Monday, October 15, 2012

free but non-sentient translators

http://www.capitatranslationinterpreting.com/free-tools/

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Heider, Integral/enneagram (benjamindavidsteele), immaterial memory, Michael Prescott, bmeachum (Tao Whitehead)

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Q8Le0gIHGQYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22tao+of+leadership%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DO_vT-zUK-Lo2AW_w5HQDg&ved=0CDYQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=%22tao%20of%20leadership%22&f=false

Living in process http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=alcoholics+anonymous&as_epq=living+in+process&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Tao Te Ching Ontology
http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/TaoTeChingOntology.html

NOTE: THE TEXT BELOW WILL BE REMOVED FORWITH; it's only here for reading purposes due to broken page Google on my pc (nor will this Divine Life Society link link from this blog...first case of such). Also note, I am looking for parts of this viewpoint that might be valid according to my own pov, and do not endorse the entire thing.

Studies In Comparative Philosophy

by Swami Krishnananda

Alfred North Whitehead

http://swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_whit.html

see When Society and Creative

Transformation http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=12+step+whitehead&as_epq=living+in+process&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Tao Whitehead http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/TaoTeChingOntology.html

Michael Prescot's blog "Calling All Minions"
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2014/05/calling-all-minions.html

The easiest course of action would be to jettison one set of reports and concentrate exclusively on the other. But I think there is pretty good evidence for both, although the first set has been more extensively investigated, and the second set is weakened by the inherent problems of hypnosis (e.g., hypnotized subjects may confabulate or may be influenced by the hypnotist).
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/slices-of-life.html

immaterial memory
http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/03/memories-and-brain.html

https://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/tag/integral-theory/

Friday, June 29, 2012

economics, including shadow economy, and immigration/narco economy

Dec 1

Immigration/shadow economy

2012 IIRC http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matt-carr/bcci-to-hsbc-the-age-of-g_b_1697210.html

Neoliberalism/violence/shadow economy
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/24/neoliberal-violence-in-the-age-of-orwellian-nightmares/

"LAURA CARLSEN: Well, the main point, at this point, that President Obama and President Peña Nieto—John mentioned the problem that he seems to have been more dedicated, by far, to damage control than to ever resolving the problem here in Mexico, and there’s a reason for that. The main thing that both of them are concerned with is foreign investment. Mexico, with the reforms under Peña Nieto, that the Ayotzinapa students were very active in protesting, by the way, which is a big part of why they’ve been targeted, as well, is now betting the entire country on foreign investment, especially in the newly opened oil and gas area. And President Obama and the Mexican government and the transnational corporations that are based in the U.S. have been pushing this, and it’s one of the reasons they created this very false image of everything’s great and modern, and Peña Nieto is the great reformer in Mexico, that has now been completely shattered by the revelations not just of the 43 students, but the mass graves and the disappearances and the corruption and collusion throughout the country."
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/13/are_mexicos_missing_students_the_victims

Nov 30th

shock doc
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1DE69769369B7089

http://infernalmachine.co.uk/black-friday-blues/

shadow econ http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matt-carr/bcci-to-hsbc-the-age-of-g_b_1697210.html

Kuttner Feb '13 http://prospect.org/article/sequestering-barack-obama

Yeah, see more. Economic links & 2014 Bill Curry articles, some thinned from and/or hidden on...my page by facebook

From back in June, but a very CLEAR formulation. Kuttner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/needed-a-drastic-economic_b_5543330.html

http://prospect.org/article/work-history-0#.VF57k-8Q8cw.facebook

Curry prior to & after mid term elections (I shared these two on 11/9)

after http://www.salon.com/2014/11/03/take_back_the_democratic_party_how_progressives_withstand_fox_news_last_obama_defenders_and_chart_a_new_future/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

June
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_party_has_lost_its_soul_bill_clinton_barack_obama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/

newer, increased Russian trad with China
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12648

Nader, Madrick, Kotlikoff
http://radioopensource.org/the-question-of-capitalism/

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/self-made-myth-debunking-conservatives-favorite-and-most-dangerous-fiction?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

older, Naomi Klein on Global Neoliberalism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTmwu3ynOY

older http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/17/the-neocons-masters-of-chaos/

new, "structural readjustment" at 10:26
http://ralphnaderradiohour.libsyn.com/ebola-civic-heroes-basic-income

