View allAll Photos Tagged intuition
In civilizations of a traditional nature, intellectual intuition lies at the root of everything; in other words, it is the pure metaphysical doctrine that constitutes the essential, everything else being linked to it, either in the form of consequences or applications to the various orders of contingent reality.
Not only is this true of social institutions, but also of the sciences, that is, branches of knowledge bearing on the domain of the relative, which in such civilizations are only regarded as dependencies, prolongations, or reflections of absolute or principial knowledge.
Thus a true hierarchy is always and everywhere preserved: the relative is not treated as non-existent, which would be absurd; it is duly taken into consideration, but is put in its rightful place, which cannot but be a secondary and subordinate one; and even within this relative domain there are different degrees of reality, according to whether the subject lies nearer to or further from the sphere of principles.
Thus, as regards science, there are two radically different and mutually incompatible conceptions, which may be referred to respectively as traditional and modern. We have often had occasion to allude to the 'traditional sciences' that existed in antiquity and the Middle Ages and which still exist in the East, though the very idea of them is foreign to the Westerners of today. It should be added that every civilization has had 'traditional sciences' of its own and of a particular type. Here we are no longer in the sphere of universal principles, to which pure metaphysics alone belongs, but in the realm of adaptations.
(…)
By seeking to sever the connection of the sciences with any higher principle, under the pretext of assuring their independence, the modern conception robs them of all deeper meaning and even of all real interest from the point of view of knowledge; it can only lead them down a blind alley, by enclosing them, as it does, in a hopelessly limited realm.
Moreover, the development achieved in this realm is not a deepening of knowledge, as is commonly supposed, but on the contrary remains completely superficial, consisting only of the dispersion in detail already referred to and an analysis as barren as it is laborious; this development can be pursued indefinitely without coming one step closer to true knowledge.
It must also be remarked that it is not for its own sake that, in general, Westerners pursue science; as they interpret it, their foremost aim is not knowledge, even of an inferior order, but practical applications, as can be deduced from the ease with which the majority of our contemporaries confuse science and industry, and from the number of those for whom the engineer represents the typical man of science.
(…)
Modern experimentalism involves the curious illusion that a theory can be proven by facts, whereas in reality the same facts can always be equally well explained by several different theories; some of the pioneers of the experimental method, such as Claude Bernard, have themselves recognized that they could interpret facts only with the help of preconceived ideas, without which they would remain 'brute facts' devoid of all meaning and scientific value.
Since we have been led to speak of experimentalism, the opportunity may be taken to answer a question that may be raised in this connection: why have the experimental sciences received a development in modern civilization such as they never had in any other?
The reason is that these sciences are those of the sensible world, those of matter, and also those lending themselves most directly to practical applications; their development, proceeding hand in hand with what might well be called the 'superstition of facts', is therefore in complete accord with specifically modern tendencies, whereas earlier ages could not find sufficient interest in them to pursue them to the extent of neglecting, for their sake, knowledge of a higher order. It must be clearly understood that we are not saying that any kind of knowledge can be deemed illegitimate, even though it be inferior; what is illegitimate is only the abuse that arises when things of this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as we see them doing at present.
(…)
One of the characteristics of the present age is the exploitation of everything that had hitherto been neglected as being of insufficient importance for men to devote their time and energy to, but which nevertheless had to be developed before the end of the cycle, since the things concerned had their place among the possibilities destined to be manifested within it; such in particular is the case of the experimental sciences that have come into existence in recent centuries.
There are even some modern sciences that represent, quite literally, residues of ancient sciences that are no longer understood: in a period of decadence, the lowest part of these sciences became isolated from all the rest, and this part, grossly materialized, served as the starting-point for a completely different development, in a direction conforming to modern tendencies; this resulted in the formation of sciences that have ceased to have anything in common with those that preceded them. Thus, for example, it is wrong to maintain, as is generally done, that astrology and alchemy have respectively become modern astronomy and modern chemistry, even though this may contain an element of truth from a historical point of view; it contains, in fact, the very element of truth to which we have just alluded, for, if the latter sciences do in a certain sense come from the former, it is not by 'evo-lution' or 'progress' - as is claimed - but on the contrary, by degeneration.
(…)
These are the two complementary functions proper to the traditional sciences: on the one hand, as applications of the doctrine, they make it possible to link the different orders of reality and to integrate them into the unity of a single synthesis, and on the other, they constitute, at least for some, and in accordance with their individual aptitudes, a preparation for a higher knowledge and a way of approach to it - forming by virtue of their hierarchical positioning, according to the levels of existence to which they refer, so many rungs as it were by which it is possible to climb to the level of pure intellectuality.
It is only too clear that modern sciences cannot in any way serve either of these purposes; this is why they can be no more than 'profane science', whereas the 'traditional sciences', through their connection with metaphysical principles, are effectively incorporated in 'sacred science'.
The ways leading to knowledge may be extremely different at the lowest degree, but they draw closer and closer together as higher levels are reached. This is not to say that any of these preparatory degrees are absolutely necessary, since they are mere contingent methods having nothing in common with the end to be attained; it is even possible for some persons, in whom the tendency to contemplation is predominant, to attain directly to true intellectual intuition without the aid of such means; but this is a more or less exceptional case, and in general it is accepted as being necessary to proceed upward gradually.
