The Stairway to Consciousness: The Birth of Self-Awareness from Unconscious Archetypes (The Truth Series Book 12)

by Thomas Stark

If consciousness were irrelevant to the operations of the universe, there would be no such thing as consciousness. After all, what would be the point? What sufficient reason could be offered for it? Nature doesn’t generate anything that has no function. Yet consciousness – the most important fact of our life that defines who we are and how we relate to the world – is, according to science, nothing but an accident, a product of random chance, a bizarre mutation, an epiphenomenon, an illusion, an emergent property. It serves no purpose, it has no causal efficacy.

God does not create the universe, the universe creates God. That is its purpose. The universe starts off as God unconscious (Alpha) and ends as God conscious (Omega). This is achieved via us – the individual cells of God, the eternal and necessary monadic minds that comprise the substance of God. Alpha God is the state of maximum mental entropy (total unconsciousness). Omega God is the state of minimum mental entropy, the zero-entropy state of perfect consciousness, perfect being. Everything is conducted via mathematics, the divine language. Mathematics provides the syntax and semantics, the fabric and fiber, of existence. It is the only thing which can. Existence is possible thanks to mathematics exclusively. No mathematics, no existence. The equation could not be starker. The sole ontological truth is: existence = mathematics.

What is energy? Energy = existence = mathematics. Specifically, energy = sinusoidal waves, the eternal, necessary outputs of Euler’s Formula, the master formula for existence. Euler’s Formula is the God Equation. There is, and can be, only one such equation. Reality is nothing but the exploration of the consequences of the formula for existence. The formula for existence is exactly the same as the formula for life, mind and thought. They are all the same thing. To exist is to live, to have a mind, and to think. As we see in our dreams, thinking can produce outer worlds, which we imagine are external to us but are just our own constructs.

We are all part of a living cosmic organism, seeking to optimize itself, to perfect itself. The Cosmic Mind produces a Cosmic World in which Mind can contend with its own construct and come to consciousness via all the problems and struggles it encounters there. We are alienated from the world because we fail to understand that we unconsciously created it. Only consciousness can reveal the truth: that everything is made by us, that we have total control over it … if we put our mind to it. Minds and their thoughts are all that exist. There is nothing else.

Come and discover the extraordinary story of how consciousness is born from the unconscious. This is the story of existence. This is the story of the meaning of life, the universe and everything. The point of life is to know what the point of life is, and you can accomplish that only via the att...

He wrote, “The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods. ... The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. ... When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought.” What Chalmers is actually talking about is the hard problem of sentience, not of consciousness. All animals and human babies are sentient, but none is conscious. They have plenty of experiences, feelings, intuitions, and so on – a whole world of empirical content and percepts of various kinds – but all without the benefit of consciousness. Sentience concerns the experience itself (the content; the empirical percept; the feeling), but consciousness concerns reflecting on the experience and establishing its intelligible aspect (the form; the rational concept)....

The sense-space relies directly on the eternal world. The mind-space does not. You cannot carry the sense-space around with you, to be studied later. You cannot put it on pause. You can with the mind-space. You can put it to one side whenever you like and return to it whenever you like. The mind-space is the noosphere, the sphere of thought, which can detach itself from physicality and evolve mentally rather than physically. The sense-space is all about percepts, the mind-space all about concepts. In the sense-space, we respond to external objects: percepts. In the mind-space, we respond to internal objects: concepts. Percepts are always immediate. They are there while we are observing them, and not there when we are not. This is the essence of the philosophy of empiricism: reality, it says, is about the immediate objects of experience. Everything else is a mere pale echo, and after-image. Rationalism is about the mind-space. The mind-space, not the sense-space, is where we reflect on the past and anticipate the future. It is the non-meditative, non-physical space of judgment, of conceptualization, where we manipulate concepts, form memories (of the past) and projections (into the future). It is where our “I” – our ego, our agent of action – exists and operates, where it spins its continuous narrative concerning our life, where we are always at the center of our world. The “I” can exist only in the mind-space. It can never be in the sense-space. No animal is an “I”, and no...

Human consciousness is initially born from the human mind’s response to the sense-space, but it can then evolve in its own way and become totally independent. We can live as pure conscious minds, wholly separate from the physical world of the senses. We can still have externality, but externality would now consist of mental entities that surround our personal conceptual space. What mentally contains us? – the collection of all monadic minds, which manifests itself to us...

