Post by Norman
This Blog has been on a back-burner and is presented as it comes and incomplete but hopefully it will give some ideas.
Everyone has their own ways of seeing the world and seeking truth or meaning. All this is trying to do is see whether something important has got missed along the way, so that things are not really as they seem, perhaps not at all.
Some people proclaim emphatically that all belief systems are due to things called memes. Certainly the approach seems worthy of consideration. We might extend it to memes that can't be analysed from a printed page such as musical, pictures or visions.
Perhaps interpersonal problems occur if our own meme-types don't fit other people's and we wander in quandary seeking better memes or meaning.
We wonder about things like servitors, magical entities, thoughtforms designed with purpose to affect the thinking or behaviour of someone else. Does it work? Would it worry us too much if it did? Should we go round protecting ourselves as if there is something over our shoulder or round the corner? Does Voodoo work for good as well as ill?
For sure, we act in accordance with our own beliefs. But might we also be acting in accordance with someone else's? You may or may not believe that magic or 'magick' works. After all, look at stage magicians and how we know that what they do is illusion. But people have been interested in magic of the other kind and things occult down the ages. Perhaps they knew a thing or two! Perhaps they just did not allow scepticism to act as a resistor and get in the way.
Or is it a natural phenomenon, that atmospheres build up in a place over time, which may get triggered by certain times, cycles, events, individuals or practices such as ritual, or a psychic tuning, or meditation?
Can we say the same applies to a group, that it has qualities which build up naturally over time - a group mind? Or does it get built by design with strong emotion and intent, so we might use the term egregor to describe it? Some might say that is not a totally correct use of the word egregor, but does that matter? A little flexibility and things can go a long way. Phenomena do not necessarily fall into a mutually exclusive Either/Or argument.
The point is, does something like this affect more than just that grouping? Affect us, for instance, like a kind of broadcast - this time of invisible memes, symbols, something?
Could there be some physical or tangible method of increasing the effect - see Appendix 1.
We already mentioned Adam Crabtree's 'Multiple Man' which makes fascinating reading whatever one thinks.
There is a book by journalist Jimmy Lee Shreeve (whose name comes up on a Google search) entitled 'Bloodrites' about human sacrifice. Chapter 7 at the end is worth a read where he mentions work by Julian Jaynes on the so-called bicameral mind. Shreeve says on p.324:
'Jaynes argued that each hemisphere of the brain in prehistoric people worked on a separate track and that the thinking of the right brain was heard as 'voices'. He said these auditory hallucinations, which were taken to be the voices of the ancestral dead, and later the gods, had an aura of enormous authority, and if they gave instructions to the left hemisphere - the waking, daily consciousness - it would obey. Jaynes called this condition the 'bicameral mind'. These voices, he said, were not necessarily heard as if 'in the head'; they could have seemed to emanate from a point in the environment such as a tree, standing stone or waterfall (hence the belief that spirits haunted such places). Jaynes also maintained that such hallucinations are still experienced today during various forms of artistic creativity (such as automatic or 'channelled' writing), religious frenzy, hypnotic states or in unmedicated cases of schizophrenia.'
On p.325 under a heading of 'The Bicameral Mind and Ritual Slaying' Shreeve says:
'The idea that ancient cultures perceived their gods as a literal reality, their voices appearing to come from 'outside' the human mind, would explain why it was many societies performed human sacrifice - sometimes on a mass scale. The gods demanded that ancient peoples offered up sacrifices to them.'
Society naturally tends to favour some people more than others, or rather to exclude some people more than others, to marginalise. It is shocking to see how people with disabilities face more difficulties than they have to, despite measures taken to improve shopping access, living conditions and understanding. We tend to be less accepting than we should of mental problems, homelessness etc. in our own society, and may not often think of poverty and hardship in other parts of the world.
Sometimes there's an improvement, often followed by greater discrimination - whatever it is that causes us to draw some line between what we actually do something about, think we should, or simply put on the other side.
This Blog has been partly to pull some ideas together that may make some sense or warrant a further look. Why adhere to a one-and-only philosophy when people are different, experiencing things differently, making sense of things their own way - which may change according to time and circumstance?
It should be possible to create a climate encouraging flexibility of approach, making life easier for people who feel they don't fit in. Where does one draw the line? What line would that be, and why? I have been fortunate to work in places employing people who were vulnerable through their physical or mental health. My dream was to see more of this approach and sadly this seems less likely in economic downturn.
I believe attitudes and atmospheres can be more accepting and supportive as a general 'culture', decreasing stress and marginalisation, which needs an approach of at least considering views different from our usual ones. How else would we learn anyway? The saying goes that 'travel broadens the mind' and that would be good as a mental strategy too.