The whole question may also be illustrated by means of the traditional image of the 'cosmic wheel': the circumference in reality exists only in virtue of the center, but the beings that stand upon the circumference must necessarily start from there or, more precisely, from the point thereon at which they actually find themselves, and follow the radius that leads to the center. Moreover, because of the correspondence that exists between all the orders of reality, the truths of a lower order can be taken as symbols of those of higher orders, and can therefore serve as 'supports' by which one may arrive at an understanding of these; and this fact makes it possible for any science to become a sacred science, giving it a higher or 'anagogical' meaning deeper than that which it possesses in itself.
Every science, we say, can assume this character, whatever may be its subject-matter, on the sole condition of being constructed and regarded from the traditional standpoint; it is only necessary to keep in mind the degrees of importance of the various sciences according to the hierarchical rank of the diverse realities studied by them; but whatever degree they may occupy, their character and functions are essentially similar in the traditional conception.
What is true of the sciences is equally true of the arts, since every art can have a truly symbolic value that enables it to serve as a support for meditation, and because it’s rules, like the laws studied by the sciences, are reflections and 'applications of fundamental principles: there are then in every normal civilization 'traditional arts', but these are no less unknown to the modern West than are the 'traditional sciences'. The truth is that there is really no 'profane realm' that could in any way be opposed to a 'sacred realm'; there is only a 'profane point of view', which is really none other than the point of view of ignorance.
This is why 'profane science', the science of the moderns, can as we have remarked elsewhere be justly styled 'ignorant knowledge', knowledge of an inferior order confining itself entirely to the lowest level of reality, knowledge ignorant of all that lies beyond it, of any aim more lofty than itself, and of any principle that could give it a legitimate place, however humble, among the various orders of knowledge as a whole. Irremediably enclosed in the relative and narrow realm in which it has striven to proclaim itself independent, thereby voluntarily breaking all connection with transcendent truth and supreme wisdom, it is only a vain and illusory knowledge, which indeed comes from nothing and leads to nothing.
This survey will suffice to show how great is the deficiency of the modern world in the realm of science, and how that very science of which it is so proud represents no more than a deviation and, as it were, a downfall from true science, which for us is absolutely identical with what we have called 'sacred' or 'traditional' science. Modern science, arising from an arbitrary limitation of knowledge to a particular order-the lowest of all orders, that of material or sensible reality-has lost, through this limitation and the consequences it immediately entails, all intellectual value; as long, that is, as one gives to the word 'intellectuality' the fullness of its real meaning, and refuses to share the 'rationalist' error of assimilating pure intelligence to reason, or, what amount to the same thing, of completely denying intellectual intuition.
The root of this error, as of a great many other modern errors - and the cause of the entire deviation of science that we have just described - is what may be called 'individualism', an attitude indistinguishable from the anti-traditional attitude itself and whose many manifestations in all domains constitute one of the most important factors in the confusion of our time; we shall therefore now study this individualism more closely.
----
excerpts from The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guenon
Chapter 4: Sacred and profane science
----
painting by Blake
Created for 44th MMM Challenge
Source image with thanks to Draco2008
background by Moonglowlilli
model by mizzd-stock
bats by Elevit-stock
texture nightgreen
...your intuition,
...your inner voice,
...trust your emotions,
...most probably they have a very good reason for being there
...hear yourself,
...find your truth,
...see who you are,
...it's all you have to offer to this world
...invest your time into being the best "you" could ever be
...am thinking quite often lately, that this might be the only way to true happiness, but also to a successful life.
...kind of connected to this* yesterday,
...I am thinking that true personalities cannot be reproduced, much like true love cannot and unlike tangible things, which can be copied, reproduced or faked.
...am really inspired by authenticity and being genuine....and have been meeting many such people here....that shine with their distinct personalities and the unique ways in which they express themshelves....this is for all of you...so happy that we have been crossing each other's online paths :)
...wishes that we'll all be evolving in the best possible manners, touching deeper and deeper parts of ourselves through our work.
Site internet : www.tooga.fr
Deviantart : tooga.deviantart.com/
Pinterest : www.pinterest.com/toogatine/
Facebook : www.facebook.com/Toogaphotographies
Tumblr : lea-fery.tumblr.com/
Instagram : instagram.com/toogatine/
In civilizations of a traditional nature, intellectual intuition lies at the root of everything; in other words, it is the pure metaphysical doctrine that constitutes the essential, everything else being linked to it, either in the form of consequences or applications to the various orders of contingent reality.
Not only is this true of social institutions, but also of the sciences, that is, branches of knowledge bearing on the domain of the relative, which in such civilizations are only regarded as dependencies, prolongations, or reflections of absolute or principial knowledge.
Thus a true hierarchy is always and everywhere preserved: the relative is not treated as non-existent, which would be absurd; it is duly taken into consideration, but is put in its rightful place, which cannot but be a secondary and subordinate one; and even within this relative domain there are different degrees of reality, according to whether the subject lies nearer to or further from the sphere of principles.
Thus, as regards science, there are two radically different and mutually incompatible conceptions, which may be referred to respectively as traditional and modern. We have often had occasion to allude to the 'traditional sciences' that existed in antiquity and the Middle Ages and which still exist in the East, though the very idea of them is foreign to the Westerners of today. It should be added that every civilization has had 'traditional sciences' of its own and of a particular type. Here we are no longer in the sphere of universal principles, to which pure metaphysics alone belongs, but in the realm of adaptations.