Absolute Cosmic Consciousness – “God” – precedes the sensory universe. A perfect mind-space is all that originally exists. This is the Singularity, prior to the Big Bang. This is a living version of Plato’s immaterial domain of Forms outside space and time, a strictly conceptual (non-physical) domain. It is God as a collective being, a Collective Mind, made up of individual living cells (monadic minds), of which each of us is one. We are, and always have been, units of God. God is defined through us. He is not separate from us. He is not our Creator. He is our creation; that which is created out of us. The Big Bang is an involution event, signifying a transition from a higher state to a lower state. God splinters from a conscious unity into an unconscious plurality of countless individual cells. This is “the Fall”. It was not Man that fell, it was God. The God Mirror split into myriad shards, and now they all have to be fitted together again, so that God can once again see himself reflected and know exactly who he is. The evolution of the Cosmos is designed to achieve exactly this. At the Big Bang, God totally loses consciousness. We might even say that God dies. It then has to ...

Humanity has suffered from two radical problems: 1) the empiricists have become obsessed with the sense-space and dismissed the mind-space as an illusion, and 2) the believers have worshipped manmade concepts, such as anthropomorp...

Followers of Eastern religion have dismissed the sense-space of percepts as illusory and equally dismissed the mind-space of concepts as illusory. They deny that the material world really exists, and they deny that concepts reflect reality, hence what they seek is to be absorbed by “bare consciousness”, which they conceive as some blissful, non-judgmental, enlightened state of mind, free from pain and suffering – nirvana, moksha, heaven. They have of course fatally contradicted themselves since this idea is just another manmade concept! Followers of Eastern religion emphasize intuitive visions, while followers of Western religion (Abrahamism) emphasize emotional beliefs. Scientists focus on the sense-space and reject the conceptual space. Philosophers dwell on the manmade conceptual space and largely ignore ...

Jung wrote, “Individuation is not that you become an ego – you would then become an individualist. You know, an individualist is a man who did not succeed in individuating; he is a philosophically distilled egotist. … You see as the individual is not just a single, separate being, but by his very existence presupposes a collective relationship, it follows that the process of individuation must lead to more intense relationships and not to isolation. … Individuation and individual existence are indispensable for the transformation of God. Human consciousness is the only seeing eye of the Deity. … Thus the devil is a preliminary stage of individuation, in the negative it has the same goal as the divine quaternity, namely, wholeness. Although it is still darkness, it already carries the germ of light within itself. … Individuation does not isolate, it connects.” We are the unapologetic champions of mathematics, the supreme thinking (conceptual) subject, the subject of reason and logic. Yet things are more complicated than simply turning to mathematics for everything. There are four Jungian mental functions: thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition. To become fully individuated, we need a separate language for each of them in order that each can be optimally expressed, whilst bearing in mind that mathematics is the ur language.

Logos (mathematics) is the language of analytic numbers. Mythos is the language of emotional words. Mathematics has an analytic logic. Stories have a story logic, an emotional logic. Hollywood is all about Mythos and goes nowhere near Logos. Logos doesn’t sell. The language of the senses is dimensional science where mathematics is applied to observable patterns. The language of intuition ought to be dimensionless science where mathematics is applied to unobservable patterns. However, a realistic substitute is something like Jungian psychology, but supported by mathematics rather than science. Autistics have poor language skills. This means they have poor conceptual skills, whether Logos or Mythos. They are perceivers, not judgers. Therefore, autistics will be sensing types or intuitives. Sensing autistics struggle with communication, but intuitive autistics are the least responsive of all – trapped in their own internal world, in a permanent dream, almost comatose. If you want to know what being an intuitive autistic is like, just take loads of drugs. You will become profoundly introspective, lose all coherence and capacity to communicate, and exist in a near-comatose state, overwhelmed by visions and perceptions. Your consciousness will be radically reduced, not expanded. By contrast, your perceptual field will massively expand, and you will mistake this for heightened awareness. Those known as autistic savants are typically extremely gifted artistically (they can paint v...

We need words and constructed languages in order to give us a larger mental vocabulary than mathematics alone provides. We can express ourselves more fully if we have a bespoke language for thinking, for feeling, for sensing, and for intuition, while always recognizing the primacy of mathematics. Humanity’s mistake is that it has made religious Mythos (for emotionalists) and religious mysticism (for intuitives) the highest languages for expressing the thoughts and beliefs of ordinary people, and science (for sensing types) the highest language for expressing intelligence. Philosophy has typically been used as the language for thinking types, but it has been destroyed by science. The language that has been deemed least relevant to reality is none other than the one that actually defines reality: ontological mathematics.

