that’s a big deal it’s unavoidable to me that’s the best i can tell you it’s not something i thought up it’s just the way it is i can’t be any different yeah when you think something is bologna you say so i mean you even write a book about it The Angry Philosopherwhich is not to say that in my normal life i am so brutally honest with people around me and i have a minimum of social skills i think but when it comes to these discussions it’s very close to my heart so it comes very naturally to me as well when people put forward ideas that i think are self-evidently wrong it’s unavoidable for me to just say it and i say it this is nonsense and let me explain why i think it’s nonsense so it may come across as i miss the word now again and there are people in academia who call me the it’s not the angry philosopher it’s something less less offensive than that but it’s something in that direction so that that’s where it comes from i am i feel very passionately committed to the subject to the idea to the ideas that are being exchanged and discussed and argued for because i think philosophy is central to human life and and i think maybe arrogantly that people who do not think like me that philosophy is central are just estranged from themselves and from life i think philosophy is the primary human activity in a sense since we’ve managed to extricate ourselves from you know the the normal pressures of having to find the food shelter i mean we still fight that most of us still fight that but at another level not in that natural level where we used to be one more time this thing about beingDistractions estranged from ourselves and life what was that what did you say there i think well i believe to observe around me that some people are very distracted with insignificant and banal stuff like where they have the latest pair of shoes and even the fun they have tends to be more a distraction than a fulfillment activity and and when you are in that mode of trying to distract yourself out of the realization of our phenomenal condition as living beings on this planet that have to constantly fight the second law of thermodynamics to stay alive and we are who are guaranteed to eventually lose that fight i mean these are tremendous thoughts and they are just an appreciation of the real of the reality of our situation and that is philosophy but i see a lot of people around who make their very best to distract themselves from from these questions these these observations this reality this is part of what i like so much Truth about you you seem to be a truth seeker through and through the question of the truth of our lives excuse me seems to be really central to who you are very much and that well i i think i end up seeking the truth but my commitment is not to the seeking my commitment is to it is to truth ultimately which is not to say that i think we you know monkeys evolved on planet earth can ever truly cognize every salient aspect of the truth i don’t think we can i don’t think we have any reason to believe that our cognitive apparatus has evolved to get to that point but i think what we owe to ourselves and and to the rest of the planet and each other is to be honest about our best guesses regarding the truth um if we already know enough to knthat a certain narrative about the truth is flawed fatally flawed we owe it to ourselves to each other and to the planet to move away from that narrative and towards a better narrative which will not be the absolute expression of the ultimate truth uh but it will be closer to it so i that is ultimately my commitment i feel through every pore in my skin every every every artery in my body that um self-deception is not fine uh and we are masters at self-deception i mean that material is more mainstream physicalism is the main narrative about the nature of reality today despite everything we know regarding the the the the failed argument behind it regarding the empirical evidence that contradicts it and i’m not talking about anything paranormal i’m talking about evidence from laboratories uh deSpite all that it’s still the mainstream narrative i think this is irresponsible this is this is not acceptable we can do better than this we know better than this and we owe it to ourselves to each other and to the planet to be responsible and acknowledge that that we need to take a step forward or 7:50at least a step away from what we already know is wrong yeah you make my heartMaterial 7:56sing there’s something very you have some kind of integrity that really moves me um and what you just said said there um makes me wonder if you don’t mind how did how did materialism or physicalism howdid it how did it get underneath your skin well there was a phase in my life in which i sort of was a physicalist but not because i thought it through just because the entire world around me sort of took that for granted so i was a an unthinking materialist i was a materialist because i didn’t think it through i just sort of yeah okay then that’s that’s the rule of the game where i am right now and i didn’t give it much thought because i was busy with other things i was working at cern uh in switzerland which is sort of you know the the church of physics and not necessarily the church of physicalism but the church of physics and then and i was having loads of fun i was completely absorbed in my work and so physical is more materialism was just the environment where i was in and the moment when it started getting under my skin as you put it was when i started thinking it through and i know i i have two widely different educations i have education in the humanities and education in the in the heart sciences in the heart sciences i have a phd in computer engineering and i used to work on ai artificial intelligence and in my late 20s i was doing work on that and of course when you’re building something that is supposed to be intelligent you’re very close to asking well if it’s intelligent is it also conscious and if it’s not why is it not or what do i need to do to make it conscious and asking these questions of course means asking about the foundations of materialism or physicalism which which states that com arrangements of matter somehow give rise to to conscious experience and and then i began to think it through and very quickly after you begin to think it through deeply with your hands on it not purely conceptually but almost from an engineering perspective very quickly it you realize that this makes absolutely no sense it somehow formed hypothesis it doesn’t even require empirical evidence to be dismissed because it’s internally contradictory and it does not have explanatory power it doesn’t explain anything in that it doesn’t explain experience and experience is all we have um so that’s when it happened just brilliant well i think you said somewhere that you spent 10 years really thinking hard about this yeahFinding an alternative yeah from my mid 20s to my mid 30s i was trying to find an alternative for myself i was not thinking about writing a book but you see we we are story centered beings we need a narrative in terms of which to relate to ourselves to each other and the world and once the physicalist narrative for me was okay now it’s off the table you know i cannot if i’m honest to myself to logic to reason and to evidence i simply cannot take this seriously um then i landed in a vacuum of narratives and for a human being to not have a story in terms of which to relate to the world is is is not acceptable it’s not it’s not a stable point um you immediately start looking for an alternative narrative and i did that for years i think i landed on idealism rather quickly because it you know it’s it doesn’t require much elaborate thinking you know basic reasoning is enough to indicate the directionbut having had the experience that i had just had with materialism i didn’t want to commit to that alternative very quickly i thought i need to close this story i need to really stand on firm ground before i really commit myself to this and that’s what i did for 10 years so only at the