(…)
By seeking to sever the connection of the sciences with any higher principle, under the pretext of assuring their independence, the modern conception robs them of all deeper meaning and even of all real interest from the point of view of knowledge; it can only lead them down a blind alley, by enclosing them, as it does, in a hopelessly limited realm.
Moreover, the development achieved in this realm is not a deepening of knowledge, as is commonly supposed, but on the contrary remains completely superficial, consisting only of the dispersion in detail already referred to and an analysis as barren as it is laborious; this development can be pursued indefinitely without coming one step closer to true knowledge.
It must also be remarked that it is not for its own sake that, in general, Westerners pursue science; as they interpret it, their foremost aim is not knowledge, even of an inferior order, but practical applications, as can be deduced from the ease with which the majority of our contemporaries confuse science and industry, and from the number of those for whom the engineer represents the typical man of science.
(…)
Modern experimentalism involves the curious illusion that a theory can be proven by facts, whereas in reality the same facts can always be equally well explained by several different theories; some of the pioneers of the experimental method, such as Claude Bernard, have themselves recognized that they could interpret facts only with the help of preconceived ideas, without which they would remain 'brute facts' devoid of all meaning and scientific value.
Since we have been led to speak of experimentalism, the opportunity may be taken to answer a question that may be raised in this connection: why have the experimental sciences received a development in modern civilization such as they never had in any other?
The reason is that these sciences are those of the sensible world, those of matter, and also those lending themselves most directly to practical applications; their development, proceeding hand in hand with what might well be called the 'superstition of facts', is therefore in complete accord with specifically modern tendencies, whereas earlier ages could not find sufficient interest in them to pursue them to the extent of neglecting, for their sake, knowledge of a higher order. It must be clearly understood that we are not saying that any kind of knowledge can be deemed illegitimate, even though it be inferior; what is illegitimate is only the abuse that arises when things of this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as we see them doing at present.
(…)
One of the characteristics of the present age is the exploitation of everything that had hitherto been neglected as being of insufficient importance for men to devote their time and energy to, but which nevertheless had to be developed before the end of the cycle, since the things concerned had their place among the possibilities destined to be manifested within it; such in particular is the case of the experimental sciences that have come into existence in recent centuries.
There are even some modern sciences that represent, quite literally, residues of ancient sciences that are no longer understood: in a period of decadence, the lowest part of these sciences became isolated from all the rest, and this part, grossly materialized, served as the starting-point for a completely different development, in a direction conforming to modern tendencies; this resulted in the formation of sciences that have ceased to have anything in common with those that preceded them. Thus, for example, it is wrong to maintain, as is generally done, that astrology and alchemy have respectively become modern astronomy and modern chemistry, even though this may contain an element of truth from a historical point of view; it contains, in fact, the very element of truth to which we have just alluded, for, if the latter sciences do in a certain sense come from the former, it is not by 'evo-lution' or 'progress' - as is claimed - but on the contrary, by degeneration.
(…)
These are the two complementary functions proper to the traditional sciences: on the one hand, as applications of the doctrine, they make it possible to link the different orders of reality and to integrate them into the unity of a single synthesis, and on the other, they constitute, at least for some, and in accordance with their individual aptitudes, a preparation for a higher knowledge and a way of approach to it - forming by virtue of their hierarchical positioning, according to the levels of existence to which they refer, so many rungs as it were by which it is possible to climb to the level of pure intellectuality.
It is only too clear that modern sciences cannot in any way serve either of these purposes; this is why they can be no more than 'profane science', whereas the 'traditional sciences', through their connection with metaphysical principles, are effectively incorporated in 'sacred science'.
The ways leading to knowledge may be extremely different at the lowest degree, but they draw closer and closer together as higher levels are reached. This is not to say that any of these preparatory degrees are absolutely necessary, since they are mere contingent methods having nothing in common with the end to be attained; it is even possible for some persons, in whom the tendency to contemplation is predominant, to attain directly to true intellectual intuition without the aid of such means; but this is a more or less exceptional case, and in general it is accepted as being necessary to proceed upward gradually.
The whole question may also be illustrated by means of the traditional image of the 'cosmic wheel': the circumference in reality exists only in virtue of the center, but the beings that stand upon the circumference must necessarily start from there or, more precisely, from the point thereon at which they actually find themselves, and follow the radius that leads to the center. Moreover, because of the correspondence that exists between all the orders of reality, the truths of a lower order can be taken as symbols of those of higher orders, and can therefore serve as 'supports' by which one may arrive at an understanding of these; and this fact makes it possible for any science to become a sacred science, giving it a higher or 'anagogical' meaning deeper than that which it possesses in itself.
Every science, we say, can assume this character, whatever may be its subject-matter, on the sole condition of being constructed and regarded from the traditional standpoint; it is only necessary to keep in mind the degrees of importance of the various sciences according to the hierarchical rank of the diverse realities studied by them; but whatever degree they may occupy, their character and functions are essentially similar in the traditional conception.
What is true of the sciences is equally true of the arts, since every art can have a truly symbolic value that enables it to serve as a support for meditation, and because it’s rules, like the laws studied by the sciences, are reflections and 'applications of fundamental principles: there are then in every normal civilization 'traditional arts', but these are no less unknown to the modern West than are the 'traditional sciences'. The truth is that there is really no 'profane realm' that could in any way be opposed to a 'sacred realm'; there is only a 'profane point of view', which is really none other than the point of view of ignorance.