Science is all about the sense-space; it dismisses the mind-space. Eastern religion dismisses both the sense-space and mind-space and concentrates on “nothingness” (supposedly bare consciousness). Abrahamism accepts the sense-space as the Creation of God, and focuses on the mind-space conception of God as the highest reality. Ontological mathematics derives everything, including the sense-space, from the conceptual, numerical mind-space. Everything is about how the sense-space and mind-space, and their mutual relationship, is handled.

Reality is made of concepts we can grasp through reason and logic. It is not made of mysterious matter that we can observe in some way but can never know. Only mathematical concepts are definable and intelligible. Everything else is undefinable and unintelligible. Everything else is mere description, and never explanation. Mathematics alone is a system of intelligible ontology, epistemology and explanation.

Concepts are the “matter” of systematic knowledge. We must replace unintelligible matter (perceptual matter available to the senses) with intelligible matter (conc...

As things stand, there is almost a direct trade-off between the size of the sense-space and the size of the mind-space. The larger the former, the smaller the latter, and vice versa.

Consciousness is a “big picture” tool and ultimately wants to arrive at one idea that explains everything. As Leibniz said, the answer to existence should be “the simplest in hypothesis and the richest in phenomena.” Perception is an “all the details” tool, and ultimately wants to perceive the whole universe at once (an impossibility). Concepts and percepts work in opposite directions. Concepts seek to shrink all complexity down to one simple idea. Percepts seek to expand all complexity to an infinity of separate percepts. Concepts are linked to top-down systems, and percepts to bottom-up systems. As ever, they are directly opposed.

Huxley wrote, “To formulate and express the contents of this reduced awareness, man has invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and implicit philosophies which we call languages.” These languages are the medium of human consciousness. Without them, we would not be conscious, but might have an enormously expanded perceptual space in exchange. Would you swap? Huxley wrote, “Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he or she has been born – the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to he accumulated records of other people’s experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things.” This is the classic Eastern and New Age critique of concepts – claiming that they are abstract and unreal, while percepts are claimed to be concrete and real. In fact, mathematical concepts are the true reality. The sinusoid is a mathematical concept. The whole of existence, with no exceptions, is made from sinusoids, thus exactly satisfying the si...

A clear distinction has to be drawn between the sense-space and the mind-space. You don’t expand consciousness by expanding the sense-space. That simply expands your sensory capacity. It makes you more like an autistic. You in fact expand your consciousness by expanding your mind-space. You do that through acquiring greater conceptual (intellectual) power. Can you even begin to imagine how different reality must look to the greatest geniuses?

Empiricists privilege the sense-space over the mind-space (perceiving over conceiving). They claim the sense-space gives rise to the mind-space, although they can’t explain how and why. Rationalists privilege the mind-space over the sense-space. They assert that the mind-space gives rise to the sense-space, which then interacts with the mind-space, and all of this happens using precise mathematics (Euler’s Formula and Fourier mathematics).

Consciousness is a judging function, not a perceiving function. It’s extraordinary how many people get this wrong and imagine that consciousness is about perception. All animals perceive. Only humans conceive. Only humans are...

Consciousness operates on two things: 1) on the sense-space (i.e. it makes sense of what we perceive), and 2) on itself, on the mind-space, on the concepts it has created or discovered. Consciousness is always a reflective process, acting on something else. It is totally wrong to confuse sentience and consciousness. Sentience involves a direct interaction with the world and has no requirement of consciousness. All animals are sentient. Consciousness, by contrast, is a secondary, higher level that reflects on the direct experience and rationalizes it (conceptualizes it). Consciousness entails indirectness. Consciousness converts sensory things into conceptual things. So, for example, we can look at a flower and see its sensory properties. Any animal can do that too. But only a human possesses the concept of “flower”. A rabbit does not see the world in terms of concepts. It simply perceives the world. It doesn’t conceive it. It doesn’t convert the world, translate it, into concepts. Consciousness is this process of superimposing language over a perceptual substrate, of converting sensory observables into concepts that we can then manipulate and ponder entirely separately from imme...