point in my mid-30s when i thought okay now now i am on solid ground i feel pretty confident about this then i started the writing and publishing came even later than that wow and and schopenhauer was influentialInfluences right he had a role in his thinking had a role in in how you arrived to your positions not at that time no i didn’t i was not aware of schopenhauer at that time i think the scholar who influenced me most from the very beginning was carl jung i had reds in my in my teens so i think jungian thought was in the back of my mind throughout even if i wouldn’t have maybe i wouldn’t be able 12:50to report that to you back then i wouldn’t have known it explicitly myself but i think it was in the back of my mind all the time schopenhauer came later and schopenhauer was a sort of a confirmation after i wrote the idea of the world yeah which was my seventh book in which i made the i think the most uh solid uh case for for idealism from a post-enlightenment perspective you know in other words based purely on explicit reasoning and laboratory evidence after that i sort of felt relaxed like okay i did the core of the job i was supposed to do this the idea of the world is a sort of completion um and then i started reading more leisurely and then i came across schopenhauer and lo and behold everything he said matched with what i was thinking and had had written about um except that uh he went deeper he went more into the implications in into what it all meant for life uh he went almost into a sort of self-help about how to leverage that understanding to to reduce sadness to to reduce um suffering and uh and i thought that was phenomenal and then the other thing that i immediately realized was how misunderstood and misrepresented schopenhauer was in academia and and and i was scandalized by that it was actually this second this latter part that motivated me to go and write a book about schopenhauer which i’ve been reading and really enjoying um you brought up suffering and 14:32schopenhauer you saw sort of a self-help component so i’m very concerned about helping people alleviate neurotic suffering and the way the way that i do that is to help people look underneath the hood and face emotions and psychological conflicts that are customarily swept underneath the rug part of what i’m hoping for today with you is that we can look at the intersection of mental health and philosophy or philosophizing for that matter um i’m particularly interested in the implication of your ontology when it comes to what drives suffering and what alleviates it have you spoken to it but are you able to to elaborate on that sure um i give a lot of thoughts to this because i’m a human being too and i suffer too as you alluded to some of our suffering is because of things in ourselves that we don’t recognize that we don’t to speak a technical term we don’t metacognize things that we experience but we don’t know that we experience we don’t tell ourselves or acknowledge to ourselves i am experiencing this shame or i am experiencing this regret or i am experiencing this trauma or i am experiencing this fear or anxiety we don’t tell ourselves let alone another that we have these things in us because we don’t want to recognize them we have this naive idea that that we can wish away the bad part of our feelings and i think that’s when it all goes wrong when a young wrote extensively about this if you deny parts of yourself it comes back as 16:11symptoms so you will develop you know obsessive-compulsive disorder and 16:16that something will happen what you regret will come back and bite you on the rear end and it will be worse than if you could develop a relationship with it explicitlyanother point of suffering i think is rumination and and and and that has to do with our ability to self-reflect and by by ruminating you know by telling ourselves constantly a particular story about what the past should have been and what the future might be uh we sort of feed our regret and depression on the one hand and feed our anxiety on the other on the other hand um and i think both things to be solved to be truly well solved to be truly integrated and be rendered less harmful require a a philosophical perspective because they are both related to meaning and a psychotherapist and i’m sure you have given what i’m about to say a lot a lot of thought yourself even if you didn’t arrive at the same conclusions um what happens in in in a therapy room is largely a search for meaning because as viktor frankl said in the 20th century you know the will to meaning is the ultimate will it’s higher and above freud’s will to pleasure or or or nietzsche’s will to power the will to meaning is is the ultimate it is the ultimate not the panacea but it it is the holy grail of psychology if you can find meaning in what you are going through you integrate it in your life you sort of develop a mature relationship with it you don’t necessarily stop paying but you stop ruminating suffering but meaning is not something that the therapist can can just have the patient 18:13give to the world because it becomes a form of explicit self-deceptionyou know we cannot project meaning onto the world and expect that that will be healing because it it’s you we are conjuring up the meaning and then trying to believe that it’s real i mean it doesn’t work for the meaning move which is the ultimate move to to really be effective i think it has to be grounded on a i’m going to use the word belief but it has to be grounded on a belief that is substantiated 0in other words we have to see that life and the world have intrinsic meaning in and of themselves and not only the meaning we want to project onto them the letter is a form of self-deception the former is a reality if we see that reality the reality of the intrinsic inherent meaning of in the world in every event of our lives and and in our very lives if we see that intrinsic real meaning then the therapist caN perform the alchemy that he or she is expected to perform and in in that sense i think psychology and philosophy particularly metaphysics are joined at the rib uh psychology in fact is a product of philosophy they were not separated the 20th century separated them artificially because our philosophy went down a path that the psychologists couldn’t follow because it was a nihilistic path so we psychologists had to use a caesar and cut the connection because otherwise19:59they would be dragged down to hell with our metaphysics which was going tohell and now has landed in hell
but if our metaphysics finds its path back i think we’ll be in a position to be able to reack knowledge that psychology and philosophy are intrinsically joined at the hip and it will be okay to acknowledge that again the divorce between the two are you at all referring to freud sort of distancing himself from nietzsche andnot not acknowledging his influence is that one example that’s just one example even jung to whom i have probably the greatest respect he often tried to separate what he was saying from philosophy quite explicitly he he he w explicitly say i am a scientist i am not a philosopher and then other times he would say precisely the opposite towards the end of his life he would acknowledge he he had done philosophy all the way along but in his earlier days when he was professionally active he explicitly tried to distance himself and and the reason they did that was several old um in the case of freud who was a physicalist he didn’t have to divorce himself from philosophy because philosophy was uh physicalist because he himself was and his old psychology was to some extent a bit nihilistic but he distancing himself from philosophy because philosophy itself was becoming associated with uh unsubstantiated speculation uh which is of course not what analyticphilosophy is today it’s not uh even what philosophy arguably was in the time of freud we already had william james for instance and schopenhauer who were not doing unsubstantiated philosophy they were both grounded in science but there is this notion that philosophy is unsubstantiated speculation more akin to theology than to science because it was a nico of the late middle ages with scholasticism and scholastic philosophy was a type of philosophy that already started from the conclusions he conclusions of the scriptures and which and then tried tried to find a substantiation to to to justify those conclusions and that’s not how philosophy is done you don’t start from conclusions you start from data and then you derive a conclusion from that so this link in the west um by the time of freud was already over 500 years old and it was very strong even though scholastic philosophy was not nihilistic on the contrary it was meaning affirming uh it was unsubstantiated so that was freud’s motivation news motivation was the opposite he was very meaning oriented but he realized that early 20th century philosophy was going down a path he couldn’t follow and i he denied a holistic path of materialism which he considered outright ridiculous and he wrote it multiple times in his technical corpus that that was a ridiculous metaphysics but he felt that was a battle he couldn’t fight he23:18was already fighting the battle of psychology he couldn’t fight at the same time the battle