This is why 'profane science', the science of the moderns, can as we have remarked elsewhere be justly styled 'ignorant knowledge', knowledge of an inferior order confining itself entirely to the lowest level of reality, knowledge ignorant of all that lies beyond it, of any aim more lofty than itself, and of any principle that could give it a legitimate place, however humble, among the various orders of knowledge as a whole. Irremediably enclosed in the relative and narrow realm in which it has striven to proclaim itself independent, thereby voluntarily breaking all connection with transcendent truth and supreme wisdom, it is only a vain and illusory knowledge, which indeed comes from nothing and leads to nothing.
This survey will suffice to show how great is the deficiency of the modern world in the realm of science, and how that very science of which it is so proud represents no more than a deviation and, as it were, a downfall from true science, which for us is absolutely identical with what we have called 'sacred' or 'traditional' science. Modern science, arising from an arbitrary limitation of knowledge to a particular order-the lowest of all orders, that of material or sensible reality-has lost, through this limitation and the consequences it immediately entails, all intellectual value; as long, that is, as one gives to the word 'intellectuality' the fullness of its real meaning, and refuses to share the 'rationalist' error of assimilating pure intelligence to reason, or, what amount to the same thing, of completely denying intellectual intuition.
The root of this error, as of a great many other modern errors - and the cause of the entire deviation of science that we have just described - is what may be called 'individualism', an attitude indistinguishable from the anti-traditional attitude itself and whose many manifestations in all domains constitute one of the most important factors in the confusion of our time; we shall therefore now study this individualism more closely.
----
excerpts from The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guenon
Chapter 4: Sacred and profane science
----
Dekoulou Monastery, Greece
Sandi FitzGerald - "INTUITION, IMAGINATION AND CURIOSITY"
exhibition 15.09.2013 - 20.10.2013
Johannesgasse 16
A-1010 Wien
My Facebook Page | My Twitter Page | My Google+ | My New Site | My 500px
***Disponibile come Fotografo Professionista per ogni genere di evento: guarda il mio nuovo sito***
- they don't always run at the same speed...
.
And I know in my heart of hearts that that's a good thing. Sometimes what we feel is outside the scope of just words. Like a primal force ... sometimes we know the direction long before we know the path. Sometimes it really is just best to let the wind blow hard, tighten our fist....................and smile.
You are alive.
I am alive.
We are alive.
(And that is always a beautiful first clarity to the knowledge of things.)
One day I’ll learn to trust my intuition. The color wasn’t bad early but it faded off about 10 minutes before sunrise. That’s not really unusual. It’s just that my intuition told me that was it until the Sun appeared over the horizon and I’d want the big lens for when that happened. But I just sat there and let the chance to change slip away.
Oh well, I shot it with my regular landscape lens and cropped it. Jimmy told me a long time ago I should learn to trust my intuition. I should have listened. You should too.
youtu.be/SV87lkJFWAs?si=MnZfPuZRhhuWeDvC
Nikon D7200 — Nikon 18-300mm F6.3 ED VR
300mm
F8@1/500th
ISO 400
Cropped
ROD_3393.JPG
©Don Brown 2023
The theme for a 11/2 lifetime is bringing life into a sense of balance through the analyzing and synthesizing of ideas. Learning to trust in yourself, your intuition, and your psychic abilities.
Justice and the High Priestess (Papess) represent form the gateway into an 11/2 lifetime. Justice (ruled by the planet Libra) places focus on harmony, understanding others, and finding a sense of balance in life. Libra is by nature active and social, with the need to balance between nurturing self and helping others. The High Priestess (Papess) is ruled by the Moon, which places focus on our inner selves, our inner needs, intuition, unconscious, and psychic abilities. Here we are looking at reacting, rather than taking action. The nature here is a passive one. Personal empowerment is the ability to focus our personal and spiritual energy in a manner that enhances how we experience our life. As we define our true power, we actualize out potential and begin to live life from a core of inner confidence.
theworldoftarot.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/birth-card-pairs...
The occult has moved from secrecy to mainstream acceptance, and tarot card reading stands as a testament to this shift. The Rider-Waite deck, named after the mystic A.E. Waite and publisher William Rider and Son, is considered the definitive tarot deck. However, the captivating imagery and symbolism that define this deck come from the artistic genius of Pamela Colman Smith, a woman often forgotten in the history of the occult.
Smith, an artist with possible Jamaican roots, led a bohemian lifestyle and was introduced to the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn by the renowned poet William Butler Yeats. She joined the secret society, which explored occult and paranormal aspects, as well as philosophy and magic. There, she met A.E. Waite, who would later request her artistic talents in creating a new deck of divination cards. Despite the immense popularity of the Rider-Waite deck, Smith’s role in its creation was largely forgotten.
However, many tarot enthusiasts today have started acknowledging her contributions by calling it the “Smith-Waite” deck or using decks that feature her name prominently.
culture.org/the-unseen-mothers-of-the-occult-pamela-colma...
"Gospel according to "Myriam" and this Mary is generally identified, without certainty, as being Mary of Magdala....In Christian tradition, the Three Marys also refers to three daughters – all three called Mary – whom Anne, the maternal grandmother of Jesus would have had with three successive husbands. According to Fernando Lanzi and Gioia Lanzi, this tradition would have been condemned by the Council of Trent (16th century), but it is still very much alive, particularly in German-speaking countries16 and in the Netherlands. then retired to the cave of Sainte-Baume where she lived for 30 years as a hermitage, with her only clothing, the fleece of her hair, and as her only food, the song of the angels who daily raised her to the heavens, seven times a day, it is said. She left Sainte Baume to die with Saint Maximin, one of the 72 disciples, in the small town where he had built his oratory and which today bears his name. He buried the saint in an alabaster sarcophagus.The name Magdala comes from Magdal in Aramaic or Migdal in Hebrew and designates a construction in the shape of a tower, representing faith, very similar to the House of God (The Tower) in Marseille's Tarot !
