Tonight I delivered a lecture to the Canberra Jung Society on the book Aion by Carl Jung.

The essay that I used for the lecture is available at Aion - Toward a Gnostic Reformation.

Podcast: https://clyp.it/lqeu3cku

Robert, thanks for sharing this! I'm listening now.

Chris OConnor wrote:Robert, thanks for sharing this! I'm listening now.

Hi Chris, thanks for listening to my talk, let me know if it makes sense to you.

I was really pleased to have time to focus on this talk, which is about a scientific approach towards the cosmology that informed the Bible. The essay and podcast need editing, and a few readers have told me that the essay needs to be read slowly. The essay has all the pictures which are mentioned in the lecture.

I started a conversation with astronomers about my background claims in this essay at CosmoQuest Astronomy Forum. Notably, the themes discussed include that the famous Christian Chi Rho Cross is a map of the sky at the time of Christ, as shown below, and that the stability of precession and its influence on climate also has an influence on psychology, analogous to the influence of the day and year.

What of Opheucus?

Regards
DL

"Newton saw this principle of the same laws operating in the heavens and on earth as the basis for the theory of gravity. What Jung called “primordial oneness” is viewed with some disdain by materialist and positivist philosophy, but it seems to me has value in building cultural appreciation for astronomy."

As art, absolutely.

It is not surprising that materialists and positivists, if I understand those terms, would not accept what would need telepathy to work.

Oneness can only happen at the sub-atomic level and that level can only be accessed by our consciousness.

Further. They are not seekers and non-seekers tend to not want to believe anything of the mystical because of its connection to the supernatural.

As above so below makes God a man.

That term cannot apply to laws because the laws above are inferior to man's laws.

We grow by reproduction but God above cannot. Our laws, based on nature, trump the laws of any of the supernatural Gods.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:"Newton saw this principle of the same laws operating in the heavens and on earth as the basis for the theory of gravity. What Jung called “primordial oneness” is viewed with some disdain by materialist and positivist philosophy, but it seems to me has value in building cultural appreciation for astronomy."
As art, absolutely. It is not surprising that materialists and positivists, if I understand those terms, would not accept what would need telepathy to work.

Hello Gnostic Bishop, thanks for your comments. ‘Primordial oneness’ does not require telepathy. Rather, it just means a recognition that there is one universe and we are part of it.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Oneness can only happen at the sub-atomic level and that level can only be accessed by our consciousness.

Again, no, oneness is not subatomic. Recognising that all is one just means that we see that our universe obeys a single cosmic process of cause and effect, and is therefore a single unified reality. We don’t need to explain how oneness operates in detail (through a unification of relativity and quantum mechanics for example) in order to be confident that oneness operates.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Further. They are not seekers. Non-seekers tend to not want to believe anything of the mystical because of its connection to the supernatural.

A fascinating theme in Jung is his complete separation between the mystical and the supernatural, with his arguments which I quote in my paper against metaphysics and conversion. This is a great example of why theology needs to be treated with a bit more respect, since popular prejudices about words like mystical are far distant from what this language really means. I like Jung particularly because he tries to construct a science of mysticism, based on robust analysis of unconscious factors in mind.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: As above so below makes God a man.

No, that is a misreading. All it means is that the whole universe obeys the same causal laws. While it is possible to portray God as a human, that is only symbolic, not literal.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: That term cannot apply to laws because the laws above are inferior to man's laws.

What you call “the laws above” include scientific laws of evolution, motion, relativity and thermodynamics. Far from being inferior to man’s constantly changing laws, these laws of nature are omnipotent and omnipresent, and therefore infinitely superior to anything human, providing accurate permanent descriptions of reality throughout the universe, as far as we can tell. A case can even be made for their omnibenevolence, but that takes us into quite difficult theology and science, requiring thinking on much longer time frames than we are used to.

Robert Tulip wrote:[

quote="Gnostic Bishop"]"Newton saw this principle of the same laws operating in the heavens and on earth as the basis for the theory of gravity. What Jung called “primordial oneness” is viewed with some disdain by materialist and positivist philosophy, but it seems to me has value in building cultural appreciation for astronomy."
As art, absolutely. It is not surprising that materialists and positivists, if I understand those terms, would not accept what would need telepathy to work.

Hello Gnostic Bishop, thanks for your comments. ‘Primordial oneness’ does not require telepathy. Rather, it just means a recognition that there is one universe and we are part of it.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Oneness can only happen at the sub-atomic level and that level can only be accessed by our consciousness.

Again, no, oneness is not subatomic. Recognising that all is one just means that we see that our universe obeys a single cosmic process of cause and effect, and is therefore a single unified reality. We don’t need to explain how oneness operates in detail (through a unification of relativity and quantum mechanics for example) in order to be confident that oneness operates.

There is a oneness of the body with the universe as that is easily demonstrable as you seem to know. We are all star stuff, as Carl Sagan would say, and entropy and the anthropic principle proves the oneness of the body with the universe.

That does not show a oneness of our consciousness with other consciousness', --- the important part of the universe to us, --- because to show that oneness of spirit, so to speak, one has to access the Godhead using telepathy. I do not think this can be proven to ones self without having suffered apotheosis. I have and speak from experience. I have no proof of this of course.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Further. They are not seekers. Non-seekers tend to not want to believe anything of the mystical because of its connection to the supernatural.

A fascinating theme in Jung is his complete separation between the mystical and the supernatural, with his arguments which I quote in my paper against metaphysics and conversion. This is a great example of why theology needs to be treated with a bit more respect, since popular prejudices about words like mystical are far distant from what this language really means. I like Jung particularly because he tries to construct a science of mysticism, based on robust analysis of unconscious factors in mind.

Theologies usually carry supernatural Gods and you know enough about our immoral mainstream idol worshiping religions to know they do not deserve respect It surprises me to see you promoting respect for intolerant, homophobic and misogynous theologies who follow satanic morals instead of God-like morals.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: As above so below makes God a man.

No, that is a misreading. All it means is that the whole universe obeys the same causal laws. While it is possible to portray God as a human, that is only symbolic, not literal.

It is a miss-reading only if you believe in the supernatural and the ancients, prior to Christianity becoming an idol worshiping cult, did not define God at all. They knew they could not do it in an honest way.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Gnostic Bishop wrote: That term cannot apply to laws because the laws above are inferior to man's laws.

What you call “the laws above” include scientific laws of evolution, motion, relativity and thermodynamics. Far from being inferior to man’s constantly changing laws, these laws of nature are omnipotent and omnipresent, and therefore infinitely superior to anything human, providing accurate permanent descriptions of reality throughout the universe, as far as we can tell. A case can even be made for their omnibenevolence, but that takes us into quite difficult theology and science, requiring thinking on much longer time frames than we are used to.

[/quote]

You are wrong for the simple reason that God does not follow the law of evolution while man does and that is why we are superior to any supernatural God.

We reproduce true and God cannot. We follow evolutionary thinking by knowing that children are to bury their parents and that parents will work quite hard to insure their line continues to evolve while Yahweh, the prick, did the non-evolutionary thing and had his son murdered instead of stepping up himself.

That aside.

The law I meant above was the laws we have written and live by.

Those human laws are closer to an eye for an eye than God's law which kill sinners for a lot less than them killing.

That is why we follow secular laws and why few religionist would ever advocate for their theistic laws to be the law of the land.

I have missed reading you and am pleased to re-make your acquaintance.

Regards
DL