for the heart of philosophy for recovering the intrinsic meaning of the world so he explicitly divorced himself from that and re-acknowledged it only towards the end of his life in his 70s and early 80s so yeah that divorce uh has has a history already of over 100 years yeah wow yeah i got the sense that um that they were concerned about being accepted by the scientific community and they had to be really firm or stringent about not coming across as woo-woo in any kind of way that certainly was the case of jung in the case of freud i think freud was a sincere physicalist so that was not an issue for him and what happened after them uh towards the mid mid 20th century with the skinner and his black box of behaviorism and all that stuff that was psychology becomes science aim views psychology wanted to be more materialist than science itself was as if that somehow would affirm their validity so i think things went very downhill to the point that uh behaviorism which was mainstream in psychology 60 years ago 70 maybe was anything but a psychology it was a psychology that denied the psyche denied the mind denied the souluh and and where i mean it was ridiculous uh and today we may think it’s ridiculous but something completely analogous is happening today with religious studies the chairs of religious studies in most universities are atheists so you look at what we do we sort of invert the whole situation so at that absurdity that happened back in the 20th century we shouldn’t dismiss that oh we were naive back then no no we’re still doing it in another fashion in another way we have to guard against against that part of our psychology which denies itself we have that in us this self-denial we deny our own psyche we deny the meaning intrinsic in our very existence we deny our own nature as mental beings um and if we don’t be careful with it this denial can can translate into a world catastrophe as it has almost done in the 20th century you’re you’re speaking to myPsychology without a psyche heart right now this is the essence of my area of concern and passion which is carl gustav young’s concern about a psychology without a psyche um it’s very concerning to me for obvious reasons but also because as therapists if that’s our view i think it can easily translate into an overly technical and mechanical way of approaching our patients and it happens a lot i think there are a lot of therapists who work in that way yes um which is unfortunate yeah yeah that’s right i’m dying to ask you so because i’m i’ve fallen in love with your work that there are these things that jump out at me that i go you know it doesn’t sit so well with me so i’d love to see if we can find common ground in some of your writings and in some of your interviews you you take the position that the personal self is an illusion and i see danger with that in terms of the individuation process in terms of the psychology without the psyche i understand that at some level you’re trying you know you’re piecing together you know mind at large and this oneness of things but i’ve seen it so many times i mean in my own life and in the life of my patients is that when we when we pit one polarity against the other like self-concern against selflessness it actually reinforces neurosis it maus more neurotic and being at war with ourselves is you know not helpful obviously so would you be willing to perhaps speak to this concern and maybe help me understand you better i think it’s a completely valid concern and it’s one of the dangers of interpreting what i say in a way that i didn’t intend which may not be the fault of the interpreter just it’s just because you know you people come from different perspectives and when they hear something they fit what they hear into their own perspective we cannot do anything better than that and sometimes this refitting leads to a misunderstanding i think you are completely right that sometimes our psychological problems can originate from a lack of respect for our own individual preferences our own individual notion of comfort and we allow ourselves to be abused we allow ourselves to have our space stolen from us we allow ourselves to be impinged on by the values of others and we don’t do justice to our own individual selves and what we stand for in the world so i think that’s uh it’s bad when we do that uh respect for and a certain notion of our individual agency is is critical for psychological health so let me let me go all the way out and sympathize entirely with what i think you mean uh when you said that so what did i mean then when i said the personal self doesn’t exist what i mean is it doesn’t exist as a independent agency i think what we call our individual selves are forms of manifestation of nature what we call a person is a particular way nature is expressing its potentialities for whatever end as such we just are nature emotion we are something nature is doing through us we do not exist as cut off agencies that uh inhabit an alien world we are that world in a particular form of manifestation and understanding that in the way i understand i think is very very conducive to psychological health because it allows us to not take ourselves too seriously which can also be psychologically detrimental for instance we take ourselves too seriously when we beat ourselves up in regret of something we’ve done in the past and we forget to be kind towards ourselves as fallible expressions of nature that we are not know-it-alls you know we here are many things we don’t know and and it’s okay to be compassionate for our own ack and our own faults and weaknesses and shortcomings so it is in that sense that i think we should not take ourselves too seriously and the notion of fundamentally individual agency i think is damaging as well because it puts such an unnatural and unrealistic demand on ourselves i i don’t think that is justifiable by31:08theory or healthy from a psychological point of view now as expressions of nature