The Tarot de Marseille would then be a testimony to the teaching of Mary Magdalene. In Spanish-speaking countries, the Orion Belt Asterism is called “Las Tres Marias” (The Three Marys). In other Western countries, it is sometimes called "The Three Kings", a reference to the "Magi who came from the East" of the childhood narrative added to the Gospel according to Matthew and to the tradition of the three Magi, bearers of gifts for the child Jesus, whose oldest witnesses are found in Tertullian and Origen (early 3rd century). My "Mary Magdalene theory" is fortunately supported by thousands of codes that all come interconnected. "You will progress on a healthier basis with someone you know. Be authentic. Make sure you reserve moments of relaxation and do not pull too much on the rope, you tend to exceed your physical limits. Mary (mother of Jesus) Mary Magdalene Mary of Clopas. These three women are very often represented in art, as for example in this picture. The Three Marys (also spelled Maries) are women mentioned in the canonical gospels' narratives of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Mary was the most common name for Jewish women of the period. Mary speaks of strange encounters with Creator Beings. Read about her experiences with them, and how their decree changed her life with Jesus. In this final volume of the trilogy, Magdalene appears to the author by the river in Rennes les Bains, France. There she reveals an ancient healing technique called The True Baptism. Mary illustrates how to organize the life force from the matrix of The All and allow it to trigger our genetic code. Mary then answers more of your questions, this time about the hidden properties of gold, the evolution of her bloodline with Jesus, free will, inner earth, the star knowledge, and much more. The Tarot, in both its origin as a card game and in its transformation into an occult divinatory tool, functions as an iconographic mirror of a particular culture's time and place. By the examining the evolution of the World card, from the 14th century Italian decks to contemporary ones, we will see a shift from male Christ imagery to female anima mundi imagery. Parallel to this iconographic shift is the figure of Mary Magdalene, who in Renaissance painting began to be portrayed less as a sinner and more of a penitent saint. The assumption of Mary Magdalene in art correlates with the finalized form of the World card. The alterations of Christian iconography and symbolism in Tarot cards are the result of occultists’ reappropiation of the Tarot in the late 1700s. The fear/distrust/disbelief of God and Christianity that began at this time funneled into an interest in the occult; in the Tarot, we see a preservation of the luminous but a problematic relationality with Christianity. The World card, as it has been handed down to us today, is a synthesis of the assumption of Mary Magdalene, the Christus Victor, and the anima mundi. A sacred priestess of the ancient Womb Rites, Mary Magdalene was at the center of a great and enduring Mystery tradition. Unveiling the lost left-hand path of the Magdalene, the authors offer rituals and practices to initiate you into the Womb magic of the ancient priestesses and access deeper dimensions of sexuality and feminine power.
www.innertraditions.com/books/magdalene-mysteries
Tarot historians are in agreement that the appropriation of the cards by occultists occurred in the late 18th century. The first known interpretation of the Tarot through an esoteric lens was penned by the French occultist Court de Gebelin. He believed the deck was the lost Egyptian Book of Thoth, containing the secret mysteries of Egyptian wisdom and magic; following Gebelin, occultists began syncretizing the Tarot with the systems of Kabbalah, Hermeticism, and alchemy. I believe we can locate the apex of this appropriation in the Waite-Smith deck from 1909 – the most familiar and popular deck to the contemporary reader. Later we will consider the effect this had on the Tarot symbolism and its relationship to the shifts in religious understanding in France and other European countries.Although there is a clear historical distinction between Tarot as “playing cards” and as occult divination tools, this is not to say that the imagery of the early decks are absent of symbolism or meaning. Rather than esoteric, the early cards are exoteric in their imagery; the symbols are clear referents to religion, culture, and mythology. While they seem esoteric today, as much of Christian iconography is to the contemporary viewer, these cards were probably not hard to decipher by their audiences. While much is admittedly conjecture, (as is a lot of Tarot historical studies), there is still much we can tease out of the visual evolution of the cards over time. It is surprising that there has been so little work done on the correlations and similarities between Tarot and Christian symbolism and iconography. My research hit a lot of dead-end roads in terms of proof, but I believe it is important to reveal my initial observations to show that, while perhaps not conscious, there is a great deal of Christian symbolism in Tarot, even in decks from the post-occult turn of the 18 and 19 centuries and from today as well.In the Waite-Smith deck, the most obvious Christian card is the 20 Major Arcana, Judgment, in which an angel blows a trumpet and the souls of dead bodies rise from coffins. Another obvious example is the Tower card, clearly a depiction of the fall of the Tower of Babel. Less obvious, perhaps, is the Fool card. It depicts a young man walking up to a cliff precipice, as though he does not see it; he carries a bag of money and is followed by a dog. Does this not recall the story of blind Tobias, who also carries money and is followed by a dog? Although in painting he is normally portrayed being guided by the angel Raphael, the similarities are astounding. How did this come to be?