Deficits Were On Purpose To Cause This “Crisis”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/31-10

hudson volatile stocks 10/17/14
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12533#.VEl9hPPzqe8.facebook

financialization, Lapavitsas date?
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12553#.VEl3aAphOIQ.facebook

Sociopathy
http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/conservatives-likely-sociopaths.html

Alperovitz & Albert
http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-conversation-on-economic-visions/

http://truth-out.org/news/item/22496-imf-urges-redistribution-to-tackle-growing-inequality

these aren't made linkable yet
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/11/obama-wants-cut-social-security.html

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/03/peterson-thinks-need-austerity-lives.html

http://fdlbooksalon.com/2012/04/07/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-james-k-galbraith-inequality-and-instability-a-study-of-the-world-economy-just-before-the-great-crisis/

http://www.hazelhenderson.com/2013/11/14/other-news-new-policies-beyond-austerity-and-stimulus/

"Corporations have become the most powerful political actors, but their goal of global profit maximization is different from the goal of advancing human interest."
http://www.thomaspalley.com/docs/articles/economic_development/china-centric-globalization.pdf

http://www.thomaspalley.com/

The Financial Crisis and the Second Great Depression Myth

export proof local economies, Alpervowitz (sp?), 07/31/12 http://www.alternet.org/beyond-throwaway-cities-how-build-export-proof-local-economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_financial_crisis

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/keynesprimer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

see Hazel Henderson article
http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/macro-economic-policy-and-votes-in-the-thirties-germany-and-the-netherlands-during-the-great-depression/#comment-17599

Henderson http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Henderson57.pdf

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/brokers_bookies.php

"
The scare of a so-called "Fiscal Cliff" is basically a trick created by right wing elites to get us to accept cuts to social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare – as well as to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. If extending tax cuts for the rich doesn’t sound to you like a good way to reduce the federal deficit, you’re not alone. Yet despite the massive evidence to the contrary, and against the opinions of any decent economist not in the pockets of Wall Street, the right wing elite want us to believe that decreasing their taxes will create jobs, reduce the federal deficit and stimulate our economy.

The so-called "Fiscal Cliff"

So what exactly is the "fiscal cliff"? At the end of December 31, 2012, two things will happen if some sort of deal isn’t cut to prevent it. One is that the Bush tax cuts for the rich will expire, and the top marginal tax rate will go back to the 39.6% that it was during the Clinton administration. That in itself would go a long way towards reducing our federal deficit. And it would not reduce jobs or slow down job growth. During the Clinton Presidency our economy was much better, unemployment was much lower, and small businesses grew twice as fast
as after the Bush tax cuts for the rich. And we then had a budget surplus.

Along with taxes on the rich going back up to Clinton era levels, there would also be a modest rise in taxes on the middle class. So how could that be rectified? Legislation has already been passed by the U.S. Senate to restore the middle class tax cuts in 2013, and President Obama has vowed to sign that into law if the House goes along with it. Would the House dare to refuse to do that? What would that do to their re-election chances?

The other thing that will happen after the end of this year if a deal isn’t cut first is that there will be various automatic cuts to domestic and military spending. Those consequences are not cut in stone, but rather are a Tea Party/GOP manufactured crisis. They demanded those future automatic cuts in the summer of 2011 in return for their agreeing to raise the debt ceiling so that our country could pay its debts and avoid crashing the economy. It was blackmail. Right wing zealots in Congress created this "crisis", and they could just as easily un-create it by acquiescing to a reversal of the spending cuts they voted for in 2011.

This is what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman had to say about the so-called "fiscal cliff":
Contrary to the way it’s often portrayed, the looming prospect of spending cuts and tax increases isn’t a fiscal crisis. It is, instead, a political crisis brought on by the G.O.P.’s attempt to take the economy hostage. And just to be clear, the danger for next year is not that the deficit will be too large but that it will be too small, and hence plunge America back into recession.
And as for their motives:
It’s not just the fact that the deficit scolds have been wrong about everything so far. Recent events have also demonstrated clearly what was already apparent to careful observers: the deficit-scold movement was never really about the deficit. Instead, it was about using deficit fears to shred the social safety net. And letting that happen wouldn’t just be bad policy; it would be a betrayal of the Americans who just re-elected a health-reformer president and voted in some of the most progressive senators ever.

