Conscious Medium

[William]

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LOxlZm2AU4o

Carl Jung Speaks About Death.

Such an age old argument that surrounds the subject of what we call ‘death’…the end of our individual conscious life.

Relatively speaking it seems to be a fairly recent focus of argument pertaining to their being absolutely no ‘life after death’ which coincides with the major breakthroughs in our scientific discoveries as a specie and how those leaps in proven information have assisted the sceptical of such subjects …lumped together… composing the ‘supernatural’ …those unproven faith based fear bound belief systems which are often linked with mental illness issues.

Carl Jung interests me because of his obvious depth of knowledge regarding the human psychology of the mind or psyche of the human individual, as well as his willingness to explore aspects of what is referred to as ‘the occult’ – a word in itself which has different meanings depending on the individuals belief structures.

In its base meaning, ‘Occult’ signifies ‘that which is hidden’ – which is quiet true but this meaning also takes on a sinister connotation for some, because they reason… ‘if it is good, then why is it hidden’?

In my own life’s journey I have come to realise that some things which are ‘hidden’ are so because individuals refuse to examine them, mostly due to fear-based superstition largely derived from being told so (educated thus) and believing these stories without any shred of real evidence…just hearsay.

And that is ‘faith’ – at least that is how many understand faith to be.

So faith used to be the ‘science’ and life after death used to be the most common belief system.
This did not prevent or halt argument. For the whole point of having life after death involves hearsay belief and thus is depends where the individual heard the say.

In this, culture was the leading teller of such stories, and organised religion became the device which evolved from this once tribal cultures began to interact with each other – religion organised the beliefs into something which would act as a controlling mechanism over the factions…attempting to unite those factions but not for the purpose of unity as such, but rather a fine tuning control of the populace – tribal hierarchal structures redefined to accommodate the interaction and conglomerates of ‘differing races’ and the baggage of their cultural belief systems.

The unity itself did have some benefits because it is hard to control warring groups of people – and often the fighting was about the perceived differences. Religion organised in such a way that it was able to unite using the similarities and the significant motivating belief that there was One God over all.

Of course it can be seen plainly that this ‘One God’ concept – while able to unite to a better degree than the ‘Many Gods’ concept, is still woefully inadequate in uniting all, because part of the curse of organised religion has to do with how long it takes to organise, and how religions evolved into extremely complex orders of power and influence and the different ‘One Gods’ became the central excuse for war and murder…the extreme results of human argument.

With the natural evolution of science one would think that the argument (wars) would have ceased, but fear and faith are extremely strong influences on the human mind, as well as the obvious fact that science itself has in many ways simply taken over the controlling roles once solely in the hands of culture and religion…such are human politics.

The reason I bring up God/Gods/Goddesses (not to forget them) Culture and Religion is because these have been and remain intertwined with the subject of death and afterlife.

In the above recorded interview with Carl Jung the subject is on death and the possibility of life/consciousness continuing after the death of the body which contained that consciousness.

Carl asserts that he does not ‘believe’ in anything – he either knows or he does not know.
That is an intelligent position to be in when examining the possibility of consciousness surviving the death of the body.

Science certainly hasn’t absolutely proven as a 100% certainty that there is or there isn’t. Science appears to be less interested in finding ways to prove or disprove – it simply provides facts which are measurable and agreeable from a collective or objective point of view involving the five senses – and this is understandable and commendable.

Sceptics argue that science has delivered enough evidence to support that there is indeed no continuation of the consciousness once the body expires. Sceptics proclaim that science has proven that the brain is the creator of consciousness and that the ‘I am” which consciousness recognises…the ‘self’ ‘personality’ ‘individuality’ etc – all are products of the human brain…and essentially the human brain and the human body which it both controls and responds toward – is who we each are.

We are – the sceptics say – the Brain.

It matters not that the individual might experience OBEs, or that we get understandable messages from Ouija use – or have NDEs and meet with demons or angels etc…these are, always have been and always will be…the brain tricking ‘you’.

(Which is to say…’you’ are ‘the brain’ tricking ‘yourself’.)

And of course, sceptics have the scientific theory to back up their beliefs.

Yes, well it is still theory, but much of the theory is factual and there are just a few gaps in the evidence which – as is the human propensity (be they cultural, religious, or sceptical…as well as political) to ‘fill in the gaps’ using some form of ‘logical’ process, to reach the conclusion that since the evidence ‘points’ to a particular conclusion, then that must be the most likely fact of the matter.