31:16we should be respected because nature is doing something through us so although we are not individual agents there is something happening through us that has its natural value so to completely disregard that is also not fine and that’s what i think people do when they become quote selfless and they allow their space to be intruded upon they allow their values to be disrespected wait what is it what is it that they do when they when they allow that impingement and abuse they are then not recognizing the value of what nature is doing through them but that doesn’t mean that they are fundamentally individual agents that kind of self-respect is not it doesn’t rest upon this notion that we are fundamentally individual agents it only requires espect towards nature in our recognition that we too are part of nature okay so you don’t think that creates a polarity a binaryPolarity not in the way i i myself see it now of course i’m a father human being and when i communicate it i don’t communicate it without the nuance and subtle subtlety that i feel myself yeah so i fail i consistently fail in communicating and i’ve come to accept that as part of the game but the way i experience what i’m trying to say entails no conflict of polarities no not none at all i will demand a minimum space for myself when it comes to how others treat me but i do that not because i think i a an individual agent i do that out of respect for what nature is trying to do through me i respect the two not the individual agent which i think doesn’t exist i respect myself as a particular form of expression of nature i take that seriously because i think nature doesn’tdo anything cavalierly and and as that form of expression i will express it in such a way that there is space for that expression if you know what i meani will not willingly accept others from preventing that expression but while doing that there is no idea in my mind that i am an individual agent that takes himself very seriously no what i take seriously is nature doing what it’s doing through me you see what i mean i do i do and i think i’m grocking you it but it’s so easily lends itself toThe Diamond this interpretation around self-denial and and being at war with our basic instincts sort of somehow that there is something wrong with having self-concern as if self-concern needs to be divorced from concern for others as opposed to a dialectic and i’m glad you brought up this point because now i see how dangerous it is a possible misinterpretation of what uh of what i i’m trying to get across um i i respect the expression of nature but that doesn’t in my mind require that i be an individual agent with a will of its own in fact the contrary because i’ve come to respect myself a lot more since i’ve dropped the narrative of a personal agent and i tell you why i no longer fight35:00what the nature is trying to do through me in philosophy
35:08some philosophers in classic philosophy since the time of socrates philosophers would talk about a diamond and by that they didn’t mean a demon even though the word is derived from diamond a diamond is not malicious a diamond is morally neutral it’s just an aspect of yourself that you don’t identify yourself with it’s the voice in the back of your mind telling you what to do or what not to do and sometime that sometimes that goes head-on against the ego’s intent the executive ego may want one thing but the diamond that big voice in the back of your head the back of your mind is saying the opposite uh and and that leads to conflict because we take the executive ego seriously as an individual agent that is separate from the voice of the diamond and at least in my own life that was the conflict the conflict was precisely my narrative that the executive ego was an agent as opposed to just one voice that in a chorus but that’s a different paradigm what you just said there isn’t itThe Ego is an Illusion to have the to to say that the ego is one voice of many is one thing which i can really get behind but to say that it needs to be seen through as an illusion in favor of the diamond it seems really like you’re creating conflict uh no but that’s not what i meant i don’t mean that it’s an illusion in favor of the diamond i think the diamond too is an illusion i think all the characters are illusions in the sense that they are not individual agents in and of themselves they are forms of expression of only one subjectivity only one field of phenomenal subjectivity that underlies all nature and it expresses itself through many voices so i take all voices equally seriously in the sense that i take them all to be illusions in this specific sense that they are just expressions of one transpersonal field of subjectivity but by taking as i did before the executive ego as an individual agent and the diamond as another i would pitch one against the other in an inner war and i have done that for years for many years for many years i struggled against the diamond trying to assert the wheel of the executive ego and if my experience is representative then i can tell you with very high confidence it’s a struggle that cannot be won you cannot win from nature if you if you perceive yourself as an agent separate from nature and you go to war against nature not death outside nature but the nature in you you will lose that because the executive ego is like a rower in a little boat in the middle of the atlantic while the greatest storm of the century is happening now you may row in a certain direction but if you think the boat should go in the direction you’re rowing you are delusional because there are much greater transpersonal forces at will within you and the diamond is just the nickname we give to those transpersonal forces so for me i enormous step in my own psychological piece was to give up on that war so now i i allow the trans personal to express itself through me and the executive ego is now a two of metacognition the executive ego observes sometimes complains sometimes suffers well often enough suffers but his primary function is to observe and cognize but it’s you though isn’t it it’s not apart from nature all of it is us right the true our true selves my true self is the same as my subjectivity when it’s devoid of narratives is the same as the subjectivity in you so that’s what i meant by by understanding that we are not individual agents fundamentally but i didn’t mean by that that we should disregard uh this particular expression of the transpersonal subject which has the form we call bernardo or johannes yes so bernardo how do you squareBecoming Your Own Person
39:39what you just said with carl gustav young when he talks about that actually central to the process of individuation is is becoming your own person i mean where there’s distinctions and boundaries i mean that’s nothing to scoff at right i mean that was really hard that was part of of his his ontology um so who said that can you repeat the name oh carl gustav young oh yo young himself okay yeah yeah aboutindividuation how he like i remember this one interview when he talked about being 11 years old and sort of coming out of a mist and where he recognized himself as not just one of many things but this sort of i am-ness and so how do you square that with what you ust said i’m interested um what uh jung described when he cam out of that mist if you if you read it carefully you realize that what’s happening there was the rise of his metacognitive ability his ability to not only experience bto know that he was experiencing and and he called them the i am i am in the history of philosophy and even the history of mysticism is an expression of self-awareness and self-awareness what is self-awareness what’s the more technical term for for it it’s meta consciousness or conscious metacognition it’s the recognitioof one’s own phenomenal states they’re the explicit re-representation of one’s inner representations in other words you don’t only experience you know that you are the one experiencing and and that’s critical because without it you don’t have pain you are the pain without it you don’t see a table you are the table you are the experience metacognition is what is required for you to separate yourself assubject from the contents of your experiences so now you are on the table now you are the one seeing the table now you’re not the hunger you are the one experiencing the hunger you see now you’re not is that real orMetacognition do you see that as this is real yeah metacognition is real no i mean the implication of metacognition but the implication is real there’s an experiencing subject apart rom yes yes yes because i think that way too but it seems to be at odds wi the ego is yes i’ll get there i’ll get there so this recognition is important because t’s what allows subjectivity in the universe to recognize its true nature in respect to its own activity in other words before metacognition we are the particular patterns of excitation that we call experiences and