Discussion in 'Parapsychology' started by trevor borocz johnson, Dec 2, 2015.
Is my subconscious really a voice that responds to my thoughts in my head?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Your subconscious mind is the processing behind your thoughts.
Well i guess what I mean is can your mind really give involuntary ethical input in the form of a voice only the thinker hears as the old saying goes "listen to your conscious the voice inside your head" and could that possibly be what schizoids claim to be voices is just there subconscious giving involuntary input on what they're thinking and doing?
Socrates had an inner voice or "daimon" that only told him what not to do, not what to do. Voice hearing has been a part of human experience since the dawn of language. There ARE distinctions though. Higher order voices impart wisdom and insight as if from a higher being, as was the case with Joan of Arc and Jane Roberts. Lower order voices otoh are tormenting and trickster-like, feeding off attention and helping very little. In Jungian parliance these voices are unconscious complexes which are striving to become conscious parts of ourselves. A common trait of many voice hearers is early abuse in childhood. The voice is a disassociative state designed to provide an escape from that lingering trauma. In the case of schizo or drug induced voices, the cause is related more to chemical imbalances in the brain.
There are two centers of consciousness in the human brain. The deepest center is the inner self which is the center of the unconscious mind. The second center is the ego (in the Jungian sense) which is the center of the conscious mind. Between these two centers ; conscious and unconscious are many layers each with a voice designed for a particular range of tasks.
Below the ego is the personal unconscious which contains memories that were once conscious, but which may have been forgotten or repressed. Repressed things from the past will be stored there, as well as that 90% of the stuff your learn in school, that you will forget. When a forgotten memory appears in your mind, the personal unconscious has spoken. This inner voice can be useful when you play trivia or need to recall a forgotten face.
Below the personal unconscious is the shadow. The shadow is at the outer perimeter of the inner self, just below yet attached to the personal unconscious. Like a shadow this follows us around and is often unconscious to the ego, but may be conscious to others. If a person habitually reacts in a certain way, which they don't attempt to reason, this may be the shadow talking. The tell or body language that gives way a hand in card games comes from the shadow. Others can see this but many people are unaware. If one listens to the shadow they can control this.
Below the shadow and closer to the inner self are the archetypes of the collective unconscious. These are less personal and connected to our collective human propensities. The lowest layer, below the shadow, are the archetypes connected to our natural instincts. When my stomach grumbles the unconscious is speaking to me to feed the animal. If you listen carefully to that quiet voice of nature, it can say others things such as the natural needs of the body, beyond the compulsions of the shadow, the bias of the ego ,and the loud outer voices of culture and marketeers.
The next deeper layer, away from the ego, even closer to the inner self are archetypes of relationship in males. The female is different at this level, which may be easier for a female to explain. This is the emotional side of men, with our feelings an output voice from an unconscious processing of situations of relationship between people as well as objects. Someone who can read people, will often depend on these archetypes to tell them what to think; gut feeling.
Below this in males, even closer to the inner self are the archetypes of meaning. These are similar yet different from the archetypes of relationship. For example PC is connected to how we are expected to relate to each other. This is not based on a logical schema detached from emotions. Someone who memorizes the party line, to get along, is using the archetypes of relationship; maximizing our relationships and connections in culture. The archetypes of meaning are different in that it is not concerned social connections in terms of how we need to relate, but with logic and truth, even if this separates one from the herd. When Einstein brought together abstract ideas, into the theory of relativity he was being helped by his inner voice of meaning.
Below this is the inner self, which is in control of all the archetypes. The inner self uses the various levels of archetypes based on the situation. All these inner self voices are available to be hear, but not all are loud enough for all to hear. As we get closer and closer to the inner self, the data density gets higher and higher until the voice is not easy to understand. One has to train the ego to listen, hear and translate.
Someone who is psychotic and hearing audio voices often has this coming from the shadow/personal unconscious region. Cultural language is not a natural part of the brain, but is learned, by the ego, through culture. These things may connected to the inner self, at its outer perimeter; shadow, in conjunction with memory and experiences within the personal unconscious.
Knowledge is passive-faithful. To utilize mind you must let go of all false light; knowledge, happiness, logic, wisdom, etc. Utilize the middle path.
Does this apply to liberals, too?
Yes this does apply to liberals. This may be a good place to show a practical application. The level of archetype being used, unconsciously, will help define who we are, and will shape how we see reality.
Liberal men tend to use the archetypes of relationship; people, object and idea relationship, more than the archetypes of meaning. Emotion is used as the standard when defining how things should relate. If it feels good do it. If it has prestige; subjective, it must be right. If we can accept diversity, then nobody will feel like an odd duck. If women are allowed to abort, they will not feel the pressure of unwanted children, etc.