The real crisis

So why did Krugman say that the danger "is not that the deficit will be too large but that it will be too small"? Our federal deficit at this time is not all that much larger as a percentage of our GDP than it has been in the past, as you can see from this chart:

Our major problem at this time is our very weak economy and the joblessness that goes along with it. Economists have long known that this kind of problem is not solved by decreasing spending, but by increasing it on things that put people to work. It is exacerbated by the kind of severe income and wealth inequality that our country is now experiencing and that our right wing elites want to make even more severe. It is exacerbated by cuts to social safety net programs that our right wing elites want to privatize and destroy. Robert Borosage explains
:
Virtually every aspect of this hysteria is wrong. The United States does not have a short-term deficit problem, and the fundamental long-term problem isn’t one of soaring debt; rather, it is the lack of a foundation for sustainable growth that includes working people…

Austerity is, paradoxically, likely to undermine the stated goal of deficit reduction. Cutting spending… in a weak economy destroys jobs and slows growth. The increased unemployment leads to declining tax revenue as well as increased demands on government services, all of which adds to the deficit. This is the famous "debt trap" recently experienced in much of Europe, where premature and harsh austerity drove many EU countries into recession…

Putting people back to work does more to reduce deficits than any other factor. That requires more federal spending now, preferably in areas vital to the economy, like modernizing our infrastructure and keeping teachers on the job. Once the economy is growing and people are working, the deficit will come down. Additional steps can be taken, if necessary…

What Americans do not want

Most Americans are against
what the right wing elites are trying to force upon on with their "fiscal cliff" scare. They are against "requiring deep cuts in domestic programs without protecting programs for infants, poor children, schools and college aid" (75%); they are against "cutting discretionary spending, like education, child nutrition, worker training and disease control (72%); they are against cutting taxes for the rich and corporations (67%), and; they are against "reducing Social Security benefits by having them rise more slowly than the cost of living" (62%). And all this is despite the massive propaganda efforts of our right wing elites.

What we should do

Robert Borosage sums up the situation that we now face, and how we should address it:
The essential dynamic is that Democrats reward Republican intransigence with concessions. Republicans refuse to hike taxes, so to entice them, Democrats offer the crown jewels: Medicare and Social Security. Republicans still resist tax hikes, so the austerity crowd suggests "reform" that will in theory bring in more revenue while lowering tax rates (on the rich)….

The debate we should be having is about how to make the economy work for working people again, how to revive a broad middle class and make the American Dream more than a nostalgic fantasy….

A serious long-term commitment to rebuild America would renovate our infrastructure to withstand the extreme weather that is already upon us. It would break up the big banks and shackle finance so that it serves, rather than threatens, the real economy. Measures to transform corporate governance, curb excessive executive compensation, and empower
workers to organize and bargain collectively would help counter extreme inequality…

It would feature progressive tax reform, compelling the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. It would continue healthcare reform and guarantee affordable care as a right for every citizen, not a privilege allowed only to those who can afford it…

Reaching no deal is preferable to a bad one that cuts entitlements. Going over the so-called fiscal cliff is perilous, but probably preferable to a bargain under the terms currently in play. With no agreement, the Bush tax cuts would expire. In January the Senate would immediately push to revive the lower rates for everyone but the top 2 percent…."
http://www.classwarfareexists.com/john-boehner-r-oh-no-deal-on-fiscal-cliff-without-cuts-to-obamacare/#axzz2D4DrCeJK

Sunday, June 10, 2012

music (most of this duplicated in post #1)

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Misc links, including history section (I/C, THOYRAS)

1. http://daveatch.blogspot.com/2013/12/listening.html

2. http://daveatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/disappeared-care-of-facebook.html

3. music links, Return to Spirit, & other items to read
http://daveatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/google-advanced-serach.html

4. Practical stuff
5. Mid-East
8. Heider
9. Economics
10. Old Music
11. Misc

12. Hinduism, Advaita

13. Psychology

14. Intro

15. quoted by O'Connor (source: Bugental), plus recently found links germane

16. disparate, complex subjs I might otherwise forget

17. circumventing a den of gnosis peddlers (personal, ongoing searches)

18. physician assisted

19. the shadow, Maurice Nicoll

20. phenomenology
21. Rene Girard

22. Science
23. determinism

24. Social Criticism

25. Poetry

Hinduism, Advaita, Gnosticism, Girard etc

tangled hiearachy & interaction with deceased (stuff perhaps relevant after opening statement)

Dec 31, 2014

Some say the Great Spirit is not an individual being.