there are many of them it’s like you know you have one lake but that lake can have many forms of ripples of different shapes sizes heights speeds direction so a lake can ripple in infinite ways but the only thing happening is the lake because what is what is a ripple a repo is a pattern of excitation of the lake there is nothing to a ripple but the lake there is only ever the lake and the lakes only ever won so it doesn’t matter in how many millions of ways the lake ripples the only thing going on is the lake you cannot lift the ripples out of the lake the ripples are patterns of behavior of the lake patterns of excitation of the lake now before metacognition you only see ripples because there is only experience and experience are those patterns of excitation metacognition is what allows you to raise your head and realize i am the only thing going on everything else that i call experiences in their variety are the patterns of excitation of my subjectivity and this is a crucial step in cognition that is only allowed to happen can on happen if one develops the ability to re-represent experiences in other words to metacognize to become self-reflective to become self-aware and i think we are nature’s means for developing this self-awareness otherwise it’s a universe of diversity he only way to go back to to the lake as opposed to the ripples is through metacognition and i think we are taking the very very first steps in that direction now for jung individuation i think entailed two things it entails first an explicit recognition of our experiences what he called the the contents of the psyche and he separated between conscious and unconscious but what he actually meant was phenomenal consciousness and metacognition so that’s one step but to say that for jung an individuated being is an individual agent i think is inaccurate because for him individuation entail the metacognition even of the collective unconscious which is a transpersonal field of the psyche so by becoming metacognitive of
44:that and recognizing that as part of yourself you almost by definition can no longer be an individual agent the moment you recognize the collective unconscious as being you or you as being a segment of it philosophically speaking the concept of a fundamentally separate individual agent is off the table and then you might might ask well why why did he then call it individuation because what is individuated is the metacognition that that ability to metacognize your true self may exist in you and not in another the other may remain unconscious of the other’s true nature the extent of one’s true identity so an individuated being is an individual in the sense that it has a field of metacognitive awareness that is articular to him but what he understands as a consequence thereof himself to be is not individual by definition because it entails an awareness of the self with a capital s you know the archetype of the self not only the image but the lucia the the the substance uh behind that archetype and it entails integrating it as well as your personal shadow and the collective shadow uh so an individual individuated self is a conjunctive oppositorium to use a jung’s words he is an individual as far as his ability to metacognize which jung called consciousness but he is a transpersonal being encompassing the whole of nature in so far as that which the individual cognizes as being himself you see the point yes yesFreedom and Autonomy that that sounds reasonable i think i could get behind that i think we have to discuss volition and freedom and autonomy so so let me think out loud just a second so if we go with your or actually let me set the stage this way um a conglomerate of my patients let’s call her jane she’s married to bill and bill is abusive he treats her poorl [Music] and he puts her down he’s unfaithful and she just feels bad about herself and maybe let’s say for sake of discussion she listens to one of your interviews and you talk about the freedom of the slave and she’s going well that’s me i’m the freedom i’m doing freedom of the slave obviously misinterpreting you obviously um and but what happens in therapy right is that if we’re successful which is not always the case but if we are and i do my job well and she does her job well then when she comes out the other side having worked through a lot of emotions that were repressed that she actually has a sense of being
In charge of her life life she stands up to bill she has a sense of a solid sense of self where she sets boundaries she’s not going to take crap from anybody no one and she ends up leaving bill and has a pretty good life feeling in charge of her life no longer organizing her life around giving people what they want people pleasing or reactively denying people what they want through defiance her life is no longer organized and by this reactive paradigm she’s
48:35actually organizing her life around what’s best for her and so what i’m trying to wrap my head around as i’m listening to you is how do i square that experience which i’ve had with hundreds and hundreds of patients and myself for that matter um with what you’re saying and so if we go with the metaphor of the ship on the stormy ocean right i can grant you undoubtedly i can grant you that there are these major impersonal forces that bear on us right that influence us of course no one in their right mind would deny that but my concern is that that narrative or that view denies the fact that we can actually if we put our minds to it we can at least keep the boat dry we can take buckets of water and get it out of the boat we have some agency we have some control over we can make the journey more enjoyable by by the by the dimension of blood sweat and tears meaning effort and i’m concerned my concern is that the way you frame it it it sort of minimizes the importance of that dimension i’m sure i misunderstood you but that’s how it receives in me i’mClarification very grateful to you are doing this because you’re making me suddenly aware of how my words can be legitimately interpreted in in a way that i never intended them to be so this is an opportunity to to make a clarification i didn’t even know was badly needed so i mean in that sense i’m very happy we are doing this today thank god we are doing this um look i i the freedom of this slave what i meant by it if i frame it in the metaphor of jane’s case with bill being her former husband an abusive former husband this is how i think the metaphor would be correctly interpreted jane is a slave but bill is not the master the master is within jain the storm in the ocean is within jain and so there is a sense in which the recognition of the slaveS within but also the master within and the ocean within is of is an expression of self-respect if you say if you consider the self to be everything that’s happening within which goes far beyond the executive ego but includes all kinds of transpersonal forces that are expressing themselves through what you call you respecting those transpersonal forces as they express themselves through you is critical and it’s precisely what the metaphor is trying to do so yes you’re a slave but the master is within the master is not bill yes you’re about to drift in the ocean but the ocean is within it’s not the market pressures of the economy outside you know what i mean so to self-respect in the way you portray it to your patient is precisely to recognize the master within to recognize the ocean within it’s precisely to to acknowledge their validity in face of the world outside or bill is to say no bill you you’re not going to do this because what nature is trying to do through me is going a different direction and nature will express itself in that way you are not going to stop it but that thing that is expressed in itself is not your executive ego it’s not your personal preferences mean we we don’t choose our professions to a large extent and if we do choose them we probably chose wrong and we end up changing at some point in life we are moved by transpersonal natural forces and by saying in the context of my metaphor that we are slaves to that what i’m trying to do is precisely to grant validity to those transpersonal forces expressing themselves through us as opposed to bills to the bills of the world The Master Within so the question of personal preferences aside and then just to the gist of what you said besides that we can get to that but let’s see here so are you refer when you talk about the master within are you referring to what you in your book on why material in why materialism is baloney when you speak to the amorphous eye the witness the eternal witness the eternal son are you is that the master from your point of view i think the master exists in that witness but it’s not only that witness because the slave also exists in that witness so it’s not only the master that is in there the slave is also there and bill is also there everything is in that witness 1awareness a subject without narratives everything is playing in there and and that there is transpersonal that
