Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sislaw

Pages: [1]
Current Law Students / Re: What's good about being an attorney?
« on: August 27, 2007, 03:57:09 AM »

[...] Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence. [...]

Archetypes are visual symbols or energetic imprints that exist in our psyches. Some are readily understood while others bring subliminal messages that are there to help you trigger your memory of why you are here and the truth behind the illusion of reality. Archetypes can often convey messages that verbal and written information cannot. Archetypes are found everywhere, as their symbols are a language of the mind, taken to different frequencies of thought and connected to each other by the collective unconsciousness. There are individual and universal archetypes. You become aware of them in meditation, dreamtime, remote viewing or other out-of-body experiences, when you doodle on a pad, crop circles or landscape art, other art forms, jewelry, hieroglyphs, a logo, on a billboard, anywhere at all. Archetypes can also be auditory, a tone, a series of notes, a harmonic. Reality is a series of metaphors set into motion by the synchronicity of archetypes we experience.

The term Archetype began with Jung. In Jung's terms, 'Archetype' is defined as the first original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated. These patterns derive from a universal collective unconscious which in metaphysics is called the Grids, Akashic Records, Sea of Consciousness, that which creates our reality. In this context, archetypes are innate prototypes for ideas, which may subsequently become involved in the interpretation of observed phenomena. Master or Universal archetypes are created by the patterns of Sacred Geometry. The remainder are derivatives of these patterns.

Current Law Students / Re: Legal Reasoning
« on: August 27, 2007, 03:43:56 AM »
Archetypal psychology was developed by James Hillman in the second half of the 20th century. It is in the Jungian tradition and most directly related to Analytical psychology, yet departs radically. Archetypal psychology relativizes and deliteralizes the ego and focuses on the psyche, or soul, itself and the archai, the deepest patterns of psychic functioning, "the fundamental fantasies that animate all life." Archetypal psychology is a polytheistic psychology, in that it attempts to recognize the myriad fantasies and myths -- gods, goddesses, demigods, mortals and animals -- that shape and are shaped by our psychological lives. The ego is but one psychological fantasy within an assemblage of fantasies.

Hillman was trained at the Jung Institute and was its Director after graduation. The main influence on the development of archetypal psychology is Carl Jung's analytical psychology. It is strongly influenced by Classical Greek, Renaissance, and Romantic ideas and thought. Influential artists, poets, philosophers, alchemists, and psychologists include: Nietzsche, Henry Corbin, Keats, Shelley, Petrarch, and Paracelsus. Though all different in their theories and psychologies, they appear to be unified by their common concern for the psyche -- the soul. Hillman sketches a brief lineage of archetypal psychology.

By calling upon Jung to begin with, I am partly acknowledging the fundamental debt that archetypal psychology owes him. He is the immediate ancestor in a long line that stretches back through Freud, Dilthey, Coleridge, Schelling, Vico, Ficino, Plotinus, and Plato to Heraclitus - and with even more branches yet to be traced (p. xvii).

Hillman has been critical of the 20th century’s psychologies (e.g. biological psychology, behaviorism, cognitive psychology) that have adopted a natural scientific philosophy and praxis. Main criticisms include that they are reductive, materialistic, and literal; they are psychologies without psyche, without soul. Accordingly, Hillman's oeuvre has been an attempt to restore psyche to its proper place in psychology. Hillman sees the soul at work in imagination, in fantasy, in myth and in metaphor. He also sees soul revealed in psychopathology, in the symptoms of psychological disorders. Psyche-pathos-logos is the "speech of the suffering soul" or the soul's suffering of meaning. A great portion of Hillman's thought attempts to attend to the speech of the soul as it is revealed via images and fantasies. Hillman has a complex "definition" of soul. Primarily, he notes that soul is not a "thing," not an entity. Nor is it something that is located "inside" a person. Rather, soul is "a perspective rather than a substance, a viewpoint towards things... (it is) reflective; it mediates events and makes differences... " Soul is not to be located in the brain or in the head, for example (where most modern psychologies place it), but human beings are in psyche. The world, in turn, is the anima mundi, or the world ensouled. Hillman often quotes a phrase coined by the Romantic poet John Keats: "call the world the vale of soul-making."

Additionally, Hillman observes that soul:

refers to the deepening of events into experiences; second the significance of soul makes possible, whether in love or religious concern, derives from its special relationship with death. And third, by soul I mean the imaginative possibility in our natures the experiencing through reflective speculation, dream, image, fantasy -- that mode which recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or metaphorical.

The notion of soul as imaginative possibility, in relation to the archai or root metaphors, is what Hillman has termed the "poetic basis of mind."

Current Law Students / Re: The Da Vinci crock
« on: August 27, 2007, 03:37:40 AM »

by Ralph Miller

There has recently been a tremendous amount of excitement around the symmetry and geometry that is contained in DaVinci's drawing called "Proportions of the Human Figure." The popular novel, "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown tells of how there is a six-pointed star hidden within the drawing. One idea around the six-pointed star is that the 2 intersecting triangles represent a symmetrical union of male (yang) and female (yin). This is particularly interesting since the greater human condition seems to be out of balance, with a preponderance of yang, or masculine energy.