Hegel described the most primitive form of consciousness as sense-certainty – “certainty at the level of sense-experience.” This form of consciousness does only one thing: it grasps whatever is in front of it at a given moment. It is immediate and direct. You open your eyes and see the world. Sense-certainty is about nothing except recording the data received by our senses at that instant. Hegel said that there is “knowledge” without concepts and knowledge with concepts. There is primitive consciousness and advanced consciousness. Today, we would say it is better not to regard mere perception as indicative of consciousness at all. Tellingly, psychologist Julian Jaynes wrote, “Consciousness is sometimes confused even with simple sense perception. Historically, we inferred and abstracted ideas of sense perception from a realization of our sense organs, and then, because of prior assumptions about mind and matter or soul and body, we believed these processes to be due to consciousness – which they are not.” This is a crucial consideration. Humanity’s truths do not derive from the facts but from the interpretation of the facts. The validity of the interpretative framework is therefo...

Jaynes said, “That consciousness is in everything we do is an illusion. Suppose you asked a flashlight in a completely dark room to turn itself on and to look around and see if there was any light – the flashlight as it looked around would of course see light everywhere and come to the conclusion that the room was brilliantly lit when in fact it was mostly just the opposite. So with consciousness. We have an illusion that it is all mentality. If you look back into the struggles with this problem in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, this is indeed the error that trapped people into so much of the difficulty, and still does.” Consciousness is the flashlight. All it ever sees is the light of consciousness. Yet it is everywhere surrounded by the dark room of the unconscious. Any nu...

Jaynes wrote, “Second, consciousness does not copy experience. This further error about consciousness stems from the beginning of empiricism when Locke (1690) spoke of the mind’s ‘white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas’ (Essay II, 1.2) on which experience is copied. Had the camera been around at the time, I suggest Locke would have used it instead of blank paper as his foundational metaphor. In experience, we take successive pictures of the world, immer...

Jaynes is one of the best commentators on the true nature of consciousness. The analogue camera – stocked up with blank film waiting to be populated with content and requiring subsequent treatment by a chemical developer – is a much better metaphor for empiricism than Locke’s idea of the mind as a mere “blank slate”, waiting to have experiences impressed upon it. Why? – because the technology of the camera and the development process has to be explained, and that cannot be done via the pictures taken by the camera. Locke’s blank slate, by contrast, has no technology, hence can be glossed over. (That said, Locke should have been forced to explain what the blank slate actually was, ontologically, and how it could receive sensory impressions … his explanation could not have relied empiricist arguments since the slate precedes experiences. It must exist first in order for experiences to be writeable on it.) A digital camera that we can link to a smartphone, or computer, or the internet is even better than the analogue camera for exposing the inadequacy of Locke’s blank-slate empiricism. Taking pictures – analogous to having experiences – presupposes a highly sophisticated operating ...

Philosopher Peter Singer said of Hegel’s notion of sense-certainty, “Sense-certainty makes no attempt to order or classify the raw information obtained by the senses. Thus when this form of consciousness has in front of it what we would describe as a ripe tomato, it cannot describe its experience as a tomato, for that would be to classify what it sees. It cannot even describe the experience as one of seeing something round and red, for these terms too presuppose some form of classification. Sense-certainty is aware only of what is now present to it; as Hegel puts it, it is the certainty of the ‘this’, or the ‘here’ and ‘now’.” Buddhists are those that, bizarrely, see the process of classifying things (applying judgment, conceptualization to them) as some sort of artificial process that falsifies what is being observed, as opposed to turning it into useful knowledge. The pernicious New Age guru Alan Watts wrote, “What we have forgotten is that thoughts and words are conventions, and that it is fatal to take conventions too seriously. A convention is a social convenience, as, for example, money ... but it is absurd to take money too seriously, to confuse it with real wealth ... In...

Kant said, “Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind.” Meditators seek to abolish concepts, seeing them as artificial mediators. They seek to be absorbed by pure percepts. However, as Kant points out, such a state, as far as knowledge goes, is one of blindness. You have no idea what you are perceiving because you have rejected concepts, which are the sole things that can shed light on percepts. (Buddhism is extremely anti-Kantian in general; it wants to escape from the “intuitions” of space and time and the categories of understanding, all of which are deemed to falsify reality.) Kant claimed that concepts on their own are “empty”. This is absurd. Mathematics, considered in terms of pure syntax, is purely conceptual, involving no physical percepts at all. Nothing is fuller than mathematics. It is infinitely full. Kant had a poor understanding of mathematics. He claimed it was the consequence of the intuitions of space and time. Spatial considerations, he argued, produced geometry, while temporal considerations produced arithmetic and mechanics. Without space and time, there would, for Kant, be no such thing as mathematics. In fact, you can have fr...