53:52witness is transpersonal it’s identical in me and you and the fish in the paramecium it’s the same everywhere and it expresses itself through a multitude of different ways just like the lake ripples in a multitude of different ways so you could see the slave in the master at different has different ripples and bills and yet another ripple these are all ripples in that transpersonal field of pure uh subjectivity um yeah that’s what i meant by that and and by look what i’m always trying to emphasize with this notion that there is no true personal self we are slaves to nature what i’m trying to to do is to give validity to this to all these other things that are trying to express ourselves express themselves through us and which we may have a very egocentric uh preference for not allowing to manifest why because we may be leaving according for instance to a moral code that does not grant validity to some of those things that are trying to express themselves or we may be driven by the executive ego’s need for safety which then would close the door on tho those other things that are trying to manifest themselves through us because they would expose us through risk to make it concrete the baby boomer who thinks that once he gets a job a house with a white picked fence and a dog and a wife and three kids that that he arrived and now he has to do everything in his power to protect that particular set of circumstances that have arisen that may lead to a denial of all the rest that nature might be still trying to do through you and then you generate an inner conflictyour heart may be screaming i want to do something else in my life i want another job i want to be an artist i want to live in another place and get to know new people or i need a different partner because my relationship has now gone cold and it’s no longer self mutually nurturing so all those things the executive ego would say no no i have arrived in a safe place i have arrived i am at a destination and i want safety i want belonging i cannot risk all this so i’m speaking to that i’m speaking to that artificial notion of an individual self who has arrived and wants safety and and to say that nature doesn’t limit itself to that it’s you who created a narrative saying this this is what i am no no nature might be saying no i’m not done with you there’s a whole lot of other things that need to be expressed through this entity you call you and by the way this entity that you call you is not separate it’s me nature who the hell are you to stop me who the hell are you rowing a little boat in the atlantic to stop the storm or to dictate in which direction you’re going and if you try to stop it that’s when you get hurt i think okay let me see if i can metabolize this um so you’re from my point of view you’re talking about conflicting motivations that there’s our beings are multi-layered there’s a side of us that wants safety and what you’re referring to what nature wants through us i would call what we want in our hearts of hearts that’s exactly it right okay so that’s the difference between what jim hollis calls the adaptive self and the natural self yes i see i’m totally with you with that i’m totally with you and yet the i think it can be probably i mean i’m probably repeating myself but i think it can be problematic to devalue the desire for safety i think it deserves a certain amount of respect so that’s sure i certainly respect mine i have lots of insurances i have an alarm system in my house a very high tech one so the cameras you know i’m and i choose to live in a safe place in the world so i i don’t mean to devalue that i think these are all parts of the spectrum so what i’m trying to say is that for the same reason that i don’t want to devalue our need for safety i also don’t want our need for safety to devalue the rest of the natural self that wants to express itself through us totally fair totally fair but i”m not convinced that the site of this individual that wants to hang on to the safety of the home that is necessarily attached to narrativ that seems like an instinctive need for safety you’re marrying that with sort of being lost or being subscribing to certain narratives that’s not obvious to me am i missing something no no it’s a matter of balance um i’m what i’m trying to convey is the need for a form of balance not to delegitimize anything again i i treasure my safety and i and i do lots of things for my safety um but my sense of safety let’s make it concrete and let me use my own life as an example because i can speak freely of that without infringing on anybody else’s freedom of privacy i have a very strong sense or a very strong need for personal safety may have to do with the fact that i have led an uprooted life i have lived in four countries two different continents the family i have spread around the world so i have had an uprooted life i cannot i mean i’m a dutch citizen it’s the only citizenship i had but i didn’t watch sesame street in dutch when i was a kid i don’t know what i mean so i don’t really have i could i’m not danish either although ethnically i’m half danish because i never lived in in denmark and i don’t speak really danish i can understand some words but i don’t speak it neither my portuguese so i have had an uprooted life
we are monkeys that popped into existence yesterday and and that our conceptualizations are just convenient fictions and they have inherent limitations t’s preposterous for us to think that our intellectual capacity one of our many psychic functions
that our intellect has evolved enough to capture everything that is salient about reality this is a preposterous expectation it you know it you could say it’s arrogant
it’s not even arrogant it’s so profoundly naive that you feel sorry for whoever makes this assumption that the intellect has evolved enough to capture everything that’s alien about nature there is we have every reason to believe there is a great many things about nature that you cannot corral into rational models into colonizing yeah conceptual logical reasoning that you can corral within the intellect there are great many things going on that far transcend the abilities of the intellect
is there any other way we could become indirectly as the case may be acquainted with these other things that cannot be corralled into an intellectual conceptual narrative i think there is because
we popped yesterday but the intellect popped last second
the intellect is very bloody recent but our evolutionary lineage in the homo gene gender goes back 2 million some are trying to push it to three million years ago now and if you go beyond our genus then it’s four billion years of biological evolution on this planet and the the very first living organisms needed to have some way to relate to their environment in other words you can speak of some form of cognition and and if you look at microscopic life under under a microscope um there is brilliant work done by a british scientist forgot his name if you ford professor ford in which he shows just that you look at the paramecium and you see that the paramecium goes after food runs away from danger you know amoeba constructs little vases out of mud particles from the bottom of the puddle where they leave and then they inhabit those little phases they have complex ways of interacting within their environment they have some form of cognition which is not intellectual