"It is not an individual being - it is more like the primal ground or reality of all being and existence."
http://www.world-religions-professor.com/atman-brahman.html

All the evidence to me seems to indicate the Great Spirit is an individual being [there are breakdowns of a deity with three composite personas and two composite personas, both of which seem plausible to me]. Some of those who maintain S/He is not one spirit IMO replace S/He with another concept...World Soul (Animus Mundi), possibly "Over Soul" too. But this World Soul consciousness I believe is not that from which we emanated (not the "Great Spirit"). I believe the concepts or theology tagged on to this particular metaphysical concept (World Soul) were derived from ancient concepts of something Jung wrote a lot about (the collective unconscious), although these ancient allusions and generalizations are in some quarters taken today to equal the whole of what was OTOH before assumed, by some ancients, to be the metaphysical absolute...God. What the World Soul is, however, is better explained IMO by Carl Jung in terms of his "collective unconscious" (Rupert Sheldrake has variations of this, to a point, with his concept of "morphic fields"). Only I'd for-sure include in this...non-human consciousnesses with bodies here on Earth. OTOH, the World-Soul-As-Atman-Idea is represented in definition 3 here for example (which I believe mistakenly assumes the collective unconscious as the end goal of individual souls...IMO they already participate in same)...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atman

IMO it's not that in a Brahman/Shakti godhead, the "Yin" [or Shakti] persona does Her thing only amidst the phenomena of limited dimensions we discuss in everyday conversation (those we understand well in the common parlance of "4 dimensional"...IOW phenomena of the manifest "every day world"). IMO Brahman has a Yang side and a Yin side (Ramakrishna said: Brahman is Kali and Kali is Brahman). The Yin side or nature, for all I know, is perfectly content to sit observing in her time just as quiescently as Hinduism posited Brahman sat [there were views that placed Brahman somewhat apart as observing all...the observer... a view connected to the adjective "impersonal," which the Advaita school pinned on the absolute. There is I think some confusion in the West re what was what in India; and what was what was that there were differing theologies]. I don't conceive Mother God as an aura of a more fundamental Yang Brahman, and I don't conceive "Nature" (Prakriti) as the actual "body" of Brahman's Yin side....but I conceive Nature as a panoply of individual and individuating consciousnesses (or pilgrim consciousnesses if you want to bracket out the sometimes unspecific notion of "individuating"). Jung's collective unconscious concept is both similar to the World Soul concept and my notion of Nature; but in my concept individual souls are tied to physical organisms which are less long-lived though real...as they arguably in turn consist of smaller bodies inhabited by longer-lived souls (cells). In terms of World Soul the collective unconscious concept in some contexts (in some works) seems mostly to refer to past experiences of humans...the past I also think is something Nature participates in (see Rupert Sheldrake's idea of templates). Perhaps Nature's present is enough to delve into for the moment.

Carl Jung's notion of the collective unconscious (what's really behind "World Soul" IMO) is IMO in some moments vastly more tied in with local settings in Earth's portion of Nature...than the Divine Mother. Think of a lynch mob.

The panoply of consciousnesses (constituting the World Soul or Nature) I believe is most significantly a matter of cumulative experiences in the present [conscious human entities are limited in their comprehension of individual consciousnesses other than their own, of course, so there are barriers; but remember Jung termed his version of the World Soul as a collective unconscious]. In the present, as I wrote above, I liken this panoply to Nature, while there's a "memory" storehouse for entities and one for groups of entities [souls, groups of souls, and evidently of biology too, eg of species and of morphological phenomena/developments [I know, if adaptations are derived from templates, then how do new ones develop?]]. It may be true that "Nature" exists predominately in a set of dimensions governed/created by Divine Shakti or Kali...but when I think of "Kali," before and apart from Her creation (a form I prefer to name Mother God or Divine Mother)...She, in such form, to my mind, is not an emanation of the "masculine" Brahman (not some "glory of Brahman" or aura of Brahman in turn creating another aura equaling the physical world or Prakriti). She is instead "half" of what used to be indicated by the word "Brahman"...half of Brahman's nature. God is one IMO, but our perception dictates alternate personas of God. Shakti's nature shares in the nature of the Great Spirit just as Brahman's does. It's Her nature that's unconditioned, not her handiwork [and I heretically embrace the notion that Brahman could inaugurate some handiwork of His own]. No doubt, from Brahman's viewpoint there is a merging or oneness; but for some humans the places of the merging cannot yet be understood (me included).