The Hanged Man card is surprisingly consistent from the early Italian decks to the contemporary post-occult decks, and is one of the most mysterious within esoteric interpretation. In the Waite-Smith deck, it depicts a man hanging from a Tau cross by one leg; his other leg is crossed underneath the other to form another cross, and a nimbus glows around the head. Most occult interpretations of this card go along the lines that it is a symbol of self-sacrifice for spiritual gain. Robert Place argues that this can be understood as Christ, in that Christ was executed as a traitor by the state.3 Furthermore, a numerical reading of the card offers insight – being card 12, it might refer also to the self-sacrifice and martyrdom of the twelve disciples. By employing basic gematria, we can add the digits one and two to reach three, which could be the Trinity.
www.academia.edu/8851376/Tarot_and_Christian_Iconography_...
The Gospels refer to several women named Mary. At various points of Christian history, some of these women have been identified with one another..look at this picture from the Waite-Rider-Smth tarot:from left to right 1 Mary Magdalene 2 Mary of Jacob (mother of James the Less) 3 Mary, mother of Jesus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; Luke 24:10) Mary of Clopas (John 19:25), sometimes identified with Mary of Jacob. Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:38–42, John 12:1–3), not mentioned in any Crucifixion or Resurrection narratives but identified with Mary Magdalene in some traditions. Another woman who appears in the Crucifixion and Resurrection narratives is Salome, who, in some traditions, is referred to as Mary Salome and identified as being one of the Marys. Other women mentioned in the narratives are Joanna and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.Marie-Madeleine, Marie Salomé and Marie de Clopas are the 3 Maries of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, a French town, capital of the Camargue, in the department of Bouches-du-Rhône. The designation "of-the-sea" derives from the fact that after the death of Jesus, the three Marys crossed the sea by boat to there and then lived there, thus helping to bring Christianity to France and Europe. These 3 Marys were present during the execution of Jesus and, they were the first witnesses of the empty tomb at the resurrection of Jesus... After the death of Jesus, around 42 J.C. the Christians were persecuted, and the three Marys were arrested and expelled from Palestine. They therefore embarked, with many other Christians, on a ship named "The Ship of Peter" devoid of oars and sails which, led by Providence, managed to reach the shores of Provence, in the south of France in a place which now bears their names.This is where the three Marys were welcomed by Sara, according to some texts, according to others, Sara, herself would be the Holy Grail, the direct descent of Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Only Marie Salomé, Marie Jacobé and Sarah will remain; Marie Madeleine, will retire to a hermitage in a cave...This is a historically attested fact, because Christianity began to spread in Europe precisely from Gaul, which thus became the gateway to the new religion in Europe. Mary Magdalene occupies a privileged place for Christ, at the head of a group of women who accompany him. She will be the first witness to the Resurrection of Christ, the first to whom the Lord appears on Easter morning, a sign, whether we believe in it or not, of an exceptional position. She is Jewish like Christ, like him from the North of Palestine (Israel), from Galilee, probably from Magdala, near Nazareth and Cana. It is believed that she was an aristocrat born in the year 3 AD, who after attending the court of the king of the Jews Herod, was converted by Christ, changed her life and decided to follow him and put her fortune at the disposal of the group. Arrived in the Camargue, with the two other Maries, she evangelized the Marseillais, then withdrew to the cave of Sainte-Baume where she lived 30 years in hermitage, with as only clothing, the fleece of her hair, and as only food, the song of the angels who raised her daily in the heavens, seven times a day, it is said.
www.calistabellini.com/post/les-saintes-maries-de-la-mer-...
Different sets of three women have been referred to as the Three Marys: Three Marys present at the crucifixion of Jesus;
Three Marys at the tomb of Jesus on Easter Sunday; Three daughters of Saint Anne, all named Mary. The three Marys at the
The presence of a group of female disciples of Jesus at the crucifixion of Jesus is found in all four Gospels of the New Testament. Differences in the parallel accounts have led to different interpretations of how many and which women were present. In some traditions, as exemplified in the Irish song Caoineadh na dTrí Muire, the Three Marys are the three whom the Gospel of John mentions as present at the crucifixion of Jesus: However, Jesus was not crucified upside-down. Looking at the Visconti-Sforza deck, we have an almost identical depiction of the Hanged Man. Helen Farley points out that in Renaissance society, there was an art form called pittura infamante – ‘shame painting’ – “in which a person was depicted as a traitor, particularly when beyond the reach of legitimate legal. recourse.”4 By depicting someone hanging upside-down, this could alternately mean the person had turned away from God. It also was used for the execution of Jews, witches, and Christians who had committed perfidy. I immediately thought of Peter, who is said to have asked to be crucified upside-down because he was unworthy to die as Christ died. In Christian iconography, he is the only individual portrayed in this manner. Peter could be said to be a traitor, in that he denied Christ three times, but the negative associations of shame paintings don’t seem to correlate with Peter’s sainthood. Judas is also said to have hung himself, and is traitor par excellance, but I remained convinced that this card was based upon Peter. While the usual understanding of Peter’s request for an upside-down crucifixion is his humility in relation to Christ’s death, there is a different explanation in apocryphal accounts. In the Acts of Peter, Peter speaks from the cross, saying that, “when the first man [Adam] came into the world, he came headfirst. That means that Adam’s perspective, as the one who brought sin into the world, was entirely reversed and upside down. That is why people seem to think that what is true is false and what is false true....All of this is because humans have reverse vision, due to the actions of Adam.”6 Thus, hanging upside-down is a model for Christians to live by, to see the world correctly. This is nearly identical to how Tarot esotericists interpret the Hanged Man; it is both Christ in its self-sacrifice, and also an inversion of corporeal ‘reality’ and perspective through which one gets a better understanding of how to reach God. While one cannot veritably locate a thread between the Acts of Peter and the Hanged Man, this connection exemplifies the latent Christian symbolism that flows through the Tarot, from 14th century Italy to now.