If I gave one of my logical opinions, which differs from the proper emotional place, it will often upset the emotional ambience. In Liberalism one is pre-told how one is supposed to relate to things, people and ideas based on a feeling scale. Prestige is important to liberals, since high prestige has a subjectivity that is high on the social emotional scale. President Obama was assume perfect due to his top of the hill position; prestige.
Archetypes of meaning are not concerned with maximizing feelings. It works more like emotionless scientific logic. The results and conclusions may not maximize feelings, but will try to maximize logical consistency.
As an example, it would be wonderful if we could get lions to lay down peacefully with sheep and lambs. If we could do that then lambs, lions and people will all feel good, peaceful and safe. But from a place of cool logic, although this image will make you feel good, it is not really practical and will lead to many eaten sheep and liberal trainers. If I pointed this out I would be a killjoy attempting to place this on a lower emotional shelf, because many have placed it high due to the top shelf feeling.
The archetypes of relationship are optimized for intimate human relationships, but they fall short when applied to object, idea and abstract relationships. If I had a difficult child, who is not trying to change, rather than write him/her off, I might make myself irrationally feel good about him/her. My irrational feeling; does not fit the hard data, is there to provide a feeling of hope that might be contagious and make the child try.
But in PC, we are not just dealing with close relationships between family and friends. We are attempting to extrapolate this tool to define relationships between abstractions and strangers. In PC we want all the children and all the people not feel scared or bad. We want them all to feel good. One solution is we will censor language to pre-empt the potential for hurt feelings, while making up pillow soft replacement words, so these people feels better. This gives a nice utopian feeling if it worked.
From the POV of cool logic, we don't live in a perfect world void of hazards. If this world we are not dealing with close people, like brother and sisters, who will still call each other names. How can you expect strangers to be more strict than brother and sister who have the advantage of family love?
Therefore we can't change human nature by being a worse bully. While you can't build up the emotional immune system of a child by isolating them from all emotional germs; memes, and by setting up a perfect sanitary environment in a less than perfect world. Meme are like virus, and one needs some exposure; vaccine, to build up a tolerance, so you don;t get sick and emotionally die for a small exposure in the real world. Humans will not all suddenly become different. so it better to deal with reality as it is and vaccinate with weak meme. This may not feel good to liberals, but makes sense to those who deal in meaning.
Yes, it is one's own mind producing such, and not revelation from the gods or telepathic messages from the eccentric neighbor down the street. If Smith experiences a private aural manifestation which offers moral advice, its happening is a fact only to Smith.
Imaginations can't be dismissed in inner-space, only in the public or intersubjective domain. Since by definition they are not representations of actual or immediate events in the outer world, judgment of how accurate, true, or false they are is not even applicable (barring the content of any verbal claims they might make in reference to the outer world). If an imagined green blotch turns to orange, with eyes closed in a completely dark room, it would be ludicrous to wonder if the first color was just a mistaken apprehension of the second. The occurrences are self-evident; introspective denial is futile; there are no other "observers" to consult with, only one's own cognitive system.
Inner-space is a plenum of marvels, if it can only be regulated well. An 800-year old immortal confined afterwards to a comatose state for billions of years, with dreaming ceaselessly occurring during that span, would never run out of virtual reality that its brain could constantly generate more of (unless it perversely settled upon a period of blank, pseudo-sensory void as a change of pace).
Not the voice of your thoughts in your head but thinking upon your experiences.
But; and this is VERY,VERY,VERY; important; your consciousness ; can over ride any subconsciousness thought and/or thinking ; ALWAYS. Inotherwords you can disagree with your subconscious and be sane.
Splendid, splendid! Just checking. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Can a person be addicted to believing in telepathy and their imagination runaway with itself creating long periods of transpiring events by giving lots of attention to the voices perceived?
If you are not familiar with the word *Meme*, is would recommend it.
an excerpt below;
IMO, this all happens within the *mirror neural network* of the brain. It is part where we interpret what we see, with our own experiential meaning of what we are seeing. The way we preceive (connect) reality.
One should be very careful and not demonize regular thoughts as "hearing voices" , schizophrenia. We can all imagine conversation, and in that imaginative state add what the other persons voice sounds like from our memory of it. This is normal thought and imagination.
A doctor ( read: bribed asshole) once asked me if I heard voices, and I replied " I can hear you.". Guess the rest. It's so dangerous to even discuss thoughts, as if thoughts in themselves where mental illnesses. The uneducated society is spreading fast. Stupidity is norm.
I am not sure if I agree with that. While it is true that *thinking* never stops, when there is long term sensory deprivation of external inputs, the mind will eventually become disoriented and irrational and will create its own reality.
Evidently the subconscious is an enemy or an inept guardian angel because it has a terrible record of letting you know important facts or usually after the shtf.
It will just watch you on the sidelines knowing an oncoming mack truck is headed in your trajectory to steamroll you without as much as a tap on your shoulder for a heads-up. Apparently its supposed to know much more than you but is most silent. Quite worthless practically speaking.
Separate names with a comma.