For me, the 'something important missed along the way' could run like this, combining some off-the-cuff remarks recalled from years back, with situations that lodged or circled in my brain waiting to find a niche or connection. University courses, TV programmes, the Internet, have all increased the amount and variety of information available to people. Before 'CSI', 'Criminal Minds' etc. I asked a friend what she meant by forensic psychology and her reply was interesting and unorthodox: 'It's the theory that whatever happens to you makes an impression on the brain like a fingerprint' she said. That's not generally how people describe it though it probably comes into it somewhere. It gives an inkling similar to the idea in forensic science that wherever one goes one leaves a trace of oneself and also leaves with something from the scene, an exchange of some sort. Taking my friend's definition, we exchange something every time we interact with someone - we are changed and so are they.
During a course I took involving group-work, a girl was distressed saying she felt she could disintegrate. Quick as a flash the facilitator replied 'If you do, you will re-integrate with parts from all of us here'. This was not a New Age training or remark; it was further back and psychodynamically based though I didn't realise how much. (Actually I did not realise it was a psychodynamic course till near the end, which shows how I jumped or got drawn into things.)
If we are picking up sensations and ideas from other people at times and also affecting some of those we meet, it suggests we are not each some closed-off system. I question whether a group of people or an organisation are closed-off either, so have trouble with systems theory.
If we may lose parts of our sensation or memories, move away from some people, get involved with others, does that not suggest we are likely to change in some measure sometimes? I am aware of regression techniques where people experience an earlier time in their life as if it is current, but these concepts do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Some people talk about soul loss or theft and retrieval, and therapy as we know it in the West is not very different taken in a broad view, but I will leave my comments there.
Searching on the Internet with something specific in mind or just following where things lead, there are so many people pounding away at the truth, their truth, and I am no different. History shows a lot of splits or great divides, and these days it gets ever more complex. Deep down there are the same things: matriarchal systems, patriarchal systems, the kind of God or Gods, the swiping at the opposite view, the Celtic versus Christian approach, the believer versus the sceptic, and on and round it goes. Maybe that's what it is all about then, this being human lark - but sometimes it doesn't seem very human.
Everyone has their own ways of seeing the world and seeking truth or meaning. All this is trying to do is see whether something important has got missed along the way, so that things are not really as they seem, perhaps not at all.
Some people proclaim emphatically that all belief systems are due to things called memes. Certainly the approach seems worthy of consideration. We might extend it to memes that can't be analysed from a printed page such as musical, pictures or visions.
Perhaps interpersonal problems occur if our own meme-types don't fit other people's and we wander in quandary seeking better memes or meaning.
We wonder about things like servitors, magical entities, thoughtforms designed with purpose to affect the thinking or behaviour of someone else. Does it work? Would it worry us too much if it did? Should we go round protecting ourselves as if there is something over our shoulder or round the corner? Does Voodoo work for good as well as ill?
For sure, we act in accordance with our own beliefs. But might we also be acting in accordance with someone else's? You may or may not believe that magic or 'magick' works. After all, look at stage magicians and how we know that what they do is illusion. But people have been interested in magic of the other kind and things occult down the ages. Perhaps they knew a thing or two! Perhaps they just did not allow scepticism to act as a resistor and get in the way.
Or is it a natural phenomenon, that atmospheres build up in a place over time, which may get triggered by certain times, cycles, events, individuals or practices such as ritual, or a psychic tuning, or meditation?
Can we say the same applies to a group, that it has qualities which build up naturally over time - a group mind? Or does it get built by design with strong emotion and intent, so we might use the term egregor to describe it? Some might say that is not a totally correct use of the word egregor, but does that matter? A little flexibility and things can go a long way. Phenomena do not necessarily fall into a mutually exclusive Either/Or argument.
The point is, does something like this affect more than just that grouping? Affect us, for instance, like a kind of broadcast - this time of invisible memes, symbols, something?
Could there be some physical or tangible method of increasing the effect - see Appendix 1.
Is it possible?
Is it there?
What is it aimed to achieve?
What should we do about it?
Is it there?
What is it aimed to achieve?
What should we do about it?
We already mentioned Adam Crabtree's 'Multiple Man' which makes fascinating reading whatever one thinks.