Goswami critiqued UVA http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/Word%20Consciousness.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=the+relevance+of+the+tangled+hierarchy&as_oq=departed+souls+afterlife+nde&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl

Ingrid Fredrikksson https://books.google.com/books?id=QbL2XvWc_RkC&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=massless+OR+aspect+%22tangled+hierarchy%22&source=bl&ots=Mp1Jn7CMK0&sig=emGpE0lA4S6qKdLBHidDDQu3k8w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Kd75VMLwMYzmsAT5zoKwBQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=massless%20OR%20aspect%20%22tangled%20hierarchy%22&f=false

massless
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Particles+massless&as_epq=tangled+hierarchy&as_oq=massless+aspect&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl

standard
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=particles&as_epq=tangled+hierarchy&as_oq=massless+aspect&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl

THE INTEGRATIONALISTS AND THE NON-DUALISTS http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Andrew%20Powell%20Past%20Life%20Memory%20%E2%80%93%20a%20Key%20to%20Understanding%20the%20Self.z.pdf http://intentblog.com/enlightenment-and-rebirth/

Google Advanced Search finds 406K citations for "spirit being." Maybe Father Richard was attempting to emphasize what Advaitins call the "impersonal" aspect of Brahman. I could never go with Advaita (try as I have), sticking with qualified non-dualism myself. I do go with what humans perceive as a feminine quality and a masculine quality...or corresponding personas. But those are our "perceptions." Two of the three people I am closest to at times I suppose might think God is not a "being," which at times causes me sadness. There are concepts like Jung's of the "pleroma"...the pleroma being a collection of phenomena not conscious of itself. I tried to get into it, but I can't accept a Great Spirit not conscious of itself or constituent parts. Pascal inspired awe theorizing about God's level of awareness; but that we can't imagine it...to me doesn't mean it's so different that S/He's not a "being."

I was impressed that Oprah remembered something from Zukav (pleasantly impressed), another guy unfortunately I can't go along with on everything.

While I'm spouting off, I hope Father Rohr will sometime differentiate between legalistic dualism and metaphysical dualism. During a few moments in this sojourn of mine it seemed to me that "energy monism" eg made sense, but humans get carried away with concepts. At some level the energy of an aura and the energy possessed by one photon are the same; but since some haven't even thought about it (and don't respect the difference), I believe I will continue paying the difference respect.

Dec

Lao Tzu
http://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/01/voice-of-scapegoat-series.html

Paradigm Wars (book), Mark Woodhouse

http://books.google.com/books?id=dejmdCWwEHsC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=woodhouse+%22energy+monism%22&source=bl&ots=BxuFNtubX_&sig=OwYjf_BwcuhzGuk5hKe8-p4btPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DXsxU9ijFoSiyAHMm4DgDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=woodhouse%20%22energy%20monism%22&f=false

Nov 2014

http://www.gornahoor.net/?p=7651

http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/

http://marikablogs.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=1

"There is a great danger, especially when one reads certain modern studies of Buddhism in the West, in failing to recognise that the notion of 'emptiness' about which one hears so much is not an emptiness or lack of reality as is sometimes curiously supposed but an emptiness of limitations, relativity and delusion."
http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw3_paraskevopoulos.pdf

Pat folks, perma dude, Pat https://www.facebook.com/ernestoalfredo.santamaria?fref=nf

Oct 2014

http://www.bmeacham.com/whatswhat/TaoTeChingOntology.html

Dec 31, 2014

Some say the Great Spirit is not an individual being.
http://www.world-religions-professor.com/atman-brahman.html

