One of the first points we asked to discuss was that which concerned the relationship between what he said Eagle, what he said Jung and teaching.
Now, without a doubt, observing what we have examined - naturally within the narrow limits that we have imposed on ourselves for temporal necessities - of the words of the two distinguished scholars, it must be recognized that, on closer inspection, much of what they have said coincides with what we are doing. saying; even what most apparently seems to deviate, if you look a little more carefully, you can see that it fits, after all, quite easily in the corpus of teaching.
What are the limits? Well, the limits are also equally evident and are perhaps dictated more by the objective that these two psychologists had set themselves, that is to try to cure from a medical point of view certain psychological ailments that they encountered in the course of their practice.
It is therefore obvious that they limited their field to what could most easily give practical results at the level of medical practice, and you have rightly pointed out this too.
Unfortunately, in that way they did not manage to go beyond that point of the discourse; Adler certainly managed to observe a Io in expansion, an ego in its various components that acts and interacts, changes and interchanges with the environment, however it has not managed to get to the root of the problem and - alas - this has then become, on a therapeutic level, a rather serious limit.
Certainly it is possible, trying to act on a person's ego, to be able to adapt it to the environment in which they are living, but it is something that is limited in time, because, when the individual has the ego further tormented this ego - since his impulses do not come from himself, but come from something beyond - it will always arrive, at a certain point in its existence, where its adaptation to society will suffer and therefore - as indeed happens in these cases - a real cure cannot be obtained.
For Jung the thing may be a little different: Jung's speech is much more abstract, in the end, than Adler's, so much so that he managed to embrace an idea, a much broader conception, which goes beyond beyond man, beyond the people, but even embraces all humanity from its birth to its current evolution.
However, he too was unable to make the next leap, that is to ask himself what and why he gave way to the constitution, for example, of the archetypes, but not only as a mechanics coming from experience, from knowledge within the physical plane, but from that united Whole which in reality he then hypothesized in his speech, because he tried to examine the conception of man as a whole, in the its all. And it is here, perhaps, that he too missed the train to get to the great opportunity to have an even greater intuition.
Q - In my opinion, he didn't get the intuition because he didn't have to.
This is perhaps a little reductive. Let's say that always, then, whatever happens, you can say: "This didn't happen because it shouldn't have happened": the fact remains that there is always the individual's journey, the inner journey, and the individual could reach certain decisions, to certain understandings even if then - since they are not contemplated in the Drawing - he may not be able to implement them directly within the physical experience he is living, because it is not contemplated that he will implement them for certain reasons; however, when I speak of Jung's limits, I am not speaking of Jung's limits as an enactment of what he says, but I speak of Jung's limits as his possibility of intuition, therefore as its evolutionary path. Do you understand the difference? Good.
As for the collective consciousness, it seems to me that you have said enough; on the other hand, the discourse of archetypes should be observed with a little attention.
Let's leave aside for the moment - perhaps definitively, even - the connection with Jung and talk instead of these archetypes, of thisimprinting (as we have defined them) as a function of teaching.
Therefore, we have seen that in the course ofevolution of a race within the Akasic mass certain vibrations are stabilized, similar to symbols, which we have defined "imprinting”And that we have somehow assimilated the idea of Jung's archetypes. Now, the question I asked you last time was this: "Do these archetypes pass from one race to another, or are they typical and peculiar only to that race?". In fact, it seems to me that you did not answer this question in the discussion; so let's see who has something to say about it.
D - Some should pass: that of the mother, the father and other basic archetypes that are common heritage should pass from one race to another.
D - They pass as an inheritance
Here, this is a concept that can be kept: they pass as an inheritance. Certainly, but how do they pass as an inheritance?
D - There is astral and mental DNA
D - They pass modified
No. Let's start for a moment from the first race, without asking ourselves how it was born, where it was born, in what period it was born, how many individuals there were embodied and on and on and on; we speak only of this constitution of archetypes and try to identify how they pass from one race to another.
To understand what is said below, it may be useful to read the post Recap on instinct and imprinting
D - Through the Akasic, pushed by the spark.
Not even, or at least not quite like that. So, you know that at the beginning of evolution - and let's limit ourselves of course only to your planet - there is this great akasic mass that shatters, kicking off some Akasic islands. Each of these Akasic islands, assuming certain footprints in the course of the journey within the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdom, will begin to assume certain vibrations and therefore to give a departure to the constitution of the individual, even if in a very long time.
The first race lives its evolution; this evolution leads her to experience on the physical plane and, little by little, all the individuals that make it up pass through the overcoming of the Ego to arrive at constituting their own conscience.
This is the thing that all races have in common. Of course, the path that each race follows is a path in some ways different from that of the others, otherwise (as our friend said before) it would be just a photocopy of each other and it wouldn't make much sense.