so what i’m trying to say is that we inherit forms of cognition that are far far older than the intellect far older and although they may be less reliable at least we like to think that than the intellect they are probably much broader in their scope because they are so old and so much more rooted in nature than the intellect
the intellect’s a cloud sort of here above our heads right but we have other cognitive faculties intuition that sort of goes into the roots of the system and so it merges with nature beyond ourselves ,
Myth is a way to relate to what can be sensed through those roots Those roots that far transcend the capabilities of the intellect are far older than the intellect these are things we don’t think but we sense about nature about what’s going on about the context in which we are inserted and we can sense them because we are rooted in them we are not disconnected from reality we are rooted in it we are part of it we have those roots that sort of providing this sense data that we cannot corral into a conceptual story but we can sense nonetheless is there any way to communicate this
in a culture yes and we call it myth metaphor narratives that are not to be taken literally but are meant to evoke something in mind but not in the intellect that can be recognized because if you’re sensing it yourself and you hear a myth that evokes the same thing you feel the resonance it touches on that sense that you have and you recognize it and yeah i recognize this that’s what myth does and in that sense although not taken seriously in this day in age in western culture in that specific sense it is far more powerful than any scientific theory any conceptual narrative anything that you can call literal
it’s it far transcends that because it uses the roots of the system that are 4 billion years old not 30 000 but yesterday the intellect is a no it’s a little kid that still wearing breeches define that for a second because you’ve talked about intellect and cognition and you’ve also said if i’m understanding correctly that the idea o fa conscious ai is not possible because of the differences between cognition and the intellect and these deeper senses yes well i think conscious ai is not possible because it’s based on a fallacy which is that consciousness can be created to begin with i think consciousness is that within which everything is created you know you yeah it doesn’t need to be created right but the intellect is one of the side effects of symbolic thinking that has emerged in homo sapiens sapiens about 30 000 years ago some people say 50 i think the consensus is more around 30 000 now which is our ability to re-represent the contents of perception in other words not only to see a table but to have the thought i am seeing a table that thought that metacognitive thought is a re-representation of the contents of your own mind so you sort of take the contents of your own mind you re-represent them through concepts like a table or the sky or to run these are concepts that mirror or re-represent things that we perceive
it is this re-representation that allows us to have concepts and then we weave these concepts together in an internal narrative through links of logic associative links that follow the rules of logic and we derive theories this way by using these re-represented concepts uh joined together through links of logical derivation that’s conceptual reasoning all of science is based on it all of analytic philosophy is based on it not all of continental philosophy but that’s a whole other discussion
certainly spirituality is not based on it so that’s intellectual reasoning and in the west we think that that’s the only mode of cognition that has any validity everything else is just gullibility illusion paranormal woo-woo and i don’t think it is because the intellect again It didn’t pop yesterday it popped last second there are much older cognitive faculties in the chain of life and to say that all of them have been unreliable for four billion years and only now we have something reliable
the intellect is naive beyond belief um and i think that’s why myths are much older than rational reasoning myths have been around for as long as homo sapiens has had culture has had the ability to think symbolically and capture uh their intuitions in a narrative which is not really conceptual in the sense that we think of concepts today it’s allegorical well it’s more than allegorical it’s metaphorical it operates through similarities similarities of evoked meaning so when we say that you know god creates adam and eve from his rib and eve took a bite of the tree of knowledge and then they were expelled from paradise what this is saying at least that’s the mode of thinking that i believe was happening in babylon when the exiled jews wrote the old testament the idea here is there is something about the story weare telling that is the same as something about the world in our history that’s the point now what that something is not told by the myth because otherwise it would be a literal truth and it would be intellect
and the intellect has limitations and what the myths do is precisely to try to operate beyond the limitations
this little kid and we call intellectual reasoning so the literal meaning cannot be conveyed it cannot it’s not conveyed because it cannot be conveyed it doesn’t fit into literal concepts it is an invitation for you to try to figure out what that is and in simple cases that’s obvious like if i say time is a river you know exactly what i mean but this is a myth time is not a river
all right a river is a river time is time but there is something about time that is the same as something about the river
what’s the literal version of it
time flows in this case we have a literal version but in the our cultures myths that we inherited from you know far beyond our ability to see the past and beyond the clouds of prehistory the midst of pre-history what they are saying is
time is a river but there is no concept like flow that allows us to translate that into a literal truth the intellect cannot do that
so we just say times the river and you figure out by using your intuitive faculties what is this thing that is the same in a river and in time
that’s what religions are doing have always done but instead we interpret it literally and we either become an atheist or a fundamentalist
is expected to perform and in that sense i think psychology and philosophy particularly metaphysics are joined at the rib
psychology in fact is a product of philosophy they were not separated.. the 20th century separated them artificially because our philosophy went down a path that the psychologists couldn’t follow because it was a nihilistic path so we psychologists had to use a caesar and cut the connection because otherwise hey would be dragged down to hell with our metaphysics which was going to hell and now has landed in hell
but if our metaphysics finds its path 20:10 back i think we’ll be in a position to be able to reack knowledge that psychology and philosophy are intrinsically joined at the hip and it will be okay to acknowledge that again
the divorce between the two are you at all referring to freud sort of distancing himself from nietzsche and not not acknowledging his influence that’s just one example
even jung to whom i have probably the greatest respect he often tried to separate what he was saying from philosophy quite explicitly he will explicitly say i am a scientist i am not a philosopher and then other times he would say precisely the opposite
towards the end of his life he would acknowledge he had done philosophy all the way along but in his earlier days when he was professionally active he explicitly tried to distance himself and the reason they did that was several ….
