They are planning to fake aliens (like they did planet) and shut down the Internet. They are in war and they are coming for our communication! Lucky for us, they don't know about Nietzsche's law: you always become what you are trying to avoid.

Åmēn 💜

Campbell always lost debate from Muslim Scholars same to other christians. Let us watch kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nph4aJtq2dirooE.html

@@kalamsworldofficial7797 Wrong Campbell brosef! William Campbell is not Joseph Cambell.

Thank you! Remove value from all! Free tarot readings for all!

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

You are at his lecture...;-)

as are you.

@@eigenlennox ecxqxqcqqxqqqxqxqcqsccxxqcxq wcxcwwqxqxwxqxqqxxq1zw wcw1 sex d swccwwxqx1cxxw w csxs. WC. CD cqwx1xqqd1ssssssssssx CV w s 11cs1x1xc d. BC. S

Oh young one don't be fooled with the Nazi's the root too your pain starts there may be your grand father get in contact with him

Hes alive in his myth

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

here. do.

We are all students

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

Did he also tell you about rebirth and being a good person in one life and a bad in the next or was that conveniently left out for the sake of paying the mortgage?

@@brienmaybe.4415 Ha! 😅

Coral, you have smelly feet!

That sounds like a great combination Coral. An inner boyfriend that is charming, profound and bright. May go you well, and Blessed Be

@@janskeet1382I am looking for an outer boyfriend to match the inner. As is everyone, I guess. :)

coreycox2345 Would you like to go for dinner? ‘If you like Pina Colada’s and getting caught in the rain’

@@janskeet1382 I would like to go for dinner. I don't like Pina Coladas. Does that exclude me?

@Joanna d'Arc says who? you, miss delusional? Joan of d'arc?? Get a life, please or not, who cares but throwing daggers to a learned man is just a cheap shot and not even nearly true.

He lives on

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

It is not the ego that is the problem but the shadow

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

He lived and taught until he was 83!

Not sad at all

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

Hi i have an IQ of 10.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

Is mythology a separate entity from ego? Why doesnt the ego already know how to read it? Where does the innate ignorance or initial lack of understanding come from so that we must learn to understand the myths?

@@TheRaNetwork According to Jordan Petersons lectures on mythology and religion and psychology (and in his debates with Sam Harris), dreams and myths are drama and early not quite conscious prototypes of an understanding. They represent an abstraction, in the same way math is an abstraction, about some aspect of yourself or the world. Once these patterns are brought into consciousness they become stories and even religious myths, and from there they are consciously examined, debated and analyzed and therefore inform philosophy and ultimately our understanding ethics and morality. In a way it's a critique of the idea that we can reach moral systems purely from rationality because in reality our unconscious drives arise into consciousness from unconsciousness in stages over both the lifetime of individuals, and collectively across time, as we struggle to understand the world. I think something that is an example of this, which Tim Pool likes to mention, is Blackstones formulation of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" is directly inspired by the Biblical Story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Subconscious =(dreams/unexamined story ideas)=> Consciousness =(myth/drama)=> Philosophy =(detailed examination)=> Morals and Ethics => Laws.

@@TheJeremyKentBGross well said i like to think of everything in terms of "self" and "other". The self is an external identity relating to the internal first person perspective and other is everything else less relevant to the POV. But the external world in total defines the POV. So now in those terms im thinking of "the unconscious" activity as "other", part of the external world. I think there is an external world where your eyes are open and an external world where your eyes are closed. And the first person "self" travels between both and uses both to make sense of each other and to discover order. I think myths are maybe the first stage of understanding a natural order whether your eyes are open or close. I dont think myths come from the eyes closed world and seep over into the eyes open world. I think it is bidirectional which is why we can draw meaning from drama that we watch with our eyes open which we can then take with us to the close eyed world and vice versa. The eyes open then would just be a lensed view of the full external world. A particular lens which specializes in stripping away the myth over time with the power of focus. Myths would provide an initial, vague understanding of the natural order and yet a pertinent understanding because they tie the self with other in a nice concise narrative which brings the whole mind of "things" together.