In the course of this journey, this first race constitutes its own archetypes, its own basic ideas; basic ideas which in some way then influence the course of evolution itself or, better still, influence the type of experience and journey that the race will make through reincarnation on the physical plane. If this is true for this breed, it is equally true for all other breeds. That said, it would seem that every race is isolated from each other and that the various archetypes inevitably remain isolated within every Akasic mass concerning every single race, right?
But you forget that the races overlap. Some of you will say, "Yes, of course, they overlap, but the Akasic masses do not overlap, only the time period in which the various races experience within the physical plane overlap." Certainly. If you made this objection, and I know you certainly would have done it ...
We even mentioned it last time: living a part of the journey together, making the same journey through the same type of society - which is conditioned by the archetypes of the first race, starting from the first - certainly the second race found itself in contact with of the archetypes of the first race, which they somehow constituted a foundation on which to build; also because the individual inevitably - when he finds himself inserted in society (with all due respect to Adler) - tends to identify himself with that society, to acquire everything there can be, in such a way as to suffer as little as possible.
Then the individuals of the second race, who have found themselves incarnated with those of the first, have come into contact with the archetypes of the first, or - better still - have come into contact with the projections that these archetypes made in the first race within the physical plane giving regulation of some kind both from the social point of view and from the inner point of view of the individuals who were incarnating.
Finding itself in contact with these archetypes, the second race - as it will later be for the third, the fourth, and so on and on and on - found itself in the need to adapt to this society, to this way of life that it has found.
At this point, the objection would be - if there were - that then the second race would only be a duplicate of the first! Certainly not because, however it may be, the imprinting was different from that of the first race; therefore: it will take on a part of archetypes but will be in some way modified, transformed, interact with the archetypes that had constituted its imprinting and which will therefore give just that much diversity so that the resultant of the archetypes in the inner social evolution of the second race will be different from that of the first.
D - If I understand correctly, obviously the race that is following ours, which is already incarnated, cannot fail to take into account our archetypes but also our values and therefore its archetypes will be modified by the values that they find in our race at the our level of evolution?
Certainly.
- Readings for the interior: every day a short spiritual reading of the Cerchio Ifior and the Cerchio Firenze 77, up Whatsapp and Telegram.
- Summary of the philosophical teaching of the Ifior Circle: HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES PERSONAL REALITY, you can order here the book. If you're reading this and want support, write.
Q - Is it possible to give a practical example?
It is a bit difficult to give a practical example. Well: the idea of family. The idea of the family is an archetype that was born from the first race; only - and here it is difficult to explain things to you without having told you about the first race, but I will try to do so - only that the first race had a concept of family as a tribe, in which yes, of course, there was a father, a parent, and there were children, grandparents, but the main archetype that was present in this concept of family was that the figures more important were not the parents but the old ones.
When second race she came to be in contact, to live together with this first race, she made her own - inevitably - this archetype, also because she shared a part of social life with this first race, but little by little she changed this archetype of family coming to understand that certainly the experience of the elderly can also be useful to a family, but that in reality what perhaps had the predominance as immediate importance within the constitution of the family unit were not so much the elderly - that , despite their wisdom and in the climatic conditions in which the second race found itself, they were instead a burden - as much as the parents, because they were the ones who were in their prime, they were the ones who generated and therefore allowed the continuation of the genetic race, they were the ones who provided food, clothing, and on and on and on.
This is the change that has taken place. Naturally, then, especially in the second race, this family archetype has been modifying a little at a time, to get to be acquired by you, to be transformed into that archetype of the family that you currently have, which has yet to complete the its cycle and that it will be a concept of family that still originates from the first race, but which, however, will have acquired different values, because the feel will be different, the type of experience will be different. Scifo
Keep it going…
The way archetypes evolve is very interesting.
thank you, I would like to add a consideration: it has been said that the shift in importance was shifted, with the evolution of the archetypes of race to race, from grandparents to parents, which at first glance might seem more functional, while in reality I think it was the prelude, the beginning of the loss of the sacredness of the family since the parents of the three main age groups are theoretically furthest away from birth / death and therefore inevitably too rational, a reason that led us to calculate also elements that did not need calculation but only the simple feeling
sorry, rereading I realized that I did not write the comment very well, I hope you understand anyway the meaning of my observation, if not, ask if you are interested thanks
I was struck by the phrase: "from a large Alaska mass that shatters, […. ] the Acasike islands are born. "
I thought about big ben.
Perhaps it seems silly, but it is as if science has always understood that everything starts from a One and that every fragment is an inseparable part of it.
Thanks for this sharing!
So it is the interconnection between one race and another that transmits and modifies the archetypes.
But that shattering of a single initial Akasic mass that leads to the creation of the races, but then where does it eventually lead?
To the so-called "communion of feeling". in which all feelings are interconnected becoming a single feeling. And so the circle ends !.