Carl Jung's Symbolical Nature?

The mandala can also be an image of eternity cycling through time and as such images soul's and Nature's circular journeys, as they are reflected in, for example, the Native American Medicine Wheel, in seasonal, rebirth and karmic cycles, in mythic journeys of going out and returning changed to one's point of origin, and in the zodiacal wheel as life's twelve archetypal stages of personal growth.

This cyclic transformation is also at the heart of ancient Chinese meditation. When the spiritual light in the body moves through rhythmical breathing in a circle, all the opposite energies of heaven and earth, sun and moon, light and dark, are crystallised and form what the Chinese called the Golden Flower, an inner mandala imaging the balanced, open and centred heart.

I have to agree that a lot is not understood towards the "essence of dreamtime."

Like anything I guess, if you were to take the time and do the analysis that Jung did in his efforts to record what was supposedly primitive in him, then what use the capacity to dream, let alone for all to dream?

Such construction then would not be understood or apparent predispositions to create the realities that we can, and do. Ingenuity, would have lack lustered against the background of the potentials dream time can offer?

But it would still be more then this.

I will give some examples shortly, as to the nature and psychology I found relevant to the constructive models used to systematically correlate life to model assumptions.. I did spend a couple of years recording as well.

Richards Wagners's Ring of Nibelung

Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. Ring of Power was interesting.

Strange that we could have seen A Jungian Understanding of the Wagners Ring cycle, portrayed in todays world and how could have this been accomplished. But by re-introducing a fictional story and embueing it with the archetypal structures of what Jean Shinida Bolen called, "The Abandon Child, The Authoritarian Father, and the Disempowered Feminine."

The importance of physiologically understanding the close relation of our states of mind, and the resulting emotive upheavals, as effects in our bodies? Very important. Such "states of mind" then become important in how we think about our selves, or others, and how we practise, watching our "thoughts of things?"

CARL JUNG by Dr. C. George Boeree

The most important archetype of all is the self. The self is the ultimate unity of the personality and issymbolized by the circle, the cross, and the mandala figures that Jung was fond of painting. A mandala is a drawing that is used in meditation because it tends to draw your focus back to the center, and it can be as simple as a geometric figure or as complicated as a stained glass window. The personifications that best represent self are Christ and Buddha, two people who many believe achieved perfection. But Jung felt that perfection of the personality is only truly achieved in death

Part of my contention is, that the "self" regardless of who you are, is seeking wholeness. I also contend that this is embedded in our current struggles within the theoretics of the science world? Attempts to "define" the theory of everything. Why, importance on re-cognition helps to identify, when you are within the dream time, once connected with aspects of, "defining this wholeness." Recognizing thepatterns that reveal these aspects as, a integrative realization of being?

Why Liminocentric structures are important to be understood.



No matter how "ancient" the nature of the schematics are, these patterns are inherent in self?

It's as "if" you line up all aspects of the personalities, and what ever "disquise it used" from one life to the next, it was always part of the pattern, of the whole self. A slice of the pie. As you rotated around the circle, it was you experiencing the different pieces of life, that represented different aspects of the soul.

One was always trying to remember not the "primitive nature" and thought evolution discriptive in the brain's "developemental mode" although such thinking has lead to a better encasing each time to believe possibly that the newer generations of people will have different attachements to the current structures of the brain?

What "kinds of thinking" lead "neuronical" developement? Restablish, routes electically impulsed? So the resulting routes re-establish are from a clear picture in mind, of what you have always done? Arm moves, if we see it move?

Once you align to the point in the center, it's as though you align every life time, and quickly realize, the energy that flows through you is the essence of all life. Like a lines of energy that run all over our planet and meet in different locations? That one location, allows the self to be expressed in it's diversities. As part of that wheel.

The ancient man realized that such vibration were indicative of the variety of these locations. Like negative, positive, or a combination of both. Like the earth, we are no different?

Plato:

As I related in the blog entry comments of "trademarks of the geometers II it was from that perspective the relation developed on plate 47 and indications of YING Yang interconnectivity to oriental philosophy that I encouraged bubble idealizations.

It is important to look at "Plate 47."

But I wanted to give another example that better demonstrates the ancient mind in it's recognition of these diversities of the feminine/ masculine and this, "interplay of being" within context of who you are at any moment?