@@TheRaNetwork I am not sure I followed all of that, although I tried to set aside preconceptions to follow your train of thought. Acknowledging that I perhaps didn't understand you fully, I might challenge your concept of self. You seem to associate it with only your conscious focus, leaving subconscious and the rest of everything as "other." But as Jonathan Haidt points out, Buddha's metaphor of a human being something like the combination of a rider and an elephant seems to directly correlate with the fact that not only is your subconscious also you, in some sense there is way more of it that your conscious mind. In fact the part of the brain believed to be responsible for consciousness is rather tiny compared to the rest of it. This is to say nothing of the fact your gut supposedly has about as much computation complexity as your brain. Also if you consider the views and perspectives of Allan Watts, it could be argued that the real you is the totality of everything, and your separateness from "other" is entirely an illusion, or an artifact of the calculus of the mind which builds models by cutting everything up into discrete parts. In reality a tree IS the earth, it's made of the earth and will die and fall down to be the earth again. You likewise ARE the universe, and what you identify as self is merely what the universe is doing in the place we call here and now, in the same way that a wave is not a seperate "thing" (outside the mind), rather it's an action, it's the movement of water that appears on the surface of a lake or an ocean, but IS the lake or ocean. In these ways of thinking, the concept of the self is extremely broader than your definition of self and other. For whatever that is worth. I will grant you that we absorb stories and myths, and there is truth in the bidirectional aspect that you mentioned. However myths only seem to function because and to the degree they are compatible with our hardware/wetware. Why does our creation mythology involve gardens and fruits, tree's and snakes? Well.. probably because our prehuman ancestors lived in trees and further developed consciousness primarily by massively expanding vision in order to recognize snakes, and also color visions to recognize fruit. Primates instinctively fear snakes and snake like things. This appears to be hard wired into us lower than consciousness or culture. Dragons, which are fictional, exist in some form in pretty much every culture, even historically disconnected ones. Why? Well it appears that a Dragon is a projection of the subconscious category of predator. It's a snake-cat-bird. A dreamlike hybrid of everything that hunted our prehuman ancestors. It's something you might find if you could look at the layers of our minds like we look at layers of an artificial neural network that has fragmented pattern recognition signals burned in that match little sections of dogs or architecture or cars, depending on what you trained them to detect. And if you reverse the flow and use these neural networks to generate images rather than recognize them, you get a psycadellic like projection or dream of impossible patterns of dogs or architecture or whatever, quite similar to what your mind my generate if you ingest enough of the right kinds of chemicals that are equivalent to or the same as certain neurotransmitters... DMT, Psilocybin, etc etc. I think it's possible to train the subconscious mind. But you probably need to know the rules of The Matrix in order to bend them or break them.

@TheJeremyKentBGross your responses are always so eloquent and deep however the preconception that you forgot to set aside is your objectivist paradigm. Im coming from a solipsistic direction so I am trying to make sense of everything as being internal to the mind in the first place. Even the things of the eyes open world exist subjectively and the things of the eyes closed world would be no less valid than the things of the eyes open world From a solipsistic model of reality, everything of an objective nature is noumenal and unscientific to believe in. Instead, reality is strictly subjective phenomena. The mind is implicit oneness and explicit togetherness. Everything is on a spectrum of self-other and self and other are just categories. The things of the explicit mind are just descriptors of the implicit mind. Everything works in tangent to contribute to an overarching definition of one mindedness which is assimilated by the first person perspective. The first person perspective is not the self however but the self is an identity of the first person, so is other. But self and other describe the mind in degrees of relevance. The self and the things associated with the self are more relevant and the things of other are less relevant. But both the major and minor details contribute to a full contextual definition of mind. And those details exist both where eyes are open and where eyes are closed. So the entire mind is described by the things of the mind and myths speak to the initial, vague understanding of those things in relation to each other. From a solipsistic POV i would have to refute the notion of personal subcnscious activity as subconscious and regard it as activity of "other". So there is no "iceberg" with consciousness at the top. All there is is consciousness. But that consciousness is distinguishable by known knowns and known unknowns. All is knowledge but all knowledge is measured by degree of confidence from logical consistency via myths and causal narratives. So, in my opinion, mythology is not separate from the ego but rather is a product of the egoic process of thingification, if you will. The mind processes the things arbitrarily and then discovers relative and contextual logical consistency across all things of reality - a reality where fiction and fact are only different in degrees of certainty, the relative context that thing is found to be in (or arbitrarily placed in by the egoic process). So, to answer my own question as to why there is a lack of understanding of the myths in the first place, well I can only surmise that ignorance is baked into the matrix and that reality is fundamentally vague. The universe is informational, and it would not exist subjectively if there wasn't an intrinsic separation between things that would allow the ego to compare and contrast. Essentially, my point of view is that separation is not an illusion but is in fact the very basis of subjectivity and thus a fundamental feature of a conscious reality. Oneness, instead, is the abstract. But both oneness and separation are real at different levels of confidence, as different myths. Rather than saying mythology is when the self speaks with the ego system, the ego system is instead what produces myths like self and other and the oneness of self and other. All subjective experiences are ego induced. Myth is just what we call less contextually consistent phenomena because unlike scientific theory, there is less available to verify the consistency of the myth with rest of reality. What I'm really describing is a contextual landscape of truth. Fact and fiction are on a sliding scale and it is up to the ego to decide which context the self will feel most anchored in, i.e. relative relevance. All truths are valid just in different contexts. I'm sitting still on my bed while also soaring through the solar system. One truth is explicit, one is implicit. Myth is truth and truth is Myth. What matters is the context. Separation is not an illusion. It's real. But so is oneness. One is xplicitly true, one is implicitly true. The self will find itself in the most subjectively utilitarian of options every time. Anyway, i write a lot in my fb group "the essence of reciprocity". We should continue discussing there.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

That quote makes me think of the growing interest in “mindfulness”. Perhaps we’re beginning to remember how to help “ego” relate to mythology

So..in your opinion does this mean the ego can intermittently INFLATE to capacitate more of the mythological ocean water?

@@liveuser8527 Good question, and perhaps that's the rub, finding some kinda 'integration' between the Ego's narcissistic need for 'control', and all the repressed, and _unexpressed_ stuff lurking in our Shadow.

Things that never happened.

Big Sausage Pizza are far more elucidating.

Books: The Power of Myth. The Hero's Journey. Good place to start.

I listen to NPR all day too. Im just better than other people!

My take from it is that our egos are trying to obtain what the body needs but usually, as for my case, want it without putting the work behind it so its constantly struggling until action is made, nothing changes if nothing changes

Amazon sells the series that you can purchase. I did and I recommend it.

@@james_win Is this the Mythos series? There are so many titles by Joseph Campbell.

83 college lecture series.

Would it be fair to add China to that?

..so.. correct me of im wrong.. But when we are in "Atman mode"...we contextualise every one of our actions in terms of a mythology?(about our lives)? Our own "personal myth"

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

I believe this is part of his 3 part Mythos DVDs ... well worth it.

Most of these people still think that somehow there's more profit in DVD than tens of millions of KZfaq views. The funny thing is, if they uploaded the full lectures, they would probably also sell more DVDs. But try explaining that to vicious soul-sucking copyright lawyers. "My precious IPs...my preciousssss"

Yeah cuz he just made it all up.

This is quite the sentence you’ve created..... one single sentence....

lol...two years later. Couldn't help myself, it was just too funny!!@@90MysteriumFascinans

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

A movie wouldn’t do him Justice. Especially if Hollywood was involved.

It's in a interview in "the hero's journey"

@@CourtesyPhone got a link?

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

;D kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gKqDmbWUqLXXl2w.html 😉🤘☀

They will never stop, unfortunately. From the JC Foundation to the Monroe Institute... All controlled opposition.

Nothing you say here makes any sense.

@@komicsreviewer8505 Whaaaaaaaaaat?

OpinionDay007 like he said: we’ve forgotten it... 😞

I don't think you could remember more than a small amount of jung, just the basis bits unless you have a special gift for retention.

Learn to meditate.

That is false.

There is no evidence of this.

Lies.

Don't think he was presenting it as a standard, just saying that wishing to be other than you are is folly. (He was about 6' with light brown hair and brown eyes as a young man, so he may have been tweaking himself.)

@@DavidKudler I didn't either but he used the words so i couldn't shake the thought. Your point (great point) would mean more had he not said it. He is very aware of the significance of the distinction. It just makes me think deeper. It certainly brings up a number of questions regarding psychology of the viewer.

Everyone still dreams of Vikings and Valhalla.

@@donovanjones4175 I think it is one of the many dreams in the human psyche. Just one piece of the puzzle. I think living in peace is the true dream. Being blond and blue eyed is one of safety and fitting into a society that protects and yearns for this description of human beings. Centuries of psychology moving towards white beauty. I'm Mexican and my family sees beauty in white features. Light hair fair skin and green or hazel eyed.

MechanicalValve TimeTraveler , I can see what you mean vis a vis colonial/ technology in a white culture. Yet as a white male, I have always loved the ideas of other cultures and how they might be living in their peace. It seemed better to me somehow. Go figure.

You think it's funny?

not a soul that is permanent never changing. What people call soul is aggregate cluster of habit...mostly bad habits. In order for much of that to change if you wanted it to would apparently take lifetimes.

@ginger2010 anatta no self. Basic Buddhism there is no apparent solid never changing self.

Ashwell D. Jonas Um...not really...

Discusses Jung, Mythologies, and Psychology. It checks out.

Not even close.

I have to admit, you're a pretty original breed of troll.

Try Jordan Peterson, same type of topics, and you'll be excited!

Might be the Heroin. Just a guess.......