All the evidence to me seems to indicate the Great Spirit is an individual being [there are breakdowns of a deity with three composite personas and two composite personas, both of which seem plausible to me]. Some of those who maintain S/He is not one spirit IMO replace S/He with another concept...World Soul (Animus Mundi), possibly "Over Soul" too. But this World Soul consciousness I believe is not that from which we emanated (not the "Great Spirit"). I believe the concepts or theology tagged on to this particular metaphysical concept (World Soul) were derived from ancient concepts of something Jung wrote a lot about (the collective unconscious), although these ancient allusions and generalizations are in some quarters taken today to equal the whole of what was OTOH before assumed, by some ancients, to be the metaphysical absolute...God. What the World Soul is, however, is better explained IMO by Carl Jung in terms of his "collective unconscious" (Rupert Sheldrake has variations of this, to a point, with his concept of "morphic fields"). Only I'd for-sure include in this...non-human consciousnesses with bodies here on Earth. OTOH, the World-Soul-As-Atman-Idea is represented in definition 3 here for example (which I believe mistakenly assumes the collective unconscious as the end goal of individual souls...IMO they already participate in same)...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atman

IMO it's not that in a Brahman/Shakti godhead, the "Yin" [or Shakti] persona does Her thing only amidst the phenomena of limited dimensions we discuss in everyday conversation (those we understand well in the common parlance of "4 dimensional"...IOW phenomena of the manifest "every day world"). IMO Brahman has a Yang side and a Yin side (Ramakrishna said: Brahman is Kali and Kali is Brahman). The Yin side or nature, for all I know, is perfectly content to sit observing in her time just as quiescently as Hinduism posited Brahman sat [there were views that placed Brahman somewhat apart as observing all...the observer... a view connected to the adjective "impersonal," which the Advaita school pinned on the absolute. There is I think some confusion in the West re what was what in India; and what was what was that there were differing theologies]. I don't conceive Mother God as an aura of a more fundamental Yang Brahman, and I don't conceive "Nature" (Prakriti) as the actual "body" of Brahman's Yin side....but I conceive Nature as a panoply of individual and individuating consciousnesses (or pilgrim consciousnesses if you want to bracket out the sometimes unspecific notion of "individuating"). Jung's collective unconscious concept is both similar to the World Soul concept and my notion of Nature; but in my concept individual souls are tied to physical organisms which are less long-lived though real...as they arguably in turn consist of smaller bodies inhabited by longer-lived souls (cells). In terms of World Soul the collective unconscious concept in some contexts (in some works) seems mostly to refer to past experiences of humans...the past I also think is something Nature participates in (see Rupert Sheldrake's idea of templates). Perhaps Nature's present is enough to delve into for the moment.

Carl Jung's notion of the collective unconscious (what's really behind "World Soul" IMO) is IMO in some moments vastly more tied in with local settings in Earth's portion of Nature...than the Divine Mother. Think of a lynch mob.

The panoply of consciousnesses (constituting the World Soul or Nature) I believe is most significantly a matter of cumulative experiences in the present [conscious human entities are limited in their comprehension of individual consciousnesses other than their own, of course, so there are barriers; but remember Jung termed his version of the World Soul as a collective unconscious]. In the present, as I wrote above, I liken this panoply to Nature, while there's a "memory" storehouse for entities and one for groups of entities [souls, groups of souls, and evidently of biology too, eg of species and of morphological phenomena/developments [I know, if adaptations are derived from templates, then how do new ones develop?]]. It may be true that "Nature" exists predominately in a set of dimensions governed/created by Divine Shakti or Kali...but when I think of "Kali," before and apart from Her creation (a form I prefer to name Mother God or Divine Mother)...She, in such form, to my mind, is not an emanation of the "masculine" Brahman (not some "glory of Brahman" or aura of Brahman in turn creating another aura equaling the physical world or Prakriti). She is instead "half" of what used to be indicated by the word "Brahman"...half of Brahman's nature. God is one IMO, but our perception dictates alternate personas of God. Shakti's nature shares in the nature of the Great Spirit just as Brahman's does. It's Her nature that's unconditioned, not her handiwork [and I heretically embrace the notion that Brahman could inaugurate some handiwork of His own]. No doubt, from Brahman's viewpoint there is a merging or oneness; but for some humans the places of the merging cannot yet be understood (me included).

http://www.hinduism.co.za/maya-sha.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timaeus_(dialogue)

http://montalk.net/gnosis/171/corruption-of-the-demiurge

"How he [Godel] gets there I don't yet fully understand but his conclusion seems to be that our individual consciousness is not exclusive to us, and that bits of our consciousness also reside in the brains of others whom we know. Conversely, bits of their consciousness reside in our own brain, perhaps as influences* on our thinking (my interpretation). If we extend this concept to the current thread, I suppose you could argue that we live on through the minds of others whom we know."
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=63977946