There is a book by journalist Jimmy Lee Shreeve (whose name comes up on a Google search) entitled 'Bloodrites' about human sacrifice. Chapter 7 at the end is worth a read where he mentions work by Julian Jaynes on the so-called bicameral mind. Shreeve says on p.324:
'Jaynes argued that each hemisphere of the brain in prehistoric people worked on a separate track and that the thinking of the right brain was heard as 'voices'. He said these auditory hallucinations, which were taken to be the voices of the ancestral dead, and later the gods, had an aura of enormous authority, and if they gave instructions to the left hemisphere - the waking, daily consciousness - it would obey. Jaynes called this condition the 'bicameral mind'. These voices, he said, were not necessarily heard as if 'in the head'; they could have seemed to emanate from a point in the environment such as a tree, standing stone or waterfall (hence the belief that spirits haunted such places). Jaynes also maintained that such hallucinations are still experienced today during various forms of artistic creativity (such as automatic or 'channelled' writing), religious frenzy, hypnotic states or in unmedicated cases of schizophrenia.'
On p.325 under a heading of 'The Bicameral Mind and Ritual Slaying' Shreeve says:
'The idea that ancient cultures perceived their gods as a literal reality, their voices appearing to come from 'outside' the human mind, would explain why it was many societies performed human sacrifice - sometimes on a mass scale. The gods demanded that ancient peoples offered up sacrifices to them.'
Society naturally tends to favour some people more than others, or rather to exclude some people more than others, to marginalise. It is shocking to see how people with disabilities face more difficulties than they have to, despite measures taken to improve shopping access, living conditions and understanding. We tend to be less accepting than we should of mental problems, homelessness etc. in our own society, and may not often think of poverty and hardship in other parts of the world.
Sometimes there's an improvement, often followed by greater discrimination - whatever it is that causes us to draw some line between what we actually do something about, think we should, or simply put on the other side.
This Blog has been partly to pull some ideas together that may make some sense or warrant a further look. Why adhere to a one-and-only philosophy when people are different, experiencing things differently, making sense of things their own way - which may change according to time and circumstance?
It should be possible to create a climate encouraging flexibility of approach, making life easier for people who feel they don't fit in. Where does one draw the line? What line would that be, and why? I have been fortunate to work in places employing people who were vulnerable through their physical or mental health. My dream was to see more of this approach and sadly this seems less likely in economic downturn.
I believe attitudes and atmospheres can be more accepting and supportive as a general 'culture', decreasing stress and marginalisation, which needs an approach of at least considering views different from our usual ones. How else would we learn anyway? The saying goes that 'travel broadens the mind' and that would be good as a mental strategy too.
For me, the 'something important missed along the way' could run like this, combining some off-the-cuff remarks recalled from years back, with situations that lodged or circled in my brain waiting to find a niche or connection. University courses, TV programmes, the Internet, have all increased the amount and variety of information available to people. Before 'CSI', 'Criminal Minds' etc. I asked a friend what she meant by forensic psychology and her reply was interesting and unorthodox: 'It's the theory that whatever happens to you makes an impression on the brain like a fingerprint' she said. That's not generally how people describe it though it probably comes into it somewhere. It gives an inkling similar to the idea in forensic science that wherever one goes one leaves a trace of oneself and also leaves with something from the scene, an exchange of some sort. Taking my friend's definition, we exchange something every time we interact with someone - we are changed and so are they.
During a course I took involving group-work, a girl was distressed saying she felt she could disintegrate. Quick as a flash the facilitator replied 'If you do, you will re-integrate with parts from all of us here'. This was not a New Age training or remark; it was further back and psychodynamically based though I didn't realise how much. (Actually I did not realise it was a psychodynamic course till near the end, which shows how I jumped or got drawn into things.)
If we are picking up sensations and ideas from other people at times and also affecting some of those we meet, it suggests we are not each some closed-off system. I question whether a group of people or an organisation are closed-off either, so have trouble with systems theory.
If we may lose parts of our sensation or memories, move away from some people, get involved with others, does that not suggest we are likely to change in some measure sometimes? I am aware of regression techniques where people experience an earlier time in their life as if it is current, but these concepts do not need to be mutually exclusive.
Some people talk about soul loss or theft and retrieval, and therapy as we know it in the West is not very different taken in a broad view, but I will leave my comments there.
Searching on the Internet with something specific in mind or just following where things lead, there are so many people pounding away at the truth, their truth, and I am no different. History shows a lot of splits or great divides, and these days it gets ever more complex. Deep down there are the same things: matriarchal systems, patriarchal systems, the kind of God or Gods, the swiping at the opposite view, the Celtic versus Christian approach, the believer versus the sceptic, and on and round it goes. Maybe that's what it is all about then, this being human lark - but sometimes it doesn't seem very human.
What happens to one person today can happen to us
or to someone we know tomorrow
We may not know the reason
. . . . .
or to someone we know tomorrow
We may not know the reason
. . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment