Does the cup hold the ocean, or the ocean the cup,who holds the cup,where are
the oceans shores?
On Tuesday, January 17, 2006, at 02:08PM, Dan Booth Cohen <danbcohen@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
<<Original Attached>>
Stefan, Daniel, Leah & All – I am really glad for this discussion. When Leah’s post came, I started a response that I couldn’t keep from becoming a “How many angels can dance on a head of a pin?” question. Stefan and Daniel’s responses framed the question very well and I will now add my part.
Stefan’s point that when we speak of or describe the soul, that we are in the realm of metaphor and imagination is very important. The consciousness scholar William Irwin Thompson calls the realm of metaphor and imagination, “myth.” He writes:
“Take a photograph of a reflection in a mirror and think of that piece of film, which will in turn reflect an image to the curving surfaces of the eye and the folding surfaces of the brain… The scientist tries to examine the ‘real’ nature of the photograph; he tries to get away from the psychological configuration, the meaning of the image, to move down to some other, more basic level of patterns of alternating dots of light and dark, a world of elementary particles. And yet what does he find there but another mental configuration, another arrangement of psychological meaning? If he persists in this direction long enough, the mythological dimensions of science will become apparent in his work, as they would have if he had asked himself questions about the meaning of sunlight rather than questions about the behavior of photons. Science wrought to its uttermost becomes myth.”
To my reading, there are two views of the soul presented and I wonder whether they are compatible or mutually exclusive. Bert speaks to this question in his statement, "The soul is not something we have; it is something that has us." In one view, the view of the many of world’s mainstream religious and spiritual traditions, the soul is the Divine center. In the other metaphor, the soul is embedded in a larger context.
Is the soul a point or a field? One can answer it is all and both and neither, of course, since we are only using metaphor and imagination. But I think there is something important in that question for the reasons Daniel names below.
Otto Rank wrote a book "Psychology and the Soul," which looked at the history of the soul as the crucial part of religious and spiritual traditions. He concluded that the purpose of the soul was to mediate between each person's belief is his or her own immortality and the external evidence of the mortality of the human body. We all know that death awaits, but our own death is too abstract to comprehend. Our "you" (superego) mind is convinced that it will survive forever, and compelling evidence to the contrary sends it into a state of angst. The immortal soul is the "you's" way out of this paralyzing conundrum. The "I" dies; the "You" lives forever. Religions and spiritual traditions call this the soul.
Scientific inquiry has never been able to locate this soul within its models of physical reality. Hence the 400 year old battle between religion and science, which continues to this day, most recently in the debate over evolution versus intelligent design. The logo on my website www.HiddenSolution.com is an image of this schism.
In my stance as a facilitator, the soul has us. The metaphor of Sheldrake’s morphic fields has more power for me than the metaphor of the Cartesian immortal soul. Sheldrake writes, “Morphic fields help to explain embryology, biological development, habits, memories, instincts, telepathy and the sense of direction. They have an inherent memory. In its most general form this hypothesis implies that many of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits.” Our loyalty to these habits is what Constellators refer to as conscience.
This challenges Aminah Raheem’s metaphor of the Divine center imbedded within. It seems aligned with Hunter’s representation that the self is not isolated, but a living system imbedded in a larger context.
All for now…
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Daniel Mac Lean E.
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
9:08 AM
To: merlin7win@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ConstellationTalk]
The Greater Soul...........
Hi Stefan, this is the realm of metaphor and imagination. We can imagine having individual souls connected to greater souls with luminous fibers, and the cause and effect traveling through this wires. Or we could imagine a soul as being connected with many individuals, as Hellinger says, “we don`t have souls, is the soul that has us” Or we could imagine “connection” as a tuning with sort of waves. Does a radio have a wave and this wave connects to the greater wave of the radio station? Or rather the Wave is everywhere and radios tune with it? you see, since language is metaphorically structured, you can only understand things in terms of other things. Souls as things, as waves, as colors, as presences, as voices in your head, as sensations. Now, the choosing of one or other metaphor bear different consequences. That is why we care so much for words in FCs. If you tell a mother to say to the aborted child, “I aborted you” or “I! killed you” is very different. If you think YOU have a soul or if you think you are had by a soul, different actions and feelings and consequences come from each. The more personal power(Castaneda) one has, the better metaphors one chooses, in the sense that they will lead to more power. Strength, in Hellinger’s words.
Cheers,
Daniel.