fold in the case of freud who was a physicalist he didn’t have to divorce himself from philosophy because philosophy was physicalist because he himself was and his old psychology was to some extent a bit nihilistic but he distancing himself from philosophy because philosophy itself was becoming associated with unsubstantiated speculation which is of course not what analytic philosophy is today it’s not even what philosophy arguably was in the time of freud
We already had william james for instance and schopenhauer who were not doing unsubstantiated philosophy they were both grounded in science but there is this notion that philosophy is unsubstantiated speculation more akin to theology than to science because it was a nico of the late middle ages with scholasticism and scholastic philosophy was a type of philosophy that already started from the conclusions of the scriptures and which and then tried to find a substantiation to justify those conclusions
and that’s not how philosophy is done you don’t start from conclusions you start from data and then you derive a conclusion from that so this link in the west um by the time of freud was already over 500 years old and it was very strong even though scholastic philosophy was not nihilistic on the contrary it was meaning affirming it was unsubstantiated so that was freud’s motivation
jungs ..news motivation was the opposite he was very meaning oriented but he realized that early 20th century philosophy was going down a path he couldn’t follow and i he denied a holistic path of materialism which he considered outright ridiculous and he wrote it multiple times in his technical corpus that was a ridiculous metaphysics but he felt that was a battle he couldn’t fight he was already fighting the battle of psychology he couldn’t fight at the same time the battle for the heart of philosophy for recovering the intrinsic meaning of the world
so he explicitly divorced himself from that and re-acknowledged it only towards the end of his life in his 70s and early 80s so yeah that divorce uh has has a history already of over 100 years yeah wow yeah i got the sense that they were concerned about being accepted by the scientific community and they had to be really firm or stringent about not coming across as woo-woo in any kind of way that certainly was the case of jung in the case of freud i think freud was a sincere physicalist so that was not an issue for him
and what happened after them uh towards the mid mid 20th century with the skinner and his black box of behaviorism and all that stuff that was psychology becomes science aim views psychology wanted to be more materialist than science itself was as if that somehow would affirm their validity so i think things went very downhill to the point that behaviorism which was mainstream in psychology 60 years ago 70 maybe was anything but a psychology
it was a psychology that denied the psychedenied the mind denied the soul and and where i mean it was ridiculous and today we may think it’s ridiculous but something completely analogous is happening today with religious studies the chairs of religious studies in most universities are atheists so you look at what we do we sort of invert the whole situation so at that absurdity that happened back in the 20th century we shouldn’t dismiss that we were naive back then no we’re still doing It in another fashion in another way we have to guard against that part of our psychology which denies itself
we have that in us this self-denial we deny our own psyche we deny the meaning intrinsic in our very existence we deny our own nature as mental beings and if we don’t be careful with it this denial can translate into a world catastrophe as it has almost done in the 20th century you’re
you’re speaking to my Psychology without a psyche heart right now this is the essence of my area of concern and passion which is Carl Gustav Joung’s concern about a psychology without a psyche um it’s very concerning to me for obvious reasons but also because as therapists if that’s our view i think it can easily translate into an overly technical and mechanical way of approaching our patients and it happens a lot i think there are a lot of therapists who work in that way
as we get older different diffculties ,temptensions will arise .. come and go
and we have to chose ower and ower again to put up our life segel catching the wind to blow us further on our life journey ower and ower again. take the decision and we have to chose owwer and ower again to put up our life segel up to catch the wind to blow us further on our life journey
ower and ower again decide to not give up
👆 to not give up
as this discussion keeps going on and on in seven hours
I was listening ttoughout one night starting again when I had fallen asleep
Maybe it just had to take exactly this time to get trough this thing and
That I had to sleep in between
to be able to absorb and pay enough attention to be able to understand the deep quality and importance of having this kind of deep quality communication
I needed the sleeping 🎨 in between to be able to start listening refresched again
It was like As I fell trough so many layers of insights.. touching and connecting different life experiences during my whole life almost as they now came together in a new way
things that have felt too puzzeling as some weight to heavy
and hard to carry on become lighten..as I am not alone experiensing the difficulties in this special lifetime in this way get the feeling that we really are in it together and able to
find words to investigate,se and share ..express our self and do something good together
And I would haven’t been able to spend seven hours to this at daytime… if it hadn’t been new year Hollydays and I been able to sleep the next day..
En skrift i snön Det blåser på månen En blåklocka slår För allt det som är Som inget vill vara Jag vandrar i vinden Ett tidevarv går Sen är allt det som skrämt mig Inbillning bara
En Karlavagn landar hemmavid Nu seglar jag bort med min vän På höga moln av frid Och evig ro En liten stund Och natten som väntar lär oss att drömma Den saga som skrev oss Den skrevs av en vän En skrift i snön Om hjärtas hem
Om jag vore vacker Och gjorde dig glad Om jag vore den som jag ville vara Då är jag en älskling På finpromenad Och ett skyfall av tårar där stjärnor fara Ett klockspel i mörkret Hör du det Jag följer dess ton överallt Till bråddjup ensamhet Mitt hus och hem I nattens famn Och näcken som spelar fast ingen dansar En främmande fågel Vem läser mitt brev Svarta bläck ögon blå och kriser och kransar
En Karlavagn landar hemmavid Nu seglar jag bort med min vän På höga moln av frid Mitt hus och hem I nattens famn Och näcken som spelar fast ingen dansar En främmande fågel Vem läser mitt brev En skrift i snön Om hjärtats hem
A message in the Snow It is windy on the moon
A Bluebell tolls For everything that is not as we wish it to be. I wander in the wind- An age passes. At last everything that frightened me is just fantasy. A star wagon lands by home Now I sail away with my friend on high clouds of peace and eternal stillness
a moment – and the waiting night teaches us to dream
that saga which created us – It tells of a friend – A message in the snow about the heart’s true home.
If I were beautiful and made you happy- If I were the one I wish to be Then I’d be a darling Taking babysteps And a flood of tears where the stars fly.
A bell rings out in the dark- listen! – I follow this note everywhere – to deep oneness – my house, my home In the arms of night And no dancer can the the Nixie enchant A strange bird who reads my letters – black ink eyes blue and crises and wreaths.
A star wagon lands by my home – Now I sail away with my friend on high clouds of peace – My house and home in the arms of night- No dancer can the Nixie enchant – A strange bird who reads my letters- A message in the snow about the heart’s true home.
googlade bilder 
älwfewor 