Speaking, as the child, or the parent, or the adult? These are masked the inhernet nature of design? Tao te Ching? Line's given to the examples of "broken and unbroken" and the "64 Hexagrams" are instrumental in displaying the diversity of action according to the probabilistic nature revealled in the dream world of predictable action, and it's consequences. These are features of the "creative realization" that mind is embued with in dream time, as well as, recognizing the reality of of our actions immediately upon their implementation?

These pages illumine the very principles which inspired the ancient Greek philosophers Heraclitus, Pythagoras and Plato, and cosmologists Giordano Bruno and Johannes Kepler.

The link on picture also gives one a clue as to how the musical string is actually visualized. To give you a better example of this, you must be able to see into the working of the nature described here, not only harmoncially considered in the harmonical oscillator as a basis of all reality, but of how thes ethink resonate within th emind,a swelok at the chaldni plate as a comparison of the WMAP map as well as, the nodal operation depicted in the results of the brain's consolidation of conceptual realization?

CARL JUNG by Dr. C. George Boeree

Jung dreamt a great deal about the dead, the land of the dead, and the rising of the dead. These represented the unconscious itself -- not the "little" personal unconscious that Freud made such a big deal out of, but a new collective unconscious of humanity itself, an unconscious that could contain all the dead, not just our personal ghosts

IN context of the books of the dead, it was more about "life" that the ancients mind was a concern.

It had to have ways of "seeing in life" to perpetuate the struggle through all that we had created? Dis-ease? As well as. realizing the fog of the dream world was no less the roads we would have to travel in death, as we made ourway to the clear light? The very fabrications of the dream world were a reminder of the "creative genius" that was in human capable hands, had we thought about, "building a life" on this planet?

THEORETICAL MATHEMATICS

Before I was to ask the question below I had gone through the links given by Alejandro RIvero and in and thinking of the work I had been doing to understand this relation between mathematics and the physics world.

Of course as you know I am deeply involved in building a "foundational perspective" in a number of ways, which takes up a enormous amount of time. So having these oportunities to advance my thinking, are extremely difficult now, besides putting in a full days work in the heat and misquitos.

I ask this question on Cosmic Variance for obvious reasons.

A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS by Alain CONNES

Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

After reading here, some things pop into my mind about the work I had gathered from Hooft, on the defintions of "theoretical developement."

When I read this it seem to bring it together a little more for me.

String theory clearly appears to be strikingly coherent. What seems to be missing presently, however, is a clear description of the local nature of its underlying physical laws. In all circumstances encountered until now, it has been imperative that external fields, in- and outgoing strings and D-branes are required to obey their respective field equations, or lie on their respective mass shells. Thus, only effects due to external perturbations can be computed when these external perturbations obey equations of motion. To me, this implies that we do not understand what the independent degrees of freedom are, and there seems to be no indication that these can be identified. String theoreticians are right in not allowing themselves to be disturbed by this drawback.

So you know you are stifled by a problem? You need ways in which to think about this?

So, in thinking about the mathematics and physics involved, are the two so wide apart that we can say that the world of the "theoretical mathematics" is so far from the reality of the "average human being," that they are to smart for us? Or is it, that they "see" in different ways?

That is the jest of what I see in Dirac's wordings I highlight or Alain CONNES words for more thinking. It is not enough for me to be dismissed out of hand on "string theory", for what has been experimentally challenged, should be cast aside for, "other roads to quantum gravity," so easy.

I see something beautiful in it myself, of course, being biased from the "position of speaking" that I do by name only:)

Responsibiity of course rings very well within my mind, as I write these words. It is not my intention to take people down roads and divert them from the roads that lead them to quantum gravity? But to keep my self critically thinking about the problems that are being spoken by, engaging in, the topic Sean produced in "stringtheory backlash."

There is some healing that needs to be taken care of, that has been inflicted on those who are speaking, for and against string theory, while it is perspectve "on vision" that must be maintained? The algebraic equations are something I am working on to develope.

Foundational Perspectives

Do I work in construction, of course not. But I like models we develope. How we go about building them. While I may have developed them in my own mental and physical life, this entry, is about what the youth of today, can do in their own lives.

I also wanted to speak about the foundation of institutions, as well as, describe what is happening in my life right now. That this indeed is taking up some of my time. It's a worthy effort, working by my son, to uphold the understanding, that "fear of doing" should not limit us in our pursuates. That physical work demands, "strong motivational hearts" to succeed. Careful planning and execution.






