@Janus or perhaps you have heard of DMT or dimethyltriptamine. It is an endogenous chemical in the human body that functions as a pseudoneurotransmitter , and it is also one of the most potent psychedelic, hallucinogenic substances in the world. It is found in just about every mammal, if not every organism.

Native Amazonians for thousands of years have been brewing it in a drink called Ayahuasca. This drink is spiritual and provides an experience absolutely indescribable and free from concept. How these primitive people knew that if you mix Mimosa Hostilis rootbark with another plant, I forget which, you get a form of DMT metabolizable in the human gut, I have absolutely no idea... It has been said that this chemical, taken in a drug form, causes ego-dissociation, powerful hallucinations, the experience of God, self-transformation, contact with spirits\ancestors, etc. Etc. Ayahuasca or DMT also can treat drug addiction, PTSD, depression and rape victims, as well as cancer patients fearing death, just as LSD and MDMA can. But this information is repressed, of course. The active chemic in 'magic mushrooms' is 4-HO-DMT ( psilocin ).

There is a good book called Food Of The Gods by Terence McKenna about this subject.

There are indeed experiences native to the human of which are absolutely incapable of description and concept. This is what Carl Jung knew. And he formed his whole analytical psychology based on this.

And BTW, I have taken DMT. It is absolutely indescribable and is one of the most interesting and powerful things I have ever experienced in my life.

hmmmh. Idk about that. That reminds me of Freud's censor, which I don't know that I agree with.

It's easier to see this process if we use exaggerated examples. You're walking down the hall and someone sets off a firecracker behind you. This could be a mortal threat, so your mind pushes the thinker and thinking aside, no time for that right now.
5d — Jake

I have had a dream since before I can remember that absolutely has no concept. It is absolutely impossible to derive any conceptualizable information from it. I have tried.

Yes absolutely. I have had a recurring dream since childhood that is absolutely incapable of description or concept.

What a woman is, is a matter of opinion. What a female is, biologically, is not. What a girl, woman, or whatever word a person wants to use to describe whatever they are referring to... Again... We are speaking about personal references and experiences of what something is. Definitions are fluid afterall. What makes an apple remain 'an apple' as if 'apple' is something anywhere other than in ones own personal representations? These representations are not absolute. They can be whatever one wishes them to be. This is the unfortunate revelation of the transgender movement for thought. Absolutism, in exchange for a radical relativity, is the case... And this is grounds for massive confusion... As life should be... Confusing!

Well, I have experienced a resurgence in my interest in Jung and I thought I would share his thoughts on the subject, because I find them very revealing. Jung thought a person was not tabula rasa, and neither do I. I think gender is a construct of externalities. This is to speak in accordance with Beauvoir's conception of the woman. "One is not born a woman but becomes one." I agree with this recent translation of the original French.
Speaking in terms of Jung, there is a masculine archetype and a feminine archetype of the "collective unconscious" or autonomous psyche. There is no inherited form, for archetypes are formless and do not have content. They are potentialities of formation for psychical manifestations. They are biological displays, in a sense, seen throughout the species. They are much like instincts, which is not to say that the anima and animus (these specific archetypes) are instinctual in the sense that they would be a teleological ratification of some sort: they are inherited patterns, tendencies of expression. There are many archetypes, and the knowledge of them is typically seen in art. Furthermore, as a result of the experience of the individual in a world where their externalities shape their conceptions of who they are, these archetypes become manifest according to the cultural, artistic representations at hand. Feminine qualities have become associated to many different things according to the culture, art and time. For instance, the high-heeled shoe used to be a very masculine sort of shoe in some places. Now it is more-so feminine. Within every person, however, is this display of masculinity and feminity: one becomes within and one becomes without, but both form together for a totality. Jung observed an old couple he knew for years and years. They began their marriage easily distinguishable in terms of masculinity and femininity, but after decades they began to look and seem interchangeable as if the modes of their psyches complemented one another. Their personalities were, in their late life, more-so androgynous, connected to one another for a sort of psychic complementarity. This is the state of affairs for the heterosexual, typically. The homosexual is more difficult to understand in terms of this theory of the mind. But the understanding typically relates to an undifferentiation of anima and animus or an undifferentiation of a more primordial androgynous archetype.
"The meeting of two personalities is like a chemical reaction: if there is any reaction, both are changed." C G Jung

I agree with this conception of gender and masculinity and femininity.

But perhaps it sounds weird or strange. I have heard that Jung is "esoteric."

I don't know what is so complicated.

Experience, experiencing, the flux of events that is one's life, THE CONTINUUM, not the illusion of causality or segments. Lets call this X.

Experiences, plural, constitute this experience. Lets call this Y. Each individual experience is something said to be apart from what it is a part of. I say, I have experienced such and such, but what I am really doing is premising the prereflective cognition; the realization that I am constantly in a new experience. This is the only truth with regard to experience. An experience is never isolated. This is only in theory.

