Remembering that the various mental states of the 3D world are all, themselves, substates of a greater world, let’s re-examine how things really are, as opposed to how they appear when one carelessly assumes that the 3D is primary.
Within the 3D world, looking from within the individual subjective personality, what is called the “unconscious” mind is actually the widest, most coherent consciousness. The word “unconscious” is a tremendous misnomer, except in the sense of “that part of the mind that is inaccessible to the conscious mental apparatus.” In that sense, yes, unconscious. That is, you are not conscious of it. But the unconscious never sleeps, never gets interrupted, never gets bamboozled by appearances. Can your conscious mind say as much for itself?
Now, to say that the contents of the unconscious are inaccessible to the conscious mind is not to say they always must be, nor that all must be. “Talking to the guys” is itself a method of bringing unknown material from far places so you may look at it, and perhaps be changed by it. But, by and large, the unconscious is the unknown platform upon which your life rests.
And – this is important – it is not divided among individuals. It is more like atmosphere that is breathed by many in common and is not subdivided except temporarily while it is in someone’s lungs.
You should give this some thought. The implications are great and wide and important. If your ideas about the unconscious are wrong, the structures you try to build will have no adequate foundation.
Jung postulated various levels of shared unconscious material, did he not? The racial unconscious, the family unconscious (so to speak) as well as the personal unconscious.
Yes, but he built as if the individual aware person were the lodestone. He started with the unconscious and piled upon it narrower and narrower specifics: race, nation, clans, families. He saw humans as more connected than most did, but he did not turn things on their head, as he might have.
But which you intend to do.
Certainly – or let’s say, off their head, and right-side-up, instead.
[Later] Getting a practical demonstration of the unconscious and subconscious shading into the conscious mind, as I drowse, dream, emerge realizing that what I took for reality was dream. Not fun particularly, in the circumstances, but educational.
I do, but it is hard when you can’t get your next breath, when — after you do – you realize you may not keep it long, when any state of easy breathing necessarily feels contingent.
And this is your consciousness feeling its separation from the source of life. This is one reason why illness may give one perspective. May, not will. It is a matter partly of circumstance, partly of individual reaction.
Schools of psychology ought to be heavily influenced by the experience of the chronically ill. It would produce a more wholesome result.
You could make a larger point. Ill people physically, ill people mentally: Where should you draw the line? Your society defines certain conditions as mental illness: It is trying by default to construct a portrait of health as deduced from its negative space.
It is difficult to say it so it can be heard: There is no mental illness per se, no physical illness per se. Yes there are states of dysfunction, but that isn’t the same thing.
Why isn’t it? How isn’t it?
They are variants on the human condition. To decide that these variants are acceptable but these others aren’t may be intellectually satisfying, often efficient, but it is still a false distinction. In a different context someone once said nothing human to me is alien. We could say the same thing, only we mean not just that we don’t disown it, but that it is an acceptable variant.
A loose analogy. Young people in love for the first time may see each other as perfect. At some point that romantic aura has to be replaced by a more realistic assessment. When the initial unrealistic glow fades, it is important that they not feel cheated by the fact that the glow was only a certain way of seeing things. If you love, you accept the other as he or she is, and after a while perhaps you find that the difference between a flaw and an endearing characteristic inheres in the one viewing, not in the one being viewed.
You are all perfect; you are all flawed. It’s in the design, and so there’s nothing wrong with it.
I suppose by extension we should say that all the products of the human mind are equally representative of 3D life, and should not be prioritized or categorized as good and evil.
In terms of perceptions, certainly. In terms of discrimination or judgment, all we can say is, if you begin to truncate, where do you stop? It is the dividing the world into good and evil that causes so many problems.