/lit/ - Literature

>>16404641
Wow, that is incredibly stupid.

>>16404641
mental asylum

>>16404641
the hypostasis of the all-self is not the same as the hypostasis of God, as the self, even the all-self, is not a maker, but the dreamer of the dreams, forever asleep embalmed by the love of the Creator. The former is Son, the latter is Father, the remaining is World. Son can not create new qualia, he can only perceive. Son can not be the Universal Father otherwise it would retain the creative and mantaining property. We are all Self, not gods

You're not actually the dreaming godhead.

Thanks for playing though.

>>16404879
>>16404934
hylics
>>16404964
interesting

>>16404641
>I'm also bold enough also take it to some logical conclusions. For example, when I pray, I'm actually praying to myself, because God is within me, and I am "God" so to speak. (or at least, I am a part of God).
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo that is not Gnosticism anon and in danger of egoism.

The reason Jung identified the archetypes as "Non-I", something that is not you in a much larger extent than just not being the ego, is because even though they're within you and part of you, it is much more correct to identify them as separate and apart from you. Otherwise you make a big mistake-- while still keeping the Gnostic wisdom of them "being you" but in a very complex intuitive way which is why it is put up to the place of religion and esoteric transformation.

>>16404641
>>16405291
I should also say such "le archetypes", if you wish to call them that, have always been known in that non-self mythological and religious revelation and representation. So understand that.

>>16405291
I had a hunch this was the case, because going in that direction only made me feel alianated. So if I understand correctly, even though it's technically accurate to say "i am god" that statement itself is loaded with egoism and illusion (i'm going to guess, since sensory perception is illusion) therefore you are closer to the truth by acknolwedging the personal theistic God of religion.

It makes me wonder how Hindus and Buddhist deal with this.

>>16405325
>So if I understand correctly, even though it's technically accurate to say "i am god" that statement itself is loaded with egoism and illusion (i'm going to guess, since sensory perception is illusion) therefore you are closer to the truth by acknolwedging the personal theistic God of religion.
Yes, also because "I" somewhat ignores the vastness of experience and to put it crudely "content" in which belongs to God. But to be clear, I'm neither asserting it as an absolute psychological or metaphysical reality, but just the psychological phenomena itself. I also think that there is more to God than the self "for the self" or "as the self", so it is entirely wrong to ever take any sort of Gnosticism which calls you absolute God in anyway. But, again, from what I know about Gnosticism it doesn't teach that. So try to mix practicality that Theism as a constant basis is far superior, and that it also has some foundational truth to it always as well, lest you get lost to an infinite subjective turmoil.

As for Buddhism, they reject "I" as any sort of prior identity or such anyway so it's not really much of a problem there, though they do have some beliefs and practices which parallel Gnosticism, Mahayana anyway. Hinduism would probably parallel it even more.

>>16404641
Is that elder scrolls metaphysics?

>>16405412
Kirkbrid used real religion to make the mythos, it's accurate views of God in relation to the self.

>>16404964
>Son can not be the Universal Father

that is true, the "son" is an emanation of the Father, the trinity is a way to show how all this things are interconnected that all lead to the Logo-the logic the creator/the "Father"

if you want to uderstand on a deep level you have to start with the concept of Logos, the "logic".
if you only stop at "word" it loses all the meaning because this is a compounded term you'll be missing the other part , this is the revelation, the "deeper knowledge" revealed of the new testament that founded Christianity

Agustine: The greek “logos”, in latin signifies both Reason and Word. here is better to interpret it "Word" as it represent not only the Father but also the creation of things, "Word" is operative power whereas Reason, though nothing it can make (on its own), is rightly called Reason.
>Augustinus: Quod Graece logos dicitur, Latine et rationem et verbum significat; sed hoc melius verbum interpretatur, ut significetur non solum ad patrem respectus, sed ad illa etiam quae per verbum facta sunt operativa potentia. Ratio autem, etsi nihil per eam fiat, recte ratio dicitur.
https://ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-89.shtml#_Toc384506989

>>16404641
Whenever I see Venn diagrams I think of naive set theory.

>>16404996
>You're not actually the dreaming godhead.
who is?