Well of course above, there lies the remains physically challenged by time and the destruction of, by the powers that be then.

It was this picture that I was reminded of, as I looked across the work we had been doing to raise the house for my daughter-in-law and son. Yes, today, they pour the footings, and then, we shall progress from here.

As we were setting this up, I couldn't help but think of the attempts of our good scientists, who undertake the challenge to do their "own work" in the real world. To provide for, "construction corrections" to the homes that they live in. What is a home? What is a solid foundation in the sense of being secure?

But I could fast forward here, to this heightened view, just to remind you of this elevation of thought, so I'll place this perspective my son captured, while, what had transpired should be spoken about.

One might quickly forget the calculations in making sure we work on this "2D plain" according to the schematics of the archetectural drawing. It is this basis(model) of the house, with which they have chosen.

So! I sat and thought about it during the previous couple of days. While I watched the spirit of my son work hard, while others worked hard, asking what lead such inexperience to challenge what only existed in the mind of professionals. To take on such a task?

Research, and more research, and a willingness to do what was thought unimaginable?

Can it be said then, that it is this limitation that is forced on self, that any of us, had we not set our minds to it, couldn't have moved in the world the same way? Not to be afraid? To move beyond the world in it's accustom ways, was to encourage the self away from such conceptual stumbling blocks?

Pythagorean's Theorem

The theorem has been known in many cultures, by many names, for many years. Pythagoras, for whom the theorem is named, lived in ancient Greece, 2500 years ago. It is believed that he learned the theorem during his studies in Egypt. The Egyptians probably knew of the relationship for a thousand years before Pythagoras. The Egyptians knew of this relationship for a triangle with sides in the ratio of 3 - 4 - 5".

So it was of course important, that as we laid out the footings, keeping in mind the level from a heighten perspective, that we set out the basis of all our work from which all things would progress.

The Transit Level

While the model below is one of many designs, we used another model to help us with our leveling of the footings.

Many times in my youth growing up, it was important that this tool be used, so from it my talks about frame sof referenc ewas gain from actual hands on experience.

I relayed a story to my son, when he was around ten, as he set hs eyes upon work that I had been doing to arrive at a level. Of course, it was "long forgotten," but awoken when refreshed, the idea and foundational perspective is still alive and strong as a basis of the tools we need to do work in "frames of reference."



So of course we are thinking as we developed the "2d dimensions" to allot for a "frame of reference," for how could all things progress? How shall we do this, if we do not move to a third dimensional reference point? How do we arrive at a heightened perspective from all that has been laid out, if we had not raised oneself as my my son had, to include a picture of the whole site?

Black Holes: The Other Side of Infinity?

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light, where time and space literally come to end. It’s at this point, inside this fantastic riddle, that black holes exert their sway over the cosmos … and our imaginations.

The Fate of our Planet?

Clifford at cosmic variance addresses a fundamental question about the need(?) to populate other planets, versus exploring?

Clifford:

And it would be nice if we did the exploration primarily out of curiosity and wonder, and not out of fear for our future

But of course, as with any thread there is a diversion of thought, so I answer this, while still trying to understand what he meant by the timescale?

A Blackhole ate my Planet?


It's almost worth following the trail of "Risk Assessment" here. Some might remember James Blodgett?

In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced."

Of course, refering to "cosmic particle collisions",then to have the "issues of strangelets" explained away as well. I mean every journey is fraught with the anxieties of fear. Fear of the unknownas one progresses along the roads to new worlds?



See:

RHIC Animations and Multimedia

Strangelet Search at RHIC by STAR Collaboration

We report results of the first strangelet search at RHIC. The measurement was done using a triggered data-set that sampled 61 million top 4% most central (head-on) Au+Au collisions at $\sNN= 200 $GeV in the very forward rapidity region at the STAR detector. Upper limits at a level of a few $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-7}$ per central Au+Au collision are set for strangelets with mass ${}^{>}_{\sim}30$ GeV/$c^{2}$.

So where do we stand with the fate of our planet?

See:

Strangelets Do Not Exist?