And so, the arguments naturally have to continue, each ‘side’ emphasising their ‘facts’ and since each ‘side’ has determined as part of their logical processes that in order for them to be right, then the opposing ‘side’ must be ‘wrong’ there can be no ‘middle ground’.

So yes, until such a time as either ‘side’ produce the absolute 100% evidence devoid of any gap filling, then the best position to ‘assume’ is that of remaining open minded. (the middle ground)

For me this entails accepting both possibilities and understanding that neither possibility is factual, but since death is factual and I will experience it in due course, then I will use this life to examine as much as I can the evidence presented, my own subjective experience of this life, and my focus…not on death itself, but rather on consciousness (life) – on the ‘I am’ principle (that which allows ‘me’ to acknowledge ‘my’ existence’) – the possibility that consciousness resides outside of the brain and that this might be responsible directly or even indirectly for the creation of the physical universe – that even if ‘it’ does exist, in no way signifies that culture and religion are at all correct about ‘what’ or ‘who’ it is – but that if it does indeed exist as a consciousness in its own right, then ‘it’ should be able to be communicated with…as consciousness does indeed have that ability to commune with consciousness, and that ‘it’ should be able to ‘speak for itself’ rather than be spoken of or about from the pulpit or in ‘its’ silence, proclaimed as none existent throughout the halls of scepticism.

Another interesting video worth watching/hearing can be accessed here:

Einstein on God


www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kEK6WtHxNfw

[William]

I think one reason why those who prefer faith based belief systems has to do with the fact that they do not have to question or test the validity of those beliefs which might compel them to re-evaluate and possibly even let the beliefs go altogether, which is paramount to joining the ‘other side’.

It is habitual for individuals to entrust their learning into the hands of others as a natural part of their life’s experience. We each start off as ‘empty vessels’ capable of learning and curious and this – dependant on our particular location and overall situation which determines the way in which we are taught – the product of that teaching is responsible for how we then think about the world we are involved within and how we will react to situations which arise. – No rocket science there.

This amounts to ‘clusters’ of like-minded individuals which act as support systems to the particular belief system energies and to which they often dedicate their whole life’s experience to. These ‘energies’ amount to being ‘entities’ and mapping systems are a good example of how these energies are manifested, with countries, boarders, regions/states, provinces, areas, neighbourhoods, etc all defined as ‘sovereign’ aspects of ‘self governing’ clusters which reflect the learned behaviour passed down from tribal days – much of which come from mythological fabrication without scientific evidence to back the claims of the persuasive element of each of these clusters…the ‘leaders/teachers’.

The observation of the planet surface reveals that while the earth has natural boundaries such as water and mountains – these are not reflective of an attitude which is separatist – nature is not separatist in the same sense tha humans have become so – and while it may be argued that humans and their evolution are a natural thing, that such learned things as separating ourselves from lions (for example) has proved beneficial to our survival, nature is not necessarily promoting separatist attitudes which at there extreme involve walls and barriers, boarders, constituents, kingdoms, countries etc… these things are by and large the product of human mythology submerged within dualistic tendencies and promoted by the leadership of hierarchal structure simply to control ‘numbers’ of supporters and it is this kind of thinking/behaviour which promotes the separatism and stunts the overall growth/evolution of the specie collective.

The main attraction to maintaining this particular type of control and influence is that it provides a particular layer of these ‘clusters’ with considerable/ immense wealth and power of influence to direct their part of the specie collective toward a particular achievement – an achievement which has to do with securing the wealth and power and control etc over the cluster.

It is not new news – it is simply the manner in which humans have learned to conduct themselves and often conspiracy notions are attached to this way of doing things and these theories themselves become ‘facts’ in the beliefs of individuals who gather into ‘clusters’ themselves and have ‘leaders’ who direct and influence…and so on and so forth.

Meanwhile the planet itself is one thing…One Being as it were…and from a logical perspective, the ‘creatures’ which are upon the planet have everything they require to prosper, grow, evolve, advance etc….but are still firmly locked in the old paradigm of leadership privilege haves, have nots, etc…clusters ‘us and them’ mentality which prevents the specie being collective – also One Being – and has everything to do with belief systems and the subsequent behaviours which those belief systems manifest into the world.

Logically everything ‘we’ build is from the ground up. The raw materials are available as provision, but the concept of private ownership/privilege etc has conditioned the manner in which we as a specie have evolved.
We live upon a planet that provides everything. We are the ones who build. And we charge ourselves for the right to live.

Something wrong with that picture?

Of course there is.

Is there a logical answer to this ‘problem’ which can be simply understood and integrated into the present system(s) with minimal fuss or disturbance?

Yes there is.