My life is of experience. This experience is prior to experiences that have not been to materialize yet. This experience of experience that is my life is prior to any experience(s) that have yet to come; and my experience's subsistence is existentially dependent on these experiences.

X is existentially dependent on Y and X is prior to Y.
Life is dependent on the life to come and is prior to this life to come.

For the 5th time, I am not talking about a specific experience... That is where you yourself are bringing in irrelevant variables to my ideas.

Experience, or becoming, or phenomenality, or Dasein, or whatever synonymous idea is always dependent on that which it is not yet but is prior to this 'it not-yet'.

Do you not know that an idea presents itself often not in one sentence within a paragraph but in the paragraph... Or, in some cases, in dozens or hundreds of paragraphs.

And you divorce a sentence from its context time after time...

I don't accept theories of cognition that posit raw sense data; all human experience is concept-laden. To separate experience and thinking is possible only in the abstract. — Janus

I think there are many experiences that do not have concepts attached to them. If you only have experience of already understood, demarcated and distinguished, formal gestures of concepts how could your experience be authentic? Would you not just be a machine of language; of an impoverished conscious mind completely separated from the wealth of imagination and fantasy, belief and vision within, rejected for the without? How could you thus be creative, if all experience is concept-laden? If all experience is concept laden then what is experience? Does this idea not assume that all experience can be conceptualized?

I disagree.

Or perhaps I have misinterpreted you?

Jung thought extensively on nuclear war. Perhaps you are not looking deep enough into philosophers.

He said psyche is the great danger.

Perhaps some religions are commanding, tyrannical, etc. But many religious conceptions are not.

I do not think religion is based on an appeal to authority.

Religion operates on the basis of art. You glance into any ceremonial form of a religion... What do you see?
Art. Symbolism. Aesthetics. Poetry. Music. Forms of behavior and thinking that appeal to the most visceral, fantastic aspects of the psyche. Religious ecstasy for instance.

Religion is a form of ambiguous, symbolic expression instantiating feelings that cannot be endowed with reason. They are artistic. Is it a coincidence that religious people worship creation?
The hypocrisy of religion is stagnation.
"The disintegration of Protestantism into over four hundred different denominations is a sure sign that the restlessness continues" (C G Jung, Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious).

The idea of reincarnation or communion with the divine, or virgin birth, or a savior, the conquering of death, a great flood, earth goddesses and nature gods, etc etc etc, gods of creation, destruction, light, darkness, death, life, love, hate, good, evil...

These are symbolic anthropomorphizations of psychical qualities expressing a hemimorphic shape, the base of which is unconscious and fantastic, and something ergomorphic, as the conscious mind is a sort of organ--the unconscious meaning changes shape in its expression.

Jung is the best 'modern' fusion of belief and skepticism, in my opinion.

Can you read Latin fluently?

However, there are symbolic ideas which lack explanation or knowledge, and for this precise reason they are symbolic.

There are too 'collective representations' in symbols which according to skeptics have merely been fabricated and according to believers have been divinely revealed or inspired. There are some collective representations, symbols, such as the cross, the sun, the eye, and other artistic motifs that represent things in the mind that are absolutely not logical, and grounds for many for rejection. This is the terrible result of a consciousness opposed to the unconscious, which is structured more like dreams, which do not adhere to the 'clarity' of the waking state.

Both the believer and the skeptic are wrong. The mind is not the philosophy of logic, or epistemology. The mind with its desires, purposes, fantasies, ITS EXISTENCE, is fundamentally metaphorical, artistic, and ambiguous in its expression.

A theory that does not have evidence in the formal sense of a philosophical dialectic or debate may not be, in its solidity, subject to the same classification as would another theory, say, of gravity. A theory of reincarnation is comprised of archetypal ideas and unconscious symbols which absolutely transcend the logical discourse on such a subject, and encompass the inner workings of the mind, which absolutely can never be recreated, but felt and perhaps expressed... Only in art, poetry, perhaps theology.

Philosophical and scientific debate about truth seems to be so out of touch with the reality of oneself. It seems more like Hegel's master/slave dialectic.

Just look at Jung with regard to Freud. So so so different, but so so so similar.

Interesting... Nietzsche states that a philosopher must be radically himself, and in this there is a sort of tyranny. But what would be the opposite? A dilettante?

From a Jungian approach, I say it is absolutely correct that all people withold the same psychical capacities and constitutions. We receieve our genetics from both xy and xx organisms, thus our psyche is constituted of what is androgynous.

Gender is an objective demarcation, but consciousness is impoverished in these concepts; the richness is within the unconscious, in making oneself conscious of who or what they want to be, and what they themselves think something is--not with regard to impersonal definitions.