I can believe the "bits" may reside in other's fields, and/or that given cells or neuron arrays can access such. Guess from the POV of another tradition, you could look at these "bits" as fragments or "samskara"s, but that these are all that's left of us further along doesn't tally up with writings that have impressed me. Aurobindo's idea, for example, of the "psychic body" (soul) returning as a "seed" makes sense to me, and (combined with Sheldrake's ideas on morphological development) how it re-develops [grows] in each sojourn. "Monad" in a way lends too much simplicity to the reality of what a soul is, but in another sense (don't ask me which) it seems appropriate. My sense is that care of my soul seems to mean insuring that it continues travelling where it is supposed to go. Burn up as much karma as possible to get there (to that end, even walking into a bonfire too big demonstrates good intentions). Burn up enough so your perception isn't clouded when the Ground Luminosity appears. If the bonfire's a shortcut...alright by me.

June 2014

https://www.google.com/search?lr=&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=yRqTU-ypOdWxyATl1YGwBw&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=685&q=images%20causal%20etheric%20karma%20OR%20samskara%20%22planes%20of%20existence%22

https://www.google.com/search?lr=&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=KR6TU72TE5ezyATu-oDoAw&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=685&q=images%20causal%20OR%20etheric%20OR%20karma%20OR%20samskara%20%22tangled%20hierarchy%22

http://godmindhyperspace.weebly.com/

"tangled hiearchy" image
http://marianlansky.typepad.com/

http://www.markwoodhouse.com/parawars_toc.html

Paradigm Wars (book), Mark Woodhouse

http://books.google.com/books?id=dejmdCWwEHsC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=woodhouse+%22energy+monism%22&source=bl&ots=BxuFNtubX_&sig=OwYjf_BwcuhzGuk5hKe8-p4btPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DXsxU9ijFoSiyAHMm4DgDA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=woodhouse%20%22energy%20monism%22&f=false

1. http://daveatch.blogspot.com/2013/12/listening.html

2. http://daveatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/disappeared-care-of-facebook.html

3. music links, Return to Spirit, & other items to read
http://daveatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/google-advanced-serach.html

Wherever and however you found the following two paragraphs elsewhere, yes, I wrote them...with the links.

I wonder how quickly an era or an incoming zietgeist can fixate on a particular archetype [especially the paranoid-look-for-victims-archetype]. In the 50s and 60s there was evidently the "glass teat" thing (teat). At the same time in the sphere of science there was the reductionist thing (a legalist archetype, Apollinian, paradoxically...Yang). It seems Jung maintained the conscious mind can become in a given era...too conscious...with respect to an overemphasized archetype. So, does individuation simply round out influences of many archetypes, or bring them back into play with respect to an individual? I remember reading Sri Ramana Maharshi advising seemingly a somewhat different path wherein consciousness needs to avoid too much input from the unconscious [where in the bk I don't know, but I'll link same]. Same re Aurobindo.

That Jung embraced reincarnation at the end of his life would seem to imply he accepted that the individuation process required much, much more "living" experience. I don't remember reading any such reflections on his part, but I also wonder if it changed any of his previous ideas regarding individuation's qualitative goal.

"A JUNGIAN RESPONSE TO KEN WILBER"
http://www.integralworld.net/erkelens1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation)

Jung vs Assagioli

the book, "Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi"

somewhat rearranged comment for truthout article on QM & capitalism, around 7/29/12

Like hundreds of millions of other humans, I combine whatever science-to-philosophy extrapolations according to what makes sense to me. What makes sense to me is that the "many worlds" theory holds true somewhat at the atomic and subatomic level [as the double slit experiment indicates], but not at the macro level...that is that there is no new universe created with every decision [or I guess "measurement"] my consciousness makes. To me it just doesn't correspond to how nature is "economic" in terms of using limited amino acids and enzymes to create the near infinity of life forms we observe. Why all the extra universes? And which one of all the new me's am I?