If you want to expand your mind, your consciousness, you must above all expand your mind-space, your conceptual space. You must conceive better and better, make far superior connections between concepts – see how they integrate and form a complete and consistent whole, seamlessly working together, and all reducible ultimately to the final concept: Euler’s Formula, the ontological expression of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

You don’t expand your mind by expanding your perceptual space. That actually makes you more and more autistic. At best, extra capacity to perceive might trigger a better capacity to conceive new ideas, to free you from stultifying, mind-reducing ideologies such as scientific materialism. However, on the whole, the more sensory you are, the less intellectual you are. Many people take drugs and learn nothing from the experience. It’s strictly recreational. Only intellectuals can typically put drugs to any good use.

Any mathematics book contains more insight, wisdom and knowledge than the world’s entire religious, philosophical and scientific canon.

Hegel insisted, rightly, that “knowledge” of self-certainty could not be expressed in language at all. Sense-certainty concerns the pure particular. Language, however, necessarily involves bringing any particular under more and more general and universal labels. That’s what conceptualization is all about: reducing particular things to fewer and fewer generalizations and universals, until, ultimately, reality is reduced to just one universal, the supreme concept that explains everything. This one concept is the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).

A rational universe cannot be explained by anything other than the PSR. Only the PSR provides an intelligible answer to existence. Everything else involves unreason and irrationalism, hence leads to incoherence, incompleteness, inconsistency and unintelligibility. The PSR alone explains reality. Everything else is a sham and a fraud. The PSR translates into a mathematical formula: Euler’s Formula. That’s all that is needed to explain...

For Hegel, knowledge is impossible without universal concepts. If he is right – and he surely is – Eastern mysticism and New Ageism are absurd. They are the essence of anti-knowledge. Science, based on perception, would be absurd without mathematics, the quintessence of conception. Science uses mathematics all the time, while having no understanding at all of what mathematics is and why science needs it. Nor does science make any attempt to address mathematics. The scientific method – upon which science is predicated – contains not one step or procedure that could ever elucidate what mathematics is and how it relates to science. Isn’t that amazing? Science cannot even define itself never mind define reality. Its own method prevents it from defining itself. Its method is based on percepts (the observable) and reject concepts (the unobservable). But without concepts, science cannot be defined. It a mere heuristic, a modelling system, and what it observes and models is the world of percepts. The answer to existence, however, is conceptual, rational, logical, and intelligible, not perceptual...

People imagine they live in sense-space. They don’t. Everyone is in fact consumed by the mind-space. People live their lives according to their beliefs, all of which are manmade concepts. People follow story logic. All stories are conceptual. People don’t fight and squabble because of sense-certainty. Every war is born of concepts, of love of one concept or another, and hatred of its dialectical opposite. Look at today’s USA. The Trumpanzees love everything to do with the concept of conservatism, and feel sick at anything at al...

The modern craze for relativism and subjectivism is all about declaring that everyone has their own truth, their own path, their own journey to enlightenment. This is supposed to destroy the power of concepts and judgement but is of course just another concept and judgment, and immediately attracts the contempt of everyone who subscribes to one absolute truth (hence one road to enlightenment), leading to yet more conflict! The way to cure the world is by curing bogus manmade concepts, not by meditating and dreaming of a larger sense-space. If drugs were the road to enlightenment, humanity would be the most enlightened species in the cosmos. Is it? ...

In a notorious experiment on human selective attention, people weren’t able to detect a gorilla beating its chest right in front of them. Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons, authors of The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us, wrote, “Imagine you are asked to watch a short video in which six people – three in white shirts and three in black shirts – pass basketballs around. While you watch, you must keep a silent count of the number of passes made by the people in white shirts. At some point, a gorilla strolls into the middle of the action, faces the camera and thumps its chest, and then leaves, spending nine seconds on screen. Would you see the gorilla? “Almost everyone has the intuition that the answer is ‘yes, of course I would.’ How could something so obvious go completely unnoticed? But when we did this experiment at Harvard University several years ago, we found that half of the people who watched the video and counted the passes missed the gorilla. It was as though the gorilla was invisible. “This experiment reveals two things: that we are missing a lot of what goes on around us, and that we have no idea that we are missing so much.” So much for sense-certainty. It is in fact sense-uncertainty. So much for meditation. So much for perception. So much for empiricism. So much for science. The question is not how much you are seeing but how much you are not seeing. Science is, in essence, an insane hypothesis that everything that exists is in principle ob...

In Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett wrote, “The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one who begins to weep somewhere else another stops. The same is true of the laugh.” The same is also seemingly true for intelligence. Every time someone gets more intelligent, someone else gets dumber. Just look at the world. If one person knew everything, everyone else would know nothing. That’s why geniuses have no one to talk to. Schopenhauer said, “Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.” So much for perception. A genius uses conception, the ultimate means of “seeing” reality. Using your primitive sense organs is for dummies, or scientists (much the same thing).

The very act of trying to understand mindfulness is contrary to the practice of mindfulness since it brings judgment, interpretation, words, language and concepts to the party – but all of these are ideologically forbidden, and considered the exact enemy of mindfulness. Mindfulness is in fact mindlessness. Mindfulness is a scandalous attack on the intellect and reflects a crude desire to wallow in pure perception, cut off from the mind-space of concepts, judgment, decisions and action. Only morons seek to be “mindful” in the manner prescribed by gurus, mystics and meditators. You need more judgement, not less; more concepts, not fewer; more intelligence, more reason, more logic, more knowledge, more understanding. You need less emotionalism, less mysticism, less empiricism, less faith, less observation, less exposure to sense-certainty, less perceiving, less interaction with percepts, less meditation.

In Freud’s model of the psyche, all that existed was the personal conscious and the personal unconscious. Nothing was above the personal conscious and nothing below the personal unconscious. Jung took the bold step of placing a Collective Unconscious beneath every personal unconscious, thus uniting all minds at this deeper level and making individual minds offshoots of a group mind. The Collective Unconscious surrounds and underpins each personal unconscious and gives birth to each personal unconscious via archetypal processes. The Collective Unconscious is the repository of all archetypes. Archetypes are to the mental world what atoms and molecules are to the physical world. They provide its structure. Everything is made from them. If the personal unconscious is the subjective psyche, the Collective Unconscious is the objective psyche. Similarly, if the dreamworld of sleep is the subjective world, the collective world of waking is the objective world. We are all subjects in an objective world. We are engulfed by the Collective World and the Collective Mind. The Collective World is the local, spacetime aspect of reality. The Collective Mind is the non-local, non-spacetime aspect. Quantum mechanics with its local and non-local aspects straddles both worlds. Science cannot interpret quantum mechanics correctly because science does not acknowledge the ontology of non-locality outside spacetime and refers to this concept only as an unreal heuristic necessary to make the mathem...

The personal unconscious deals with subjective issues, usually revolving around sex, love, status, submission, dominance, hope, fear, anxiety, fantasy, and taboo. It is closely related to the Freudian Id. The collective unconscious deals with objective issues, addressing how humans interact with each other. It is about rules, laws, customs, regulations, manners, etiquette, appropriate ways of behaving. It is closely related to the Freudian Superego.

Jung wrote, “And the essential thing, psychologically, is that in dreams, fantasies, and other exceptional states of mind the most far-fetched mythological motifs and symbols can appear autochthonously at any time, often, apparently, as the result of particular influences, traditions, and excitations working on the individual, but more often without any sign of them. These ‘primordial images’ or ‘archetypes,’ as I have called them, belong to the basic stock of the unconscious psyche and cannot be explained as personal acquisitions. Together they make up that psychic stratum which has been called the collective unconscious.” We can directly see the structure of the collective physical world. We cannot directly see the structure of the collective mental world. The former is phenomenal, the latter noumenal. However, when we interact with a noumenal archetype, it has to be phenomenally represented to us, or take on a phenomenal representation for us. The only clothing in which we can dress it is the clothing familiar to us from our culture. When Aryans think of Jesus Christ as an archetype, they think of him as a tall, blonde, blue-eyed, long-hair...