Mary Magdalene, Mary of Clopas and Mary (mother of Jesus). These three women are very often represented in art, as for example in these Flickr's picture.
Women at the tarot like a passkey to heaven; The Three Marys as passkey. What may be the earliest known representation of three women visiting the tomb of Jesus is a fairly large fresco in the Dura-Europos church in the ancient city of Dura Europos on the Euphrates. The fresco was painted before the city's conquest and abandonment in AD 256, but it is from the 5th century that representations of either two or three women approaching a tomb guarded by an angel appear with regularity, and become the standard depiction of the Resurrection. They have continued in use even after 1100, when images of the Resurrection of Jesus in Christian art began to show the risen Christ himself. Examples are the Melisende Psalter and Peter von Cornelius's The Three Marys at the tarot. Eastern icons continue to show either the Myrrhbearers or the Harrowing of Hell. The fifteenth-century Easter hymn "O filii et filiae" refers to three women going to the tomb on Easter morning to anoint the body of Jesus. The original Latin version of the hymn identifies the women as Mary Magdalene (Maria Magdalene), Mary of Joseph (et Iacobi), and Salome (et Salome).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Marys
The World (XXI) is the 21st trump or Major Arcana card in the tarot deck. It can be incorporated as the final card of the Major Arcana or tarot trump sequence (the first or last optioned as being "The Fool" (0). It is associated with the 21st letter of the Hebrew alphabet, 'Shin' also spelled 'Sin'. The oval shape of the wreath is also used by the Golden Dawn in their Tattva cards. These colorful cards were designed to aid the development of clairvoyance through visual meditation, and one of the symbols in the cards is an oval. The oval corresponds to the Akasha, ether or spiritual realm (see Akashic Records).
Description
Christ in Majesty is surrounded by the animal emblems representing the four evangelists in a German manuscript.
In the traditional Tarot of Marseilles, as well as the later Rider–Waite tarot deck, a naked woman hovers or dances above the Earth holding a staff in each hand, surrounded by a wreath, being watched by the four living creatures (or hayyoth) of Jewish mythology: a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. This depiction parallels the tetramorph used in Christian art, where the four creatures are used as symbols of the four Evangelists. Some astrological sources explain these observers as representatives of the natural world or the kingdom of beasts. According to astrological tradition the Lion is Leo—a fire sign, the Bull or calf is Taurus—an earth sign, the Man is Aquarius—an air sign, and the Eagle is Scorpio—a water sign. These signs are the four fixed signs and represent the classical four elements. In some decks the wreath is an ouroboros biting its own tail. In the Thoth Tarot designed by Aleister Crowley, this card is called "The Universe." The World card, the highest ranked Major Arcana card, exists in the early Visconti-Sforza, Marseilles, and contemporary decks. It will serve as our loci in considering the relationship between Tarot and Christian iconography, the evolution of Mary Magdalene in Christian depiction/understanding, and the rise of the female anima mundi in occult and esoteric movements. To recall, the Visconti-Sforza is one of our earliest known decks. Helen Farley notes that the deck’s symbolism reflects concerns and themes of the Italian Renaissance: The proximity of death, the fickle hand of fortune, the desirability of living a life
of virtue, the importance of spirituality but also the contempt with which corporeal concerns were held, namely the corruption of the Church...[it] portrayed the lives and history of the Viscontis...as a game: a potent allegory of Visconti life. These themselves more as we follow the orbit of the World card around the sun of time.reveal themes, particularly the tension between spirituality and Catholicism, will. In the Visconti-Sforza deck, the world is shown as a globe, within which is surrounded by turbulent waters (fig. I). The globe is held aloft by two putti. The blue wings indicate they are Seraphim, the highest rank of angels. In other versions from this time, there is usually a figure of a woman or angel upon the globe and city usually represents Jerusalem, the city of God; “the microcosm of the city symbolically linked the earthly (human) body with the heavenly (cosmic) ‘body’”, observes Farley. This derives, of course, from St. Augustine’s The City of God, wherein the Christian empire is located around the Church of Rome, which links humankind with God. The earthly city reflects the heavenly city, and this card connects the actual city of Milan with the celestial city of heaven. Duke Sforza’s domination of Milan is enforced and made holy through its pictorial self-portrayal as the Augustinian city. This pride in the city-state enforces the power, wealth, and status of Milan; interestingly, as the World card follows the Resurrection/Judgment card, Milan is portrayed as the city Augustine believes will contain the saved souls. One also may observe that the city is separated from the rest of the ‘world’ by the edge of the globe; it is strongly fortified and separated by waters, illuminated by the stars of heaven.
What does 3 stars in the sky mean? many meanings...Each culture gives the Três Marias a different meaning. In Christian tradition, the stars are associated with the three women who visited the tomb of Jesus at the resurrection. They also represent the Three Wise Men -Gaspar, Melchior and Baltasar-, who would be on their way to Bethlehem at the birth of the messiah. What are the three Marias? Mark 16:1 indicates that "Mary Magdalene", "Mary the mother of James" and "Salome" went to the tomb to anoint Jesus....How many stars do the 3 Marias have?