No problem on the impermanence of the "material world" AFAIC. And it cannot be stressed enough imo. However, this seems an example [by which I am not offended] of Western broad stroke blurbs...that extract one take...out of an involved series of views down through history elsewhere. Scroll down to Visishtadvaita and Dvaita just below "Advaita Vedanta." Apart from seeing truth in the saying Ramakrishna passed on to us "Kali is Brahman, and Brahman is Kali" [that is, with respect to gender elements germane to the following]...I find elements of sense in both Visishtadvaita and Dvaita http://www.kheper.net/topics/Vedanta/Vedanta.htm#Schools

At the above site the "reality" of matter is mentioned under Dvaita, and also here in the third paragraph of another of its articles: "...whereas Panentheism, such as the monistic Tantra of Kashmir Shaivism affirms the Reality of both the Unmanifest Absolute and the Phenomenal World in all its diversity." http://www.kheper.net/topics/worldviews/panentheism.html

"Husserl declares that mental and spiritual reality possess their own reality independent of any physical basis, and that a science of the spirit ('Geisteswissenschaft') must be established on as scientific a foundation as the natural sciences have managed:

'It is my conviction that intentional phenomenology has for the first time made spirit as spirit the field of systematic scientific experience, thus effecting a total transformation of the task of knowledge.' [3]

Professor Husserl was denied the use of the library at Freiburg as a result of the anti-Jewish legislation the National Socialists (Nazis) passed in April 1933. His former pupil and Nazi Party member, Martin Heidegger, informed Husserl that he was discharged. Heidegger (whose philosophy Husserl considered to be the result of a faulty departure from, and grave misunderstanding of Husserl's own teachings and methods) removed the dedication to Husserl from his most widely known work, Being and Time, when it was reissued in 1941." http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Edmund_Husserl

Lebenswelt Whitehead process http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=alfred+whitehead+husserl+process&as_epq=&as_oq=lifeworld+lebesnwelt&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

　

Lebenswelt, Whitehead, process, 12 Step http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=alfred+whitehead+husserl+process&as_epq=12+step&as_oq=lifeworld+lebesnwelt&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

　

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/en-labs/b/bb/Consciousness_studies.pdf

lifeworld whitehead alfred husserl (taoism or tao) process, 12 step http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=lifeworld+whitehead+alfred+husserl+process&as_epq=12+step&as_oq=tao+taoism&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Ethics of Vedanta http://www.robwaxman.com/id5.html

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Ebooks/Ramana_Maharshi_Books/talks_with_sri_ramana_maharshi_complete.pdf
above is Talks With Sri Ramana Maharshi

Integral Psychosynthesis, a comparison of Wilber and Assagioli http://www.psykosyntese.dk/a-198/

back up intro

This blog is a ramshackle thing. Basically for years it was just my notes in "the cloud." Didn't even know how to open up public comment! I tried to begin it with an intro to overarching frames to which I sort of subscribe...ones that "march to a different drum" for sure. In the beginning of my days I was plugged into mainstream mindsets (with extra love received), and now it seems from some kind of middle excursion I can return and at least appreciate certain streams amidst rituals of the ten-thousand-things-watershed. One makes it through, and other stones do polish one back somewhat to "everyday consciousness"...polishing one into a smoother pebble...or plopping one in the ferryman, cabbie, or DSP role. Getting closer to one's "original face" (all in all a curriculum it seems planned to provide lots of opportunity). Anyway, by now there are some general views (or one or two very focused quotes which for me have very general importance) that remain at the tail "end" of all these "posts" if one thinks of this one as the "beginning"...though I keep trying to transfer key ones to the "top." I don't really know how yet to create an intro message that will stay at the top. So, some "general" things important to me may still be remaining at the "beginning" when you read this.

I am satisfied to start off referencing a John Heider interview. Heider had involvement with the 12 Step domain. Sorry the link at the end of this post only streams an excerpt of an interview. Heider mentions the "Higher Self" somewhere in the full interview.
In her 70s and 80s my mother liked to plug the feminine side of God. It was a real insight she had. Granted, aspects of this viewpoint remain hard to grasp at times for others of us who got pretty much the same religious training she had. But now in my 60s I see it too. Proceeding from this view of hers, and, according to what John Heider's breakdowns of "Tao Te Ching"means to me --------> Feminine and masculine...yin and yang...came out of the Great Spirit, so it follows they were part of the Great Spirit to begin with.
http://www.humanmedia.org/catalog/advanced_search_result.php?search_in_description=1&keywords=Heider&x=0&y=0

More hairs split here http://philrockstrohforidiots.blogspot.com/2013/01/arriving-singing.html