Plato's doctrine of recollection

Plato's doctrine of recollection, however, addresses such criticism by saying that souls are born with the concepts of the forms, and just have to be reminded of those concepts from back before birth, when the souls were in close contact with the forms in the Platonic heaven. Plato is thus known as one of the very first rationalists, believing as he did that humans are born with a fund of a priori knowledge, to which they have access through a process of reason or intellection — a process that critics find to be rather mysterious

Harmonics will Color Your World?

If you are a active participator of the very world around you, how is it, the makeup of high energy particle creations could not have included the standard model make up "harmonically described" does it not also apply to our "very thinking and conscious mind?" :)

The Landscape “avant la lettre” by A.N. Schellekens

The lowest harmonics correspond to the particles of the Standard Model, plus perhaps a few new particles. The higher harmonics correspond to an infinite series of particles that we can never observe, unless we can build a Planck Energy accelerator

So of course the very basis of the thinking was drawn in my mind to the very subject enlisted by the minds of our predeccessors, to wonder, how this associative function could have ever been at the basis of how we may look at the World?

Lee Smolin:

In case it is not obvious, let me emphasize that harmonic oscillators are not relevent here, and can play no role in a background independent quantum theory, precisely because the division of a field into harmonic modes requires a fixed background metric. Thus, the physics of the problem REQUIRES an alternative quantization

Of course it is never easy for me to understand what is going on while we have the issues of the background, versus, the non background, and this brings up the ole debates about positions and adoptives stances scientists have taken in regards to the "duality" of science's "quantum gravity" issues?



Do I have a complete grasp of it. Absolutely not, while it forces me back to the issues, as to what is the basis of this "difference of opinion?"

THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE


Leonnard Susskind and Lee Smolin

While this is a conversation written by physicists for physicists, it should nonetheless be of interest for Edge readers as it's in the context of previous Edge features with the authors, it's instructive as to how science is done, and it's a debate that clarifies, not detracts.

So by historically looking back, this is a reminder, about the ways in which science people are still looking at things, while holding their positions of thought today?

SEan's meeting at PI, is a very interesting one becuase what it does is take the teacher and student scenario, and manifests the circumstance of clarification as to positions, while providing for a intuitive surge to present itself in the minds of it's participnats.

So this debate then was held and it's relationship rememebered within this blog as to the basis of determination, about how we see the universe and all that is in it.

Lee Smolin:

The aim of this paper is to explain carefully the arguments behind the assertion that the correct quantum theory of gravity must be background independent. We begin by recounting how the debate over whether quantum gravity must be background independent is a continuation of a long-standing argument in the history of physics and philosophy over whether space and time are relational or absolute. This leads to a careful statement of what physicists mean when we speak of background independence. Given this we can characterize the precise sense in which general relativity is a background independent theory. The leading background independent approaches to quantum gravity are then discussed, including causal set models, loop quantum gravity and dynamical triangulations and their main achievements are summarized along with the problems that remain open. Some first attempts to cast string/M theory into a background independent formulation are also mentioned.

The relational/absolute debate has implications also for other issues such as unification and how the parameters of the standard models of physics and cosmology are to be explained. The recent issues concerning the string theory landscape are reviewed and it is argued that they can only be resolved within the context of a background independent formulation. Finally, we review some recent proposals to make quantum theory more relational.

So if someone saids that space is empty, I have a really hard time with it.

See:

Quantum Harmonic Oscillator

Science Mathmatically Endowed?

Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

Sometimes this is taken to another level of actual "feuding," yet it is understood, that they are all working towards the same end?


http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~strings/superstrings/extradim.htm

One might called it discretism(to experimentally justify-Glast induced) while the other a "continuity of sorts" when it comes to "energy valuations" analogistically based on some "KK tower of tree like" reasoning? :) Unfortunately, I lost the owner of this quote below.

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

Encapsulate all things "gravitationally enhanced" while extending the framework of the standard model? I did not say, or others did not say, that we should discard all science thinking?

The History of the Tree Rings



Oh that fellow is not me either.

I wanted to added some "time" to the idea of things holding the history of, whether it be "energy valuations" held in regards to the particle creations, but also to the idea of earth's history embedded in some "form of expression" here on earth?

Why it's hard "macroscopically," not to look at the "ancient tree rings" and wonder about the history embedded? What are all those forces involved at that "specific ring time" doing?


Thales of Miletus

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle."