The Belt or Belt of Orion, popularly known as the Three Marys or Three Kings, is an asterism of three stars that form the belt of the constellation of Orion, the hunter. The stars, easily identifiable in the sky by their brightness and alignment, are known as Mintaka, Alnilam, and Alnitak. Where are the three Marias?
To identify it we must locate 3 stars close to each other, of the same brightness, and aligned. They are called Tres Marías and they form the belt of the constellation of Orion, the hunter. Their names are Mintaka, Alnilan and Alnitaka, from the Arabic Al-Mintakah, the belt, An-Nidham, the pearl, and An-Nitak, the rope.
What are the stars we see in the sky? Stars are large spheres formed by plasma heated to thousands of degrees. Its shape is due to its gravity, which points towards the core of the star. Stars are large spheres of plasma that are powered by nuclear fusion. Stars are large spheres of plasma, held together by their own gravity. > Constellation of ORION: Why are the three Marias called Três Marias? Origin and meanings of Três Marias.Each culture gives the Três Marias a different meaning. In Christian tradition, the stars are associated with the three women who visited the tomb of Jesus at the resurrection. They also represent the Three Wise Men -Gaspar, Melchior and Baltasar-, who would be on their way to Bethlehem at the birth of the messiah. What are the three Marias? Mark 16:1 indicates that "Mary Magdalene", "Mary the mother of James" and "Salome" went to the tomb to anoint Jesus....How many stars do the 3 Marias have? The Belt or Belt of Orion, popularly known as the Three Marys or Three Kings, is an asterism of three stars that form the belt of the constellation of Orion, the hunter. The stars, easily identifiable in the sky by their brightness and alignment, are known as Mintaka, Alnilam, and Alnitak.Where are the three Marias? To identify it we must locate 3 stars close to each other, of the same brightness, and aligned. They are called Tres Marías and they form the belt of the constellation of Orion, the hunter. Their names are Mintaka, Alnilan and Alnitaka, from the Arabic Al-Mintakah, the belt, An-Nidham, the pearl, and An-Nitak, the rope.The most curious thing of all is that, in reality, their names are Mintaka, Alnilan and Alnitak, Arabic names that mean, respectively, the "Belt", the "Pearl/Precious Stone" and the "Rope". Another is knowing that they are actually very close together in the sky, approximately 1,500 light-years from Earth.There are three enormous stars visible in the winter sky and in the center of the constellation Orion, the celestial cathedral. These three stars form a nearly perfect tilted alignment, separated by seemingly nearly equidistant distances. They are known as the three Marys, the three wise men or the belt of Orion -a giant hunter from mythology-, but these names are not enough to understand the mysteries that such colossal stars contain. We must look towards the south, at half height; between the horizon and the zenith. It has no loss, it is a brilliant stellar alignment, which is unique in the firmament. Three blue stars, three giants: Mintaka, Altinak and Alnilam.
Источник: planetariodevitoria.org/estrelas/qual-e-o-nome-das-estrel...
An engineer born in Alexandria in 1948, Robert Bauval, with a background in astronomy and an interest in Egyptology, discovered that the three Marys are positioned exactly like the three great pyramids of Giza in Egypt. The star Mintaka, in the upper part of the alignment of the three Marys, is somewhat deviated with respect to the previous two, the same imperfect alignment has the three great pyramids. But also, the pyramid deviated from the straight line that joins the other two, is the smallest of the three (Micerino), like Mintaka, which is the star that shines the least of the three Marias. Also, the pyramid that is highest on the plateau of the three and that stands out the most (Kefren) is the central one, as is the central star of Las tres Marías, which is the brightest. Did the Egyptians also know that these stars are visible from all over the world? And more specifically Mintaka, which is right on the celestial equator. Everything can be the product of chance, but many coincidences bear the truth. Curiously, the Egyptians believed that after their death, the gates of heaven opened in the place occupied by Orion's belt, but they never understood the greatness of those three spectacular stars. The three Marys were the place where the soul of Osiris, the Egyptian god of resurrection, rested and presides over the court of the judgment of the deceased, among other powers.Alnitak, an Arabic name meaning "belt", is the lowest of the three stars. A new star 6 million years old, while the Sun is about 5,000 million. This blue giant, 16 times the diameter of the Sun, with a visual magnitude of 1.79, located 700 light years from the Sun, of spectral type O9, shines with an intensity 100,000 times greater than that of our Sun, which next to it is a tiny star with a mass 20 times less than Alnitak. It ranks 35th among the most luminous stars we know of, including stars from other galaxies. Alnitak is a peculiar star, whose surface temperature reaches 29,000 degrees. The Sun only reaches 6,500. But it is also a very intense source of X-rays, due to the strong stellar winds that are projected from the surface in the form of particles, essentially hydrogen and helium, sweeping the surrounding space at speeds of 2,000 km/s. These types of giant stars have their days numbered. The bigger the stars are, the less time they live, so that Alnitak, in a short time will become a red supergiant, it will explode in the form of a supernova, which can be seen even during the day from Earth, to end up as a tiny star about 10 km in diameter, called a neutron star, a star so dense that a teaspoon of its surface would weigh as much as a mountain. Also Alnitak is a triple star. Alnilam. Located in the center of the stellar trio that make up Las tres Marías, it is a true celestial spectacle. It shines with a magnitude of 1.70, being the fourth brightest star in Orion and the brightest of the three Marys, in addition