Jung wrote, “The existence of the collective unconscious means that individual consciousness is anything but a tabula rasa and is not immune to predetermining influences.” These considerations place Jung in the rationalist rather than empiricist camp. Wikipedia says, “Tabula rasa refers to the epistemological idea that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that therefore all knowledge comes from experience or perception. Proponents of tabula rasa generally disagree with the doctrine of innatism which holds that the mind is born already in possession of certain knowledge.” The Collective Unco...

Archetypes are older than any human. In human terms, the archetypes are universal symbols such as the Great Mother, the Wise Old Man, the Shadow, the Tower, Water, the Tree of Life, the Anima or Animus, and so on. These directly structure our lives and give us default ways of acting in every situation we find ourselves in. We don’t get stuck in loops like machines. Jung wrote, “[The animus and anima, the male principle within the woman and the female principle within the man] evidently live and function in the deeper layers of the unconscious, especially in that phylogenetic [racial; ancestral] substratum which I have called the collective unconscious. This localization explains a good deal of their strangeness: they bring into our ephemeral consciousness an unknown psychic life belonging to a remote past. It is the mind of our unknown ancestors, their way of thinking and feeling, their way of experiencing life and the world, gods and men. The existence of these archaic strata is presumably the source of man’s belief in reincarnations and in memories of ‘previous experiences’. Just as the human body is a museum, so to speak, of its phylogenetic history, so too is the psyche.” Via our instincts and their corresponding archetypes, we all live, in a sense, with our ancestors, and with even the most primitive humans from the dawn of our species. They are in our DNA. They are in our psyche. They are in our subconscious, supplying us with primordial thoughts and attitudes. Jung ...

Jung insisted that psychic activity transcended the brain, and the Collective Unconscious – outside the individual brain – provided the pathway. The Collective Unconscious – the objective psyche – is the greatest and most primal and powerful force in the universe. The physical world is its primary creation. The Collective Unconscious is the true Platonic Demiurge. The Collective Unconscious, with its archetypes, is a program for living, a program for evolving. There are no accidents. We are all swept along by a teleological current. Go with the flow!

Understanding the power and functioning of the collective unconscious allows you to navigate through life. The Collective Unconscious contains the greatest goodies imaginable. The pay-offs get better the higher up you go in the game. To “level up” is to make a positive, upwards move in your career or life. In a video game, you level up when you acquire a new level of skill, when you unlock new abilities, qualify for more powerful weaponry, gain access to new items, to a new area of the game, when you reach a higher benchmark in the game. How are you doing in your life? Is it time for you to level up? To level up in the real Game of Life is to gain access to much more powerful archetypes: angel or d...

Archetypes can bring us into communion with divinity, with the World Mind. The archetypes of old religion did so at a deplorably low level of master and slave. We need higher archetypes where we are the gods rather than the slaves of the gods. Your Myers-Briggs personality type gives you an indication of how well you interact with archetypes and make positive use of them. Sensing types are lower than intuitives, feeling types are lower than thinkers, extraverts are lower than introverts, and perceiving types are lower than judging types. The top level for interacting with the archetypes is INTJ. That’s why these people are often referred to as “Masterminds”. They are the system builders, the ones that create the grand theories of existence, intuiting the highest archetypes, the cosmic archetypes.

The Collective Unconscious can be equated to the ancient idea of the World Soul. We might also view it in terms of the six levels of Neoplatonism: 1) the One, 2) the Nous, 3) the Higher Psyche, 4) the Lower Psyche, 5) Nature (the world where the Lower Psyche and matter interact), and 6) matter. The lowest archetypes are those (the “psychoid” ones) that deal with matter, and then we progress upwards. There are archetypes for every level. Most of humanity is stuck at level 5) – Nature. We need to level up to the Lower Psyche, the Higher Psyche, and then the Nous – where we come in striking distance of the One itself, ultimate divinity. Sherry Healy said, “[Jung] dared to suggest that the human mind could link to ideas and motivations called the collective unconscious ... a body of unconscious energy that lives forever.” The point of the Hegelian dialectic is to convert the Collective Unconscious into the Collective Conscious = God fully realized, fully actualized. We all take our place as essential cells of God, able to enjoy the full God experience. What is the physical world? It is merely the visible, empirical representation of the Collective Unconscious, its lowest archetypal level – machinelike and material, passive and inert, lacking active life and mind, lacking purpose. It is the physical Collective Unconscious. The higher archetypes belong to the mental world and are unobservable. They are detectable by extra-sensory intuition rather than the physical senses.