With "time variance recognition" in terms of the "relativity of thought," what said the "measures of Grace" are not suitable to what the history of time may have spoken to us in our undertanding of what "the climate" is doing today? But it is more then that.

The Thalean excursion into the "primary principle" needed a science basis from which to work?:) What was "first Principle" and how did such a thing come into existance? We had to know what the "building blocks of matter" may be wrap in process? And of course the ancient thought of water going through it's phases, comes to mind.

Distilliation, as a recognition of the energy, as well as the recognition of what phases the state of water is in?

While it may be the search for the "emotive forces and inspirative surges" into the exploration of the human condition, it is well considered, that such distilliations is a delving into our makeup(realms of thought).

An "intensity" of thought, that allows the seed bed to "bubble forth" into the recognition of what may arise from a simplier time? The "origins of time," as if brought forth "entropically designed" aspects of reality?



The idea of circles just made sense to me, and how we interpret it. Now again, I must remind you of the layman status I have, and must be forgiven for the attempt to understand where we are currently going with science that is mathmatical endow, but has it's basis "in" the science of?

I shall not forget:)

Quantum Gravity and String Theory

Of course the very title of this entry is a "direct link" as well. I mean, I watch scientists in their debates. How they treat one another, and the most profound contributions are opening the floor to dialogue as the seed bed, for other things to emerge.

Again this just seems to be the way of it. So the thinking already assumes certain things, having accumulated in model comprehension, to the degree, that such statements provide for, the "ideas" to manifest amongst them.

"Dialogos of eide," means, to discuss the ideas. So from where to do they come from? How is it they are transmitted in the minds of scientists. Conclusions drawn, set as the bait for things to enter?

In post #19 I am of course responding to Elliot's question about the observables, what is taken as science, and what Sean is referring to as science from the participants contributions.

I think from what I read their is a common bond and understanding, as to what each represents in the way they think about things. This is fine and no one is argue the validation process as to what expeirmentain does,a s they take this for granted from each other? They are scientists.


Quantum gravity and cosmology at the PI Institute

Finally, the extension of quantum theory to cosmology raises new questions concerning the meaning and interpretation of quantum theory. This is because the conventional uses of quantum theory presume that the observer is outside the system studied. But the universe contains everything, including all its possible observers. This means that quantum theory must be extended (or re-invented) to allow observers to be part of the system they are observing. This is presently a lively area of research, to which scientists at PI have contributed important ideas and results.

Of course I will lead by Plato's example and have these thoughts in mind as to substance, and not care as to the issue of substance, just that such ideas exist for us all to consider in context of groups that gather creatively to propel mind forward in our apprehensions about life.

High Energy Particle Creations: PLacing the Universe into Perspective?

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap."

While it is a microstatic view of what began from the early universe, such model creations as to the viability of the time line, seems really important to me. THis is a layman's view of course amongst the towers of well educative minds. So I thought I would add it.

Ah, it seems again, while thoughts are being held in mind, and some confusion on my part, the answers make themself known. It seems fate destines the mind's question, like an attractor of a kind? That all things come to those who wait?:)

AIRES Cosmic Ray Showers

The resource to the right index are really quite good, when it comes to Cosmus. I had forgotten why I had linked it, only to find how these particle creations are understood. Animations bountiful, to help the layman mind understand what is going on.

Make sure you let the animation load below. Also, the significance of high energy particle creation of secondaries, while dissipative states exist in plamatic considerations, what effect again is being sited here in the questions of mind tha we see some result on earth here?

The Pierre Auger Observatory in Malargue, Argentina, is a multinational collaboration of physicists trying to detect powerful cosmic rays from outer space. The energy of the particles here is above 1019eV, or over a million times more powerful than the most energetic particles in any human-made accelerator. No-one knows where these rays come from.

As you move through this information, it is really wonderful that such summations having gone over again and again, seem to solidfy what exactly is being sought and is currently understood.

It works that way sometime when you get a group of people together who have been through it all, and repeat all the current data they have for where exactly they are standing now. This thought of course is arisen from what Sean posted in regards to the PI institue in Canada and the group that got togehter there.

Jack, one of the comentors of course is asking why this stufff is being repeated over and over again, and the answer above is basically what is necessary to initiate new thought provoking situations, to what is already known?

That just seems to be the way of it.

See:

Pulsars and Cerenkov Radiation

How Particles Came to Be?