So the idea of a coming together in balance and harmony would be fantastic. There is a lot of information that suggests that the world is about to enter into a new feminine era. There are ideas of a major shift for mankind elucidated in many traditions. Hindu tradition speaks of a transition from a previous age to the age of Kali. Kali represents the feminine destroyer. Kali also represents the vindication of truth over lies. The Mayan calendar is coming up on its completion. The Mayans also believed in a shift for mankind. In many ways we sit on a precipice where lies and manipulation by governments, religion and the media literally control our lives. We have world leaders who are engaged in wars and the slaughter of 100's of thousands of innocents. It is tempting to believe that a secret and sacred geometry lies within our own physical bodies. Even so, I have always been somewhat skeptical about secret codes. There have been a number of attempts to uncover a perfect symmetry within DaVinci's work. I have seen some constructions within the drawing that have been made by others, towards the end of espousing certain conclusions. For example, some think that the star represents something called the Merkaba. The Merkaba is a star tetrahedron which represents the human energy field (or light body). This is just one example. I wanted to see how they did it... how they came to their conclusions. So I worked on it myself, using information about the drawing that I had researched. I discovered that some of the conclusions that others made seemed to be somewhat arbitrary. I could not understand how they got from A to B, and they seemed to ignore subtle clues in DaVinci's drawing.

So what is the DaVinci code? What is the hidden information within the sketch? The real starting point with DaVinci's "Proportions of the Human Figure" is in the work of an ancient by the name of Vitruvius who was an architect. Vitruvius developed the concept of 'squaring the circle' which basically involves constructing a square with an equal surface area to a circle or visa-versa. DaVinci was fascinated by the ideas that Vitruvius had about squaring the circle. DaVinci's drawing contains both a square and a circle with unequal surface areas. There are clues within the drawing that can be used to 'square the circle' and 'circle the square'. This is the starting point. This construction, which can be accomplished without any measuring device, is called the Vitruvian Man. I did exactly that myself, and discovered some remarkable symmetries in DaVinci's drawing. In fact, I constructed the geometry with only a protractor and a straight edge. But upon completion I wanted to check the surface areas of the circles and the squares to discover if Vitruvius was correct. First have a look at the drawing that I did, along with notes in the margin about the utterly fantastic symmetries it contains.

Click on the image below to launch a slideshow explaining the concepts here. Once in the slideshow, you can hover over the right side of the image and click to navigate to the next image.

Now, while I was able to make the above drawing with only a protractor and a straight edge; I still wanted to check to see if Vitruvius was correct in his squaring the circle thing. Following are the measurements I took off the original drawing that I did. (the image above is slightly reduced in size however)

Drawing Measurements
DaVinci Circle Radius is 3.33" (the largest circle)
DaVinci Square Side is 5.51"
Blue Circle Radius is 3.105" (supposed to be the same area as DaVinci's square)
Black Square Side is 5.90" (supposed to be the same area as DaVinci's circle)

Following are the calculations that I made from my measurements:
DaVinci Circle Surface Area is 3.33 x = 34.84
Black Square Surface Area is 5.90 x 5.90 = 34.81

Blue Circle Surface Area is 3.105 x = 30.288
DaVinci Square Surface Area is 5.51 x 5.51 = 30.36

The surface area of the square that I constructed is nearly the same as DaVinci's circle (only off by 3/100's of a square inch!). And the surface area of the circle that I constructed was very nearly the same as DaVinci's square. How cool is that! Now on to the next bit. I had some time ago seen another representation of proportions of the Earth and Moon in this drawing. But again, the work was arbitrary as if the author was trying to prove a point, rather than to let the geometry reveal itself. Personally, I had a suspicion that the earth/moon proportion indeed was in the drawing. If you look at the distance from the top of the head to the arc of the blue circle (this was the Vitruvius construction) and use that distance as a radius, you can draw a circle around the head. Another circle can then be constructed that is the exact height of the man, with the center being exactly at the groin. (Notice the faint line DaVinci has at the groin … this is one of the clues.) Again, I wanted to check to see if the small red circle and the large red circle were in the same proportion as the moon and the Earth. Following are the measurements of those two circles.

Drawing Measurements
Small Red Circle Radius is .75"
Large Red Circle Radius is 2.755"

I then went to the Goddard Space Center web site for the data on the diameters of the Earth and the moon.

Astronomical Measurements
Earth Mean Radius is 3,963 Miles
Moon Mean Radius is 1,080 Miles

Finally, I performed the calculations. Incredible. Actually, I think the photo is not quite in proportion, but I liked the photo anyway.

Earth Radius/Moon Radius = 3,963/1,080 = 3.67
L Red Circle Radius/Red Circle Radius = 2.755/.75 = 3.67

Finally, I wanted to mention the astrological event of November 9, 2003 called the Harmonic Concordance. There was an amazing synchronicity for me, because I was working on writing this article during the week just prior to November 9th. The Harmonic Concordance as I understand it, is a very symmetrical pattern called the Grand Sextile which forms a 'Star of David' in the pattern of the Sun, Moon and planets. This is a very rare occurrence, and what makes it even stranger is that it was accompanied by a full Lunar eclipse. I am not an astrologer, so I can't really interpret what this all means, but I was able to obtain an astrological chart, because I wanted to check for the 'Star of David', as I had heard that it was in there. So we've got a full Lunar eclipse and a very rare astrological aspect that coincide on November 9, 2003. Here is the chart:

The symmetry and synchronicity of this is amazing. "As above, so below" takes on real meaning when you think of the Star of David revealed by DaVinci and in the sky on November 9th. The drawing contains much, much more hidden information. Notice some of the other clues (more faint lines at the elbows; at the shoulders).

Current Law Students / Re: Hillary for Prez
« on: August 27, 2007, 02:40:48 AM »

Well, Edwards has been called publicly a 'faggot' -- so there's nothing surprising about people thinking in the terms you do. Edwards, on his part, has replied that such slurs simply show what kind of country we live in.

I'm kinda curious to know whether Ann Coulter would dare to call Tom Cruise a faggot.

Pages: [1]