"The only truth is the individual." C G Jung
@Banno

Time is the moving image of eternity

I like Jung's thoughts on this subject.

I have already discussed the interesting contrast between the "controlled " thoughts we have In waking life and the wealth of imagery produced in dreams. Now you can see another reason for this difference : Because , in our civilized life, we have stripped so many ideas of their emotional energy , we do not really respond to them anymore . We use such ideas
in our speech , and we show a conventional reaction when others use them , but they do not make a very deep impression on us. Something more is needed to bring certain things home to us effectively enough to make us change our attitude and behavior. This is what "dream
language " does; its symbolism has so much psychic energy that we are forced to pay attention to it.
There was, for instance , a lady who was well Known for her stupid prejudices and her stubborn resistance to reasoned argument. One could have argued with her all night to no effect; she would have taken not the slightest notice. Her dreams, however , took a different line of approach. One night , she dreamed she
was attending an important social occasion. She was greeted by the hostess with the words: "How nice that you could come. All your friends are here , and they are waiting for you. "
The hostess then led her to the door and opened it, and the dreamer stepped through --into a cowshed !
This dream language was simple enough to
be understood even by a blockhead . The
woman would not at first admit the point of a dream that struck so directly at her self-importance ; but its message nevertheless went home , and after a time she had to accept it because she could not help seeing the self-inflicted joke .
Such messages from the unconscious are of greater importance than most people realize . In our conscious life, we are exposed to all kinds of influences. Other people stimulate or depress us, events at the office or in our social life distract us. Such things seduce us into following ways that are unsuitable to our individuality .
Whether or not we are aware of the effect they have on our consciousness, it is disturbed by and exposed to them almost without defense .
This is especially the case with a person whose extraverted attitude of mind lays all the emphasis upon external objects, or who harbors feelings of inferiority and doubt concerning his own innermost personality .
The more that consciousness is influenced by prejudices, errors, fantasies, and infantile wishes, the more the already existing gap will widen into a neurotic dissociation and lead to a more or less artificial life, far removed from healthy instincts, nature , and truth .

from man and his symbols by CG Jung

Here is an interesting one.

My sexuality exists prior to the object of my sexuality (for it is indeed MINE) which determines it yet is existentially dependent on such an object that would be subsequent.

Maybe what can be said is "What is indeterminate can not be existentially dependent on the determinant it is prior to."

But maybe our dialectical problem consists in a difference of epistemology. What would characterize your epistemology here?

I think you need a further specification of "Nothing can be existentially dependent on that which it is prior to."

Namely, the temporal domain (a posteriori) versus perhaps, what is a priori.

Maybe I can use other examples.

Life (its subsistence) is existentially dependent on life that is not yet and is prior to this not-yet life, for life already exists. If there were to be no more life that is not-yet then life would become nonexistent; therefore it is dependent on it.

Experience is dependent on further experience, namely experiences that are not yet for that subject (whatever it may be or may not be) is prior to these subsequent experiences; and these further experiences are not subsidiary, I may add.

Thought is dependent on more thought, namely thoughts that are not yet; perhaps, the potentiation of thought. If I think something, these thoughts only are if there are more that would be concatenated with THOSE thoughts, otherwise... What would they be? What would thinking be if there were no more thoughts and no more thinking? There would be nothing. Actually... There would be [nothing, no words]. There would not be NOTHING but a bracketed nothing; that is, [blank].

Color would not be anything unless there were more colors. Notice a trend here? Existence is constantly moving?
"Time is the moving image of eternity" Plato

No... You have for the fourth time misinterpreted me... And this time I think it was deliberate.

The discovery of carbon was an experience. The discovery of carbon is not, was not, and is/was in no way at all existentially dependent upon my birth. My birth was/is also an experience. — creativesoul

1. There was no discovery of Carbon. There was a discovery of a classification of things characterized to contain what it called Carbon. This is not 'experience' in the strict sense. This is a model.

2. 'EXPERIENCE' itself aside from all deviations, demarcations, etc, in the strict sense is dependent on further experience, yet EXISTS (to be, to stand out from [etymologically]) prior to further experience. And death, the ultimate end of the line, renders experience nonexistent.

3. Your constant straw man is getting a bit frustrating. How on Earth could you take what I am saying and mutate it into the following "the discovery of carbon is not dependent on my birth"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law

"In later publications appeared as everything that can happen will happen."

I agree with this.

But contrary to your seemingly involuntary opposing reaction... I said that this point was mostly irrelevant with regard to what I have said, because my previous point still remains.

So you are indeed operating within your own closed system.

All my experience prior to this conversation cannot be existentially dependent upon this conversation. It didn't exist — creativesoul

The potentiality of it existed and according to the law that everything that CAN happen WILL happen... In a certain, very real sense, it did exist... But this is irrelevant, because my point still stands. All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, which may or may not be real yet. A psychic fact is a fact nonetheless.

Again, for the third time, I am not speaking of a specific experience, defined to be such and such in contrast to and incommensurate with another specific experience defined to be something aside from the continuum of experiences, concatenated; life as opposed to death.

What you are saying is a strawman. And I have provided a contradictory example.

Ridiculous. All experience is existentially dependent on further experience, for if there were no more experience, then experience would no longer exist. So experience 1 is prior to 2 but instead of a theoretical demarcation it is rather a concatenation, a continuum, and experience 1 is existentially dependent on experience 2, although 2 is subsequent. Im not talking about a specific experience incommensurate with the specificities of another experience. I am speaking of experience as such.

Just reiterating your completely unsubstantiated assertion does not prove it.

All you are doing is reiterating a distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge

Poorly written?

How is "Experience exists prior to subsequent experiences, and is existentially dependent on subsequent experience, namely existientiElly" poorly written?

Experience exists prior to subsequent experiences, 'thrownness', but is existentially dependent on this thrownness into the world, to be ones potential for being. Experience is existentially/existentielly (wherever you want to draw a line of demarcation is irrelevant) dependent on the experience it is not yet, and only in terms of this being not yet can experience be.

And so your contention that something prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent on it is false in terms of experience... Or... Existence...

What about experience ? Experience exists prior to subsequent experience but is existentially dependent on subsequent experience .

I disagree. There is no criterion of belief. A belief is a belief regardless of if why or how. A belief is never justified as a belief. It is a belief. It is furthermore a belief that a belief is such and such. Beliefs permeate all psychic reality, and are not determined by anything other than the complexes of one's consciousness. Beliefs can be augmented, transformed, etc, but they are often sublimations and displacements of completely alogical foundations.

Take the compulsion neuroses that Freud speaks of in Totem and Taboo.
A woman believes that her husband's razors association with the sign of death near where the razors have been in proximity to, is a sign of immanent danger for her husband. This belief is a belief, and it is what Freud explains as 'The omnipotence of thought' of neuroses.

"similarity and contiguity are the two essential principles of the processes of association"
Freud

This is not proven, so it is ignorant to speak as if it is...

"Belief and thought about existence is dependent on language."

You cannot say you know enough about thought to say that.

Is a child's castration complex a belief dependent on language? Hell no. What about the beliefs of children? Are you ready to say that the LAD is the creator of belief and thought? This is preposterous.

Furthermore, what about neurotic beliefs?

the sculpture would be dependent on the metal box.

it is interesting that you say it is a metaphor, yet you are interested in 'how' this metaphor comes about, as if the metaphor itself is something determined by something other than the experience it is.

What is the purpose of finding out the what of this 'metaphor?'

By the way, I am red/green colorblind, so I don't even apply to this, btw.
How do I come in?

What is red other than the totality of its manifestations? Wouldn't this wavelength-red be another reference point of color-red? What is the primary phenomenon here?
...
And now we are back to the debate of the aeon.

I don't care about THAT debate anymore.

I experience experience. That is it.

I will not be able to find anything more about consciousness by using something consciousness has given function to.

What is the goal here?

I guess you are considering my questions to be baseless?

The only Christian I have found worth trying to understand in terms of their belief, and the substantiality of it, is William Blake... Who was by no means an orthodox Christian.

I have heard that Tolstoy's idea of Christianity is interesting, but I have not researched it very much.

99% of Christianity is brainwashing and delusion.

@Pattern-chaser "The projection of inner perceptions to the outside is a primitive mechanism which, for instance, also influences our sense-perceptions, so that it normally has the greatest share in shaping our outer world."

Freud - Totem and Taboo

This primitive mechanism subsists, and the outside world is often understood in metaphor.

"Only with the development of the language of abstract thought through the association of sensory remnants of word representations with inner process did the latter [the outer world] gradually become capable of perception."

Perception was, in primitive psychology, was hugely projection of inner happenings upon the world, in order to understand the world. Man was not severed from the world, egotistical in his desire for power over it.
Obviously these primitive cultures displayed heinous tendencies the result of this inclination and lack of abstract thought capable of being organized; however, the fact still remains that the world is processed by our inner perceptions and associations of inner process with what we come in contact with in the form of a sensory perception.

The world can be classified symbolically with reference only to the function or dynamic of its physicality, but the world of the human, of the personality, of desire and of furthermore of MEANING which is of utmost priority, depends on the inner processes and associations that give them substance. This substance is not a mere classification but is the character of perception and of feeling.

The world, our world, is consciousness. But this is not a panpsychism... The two are clearly distinguished.

But wouldn't something's existence be the whole of all the things about it? And if one aspect of the whole is dependent on something that it is not, wouldn't that whole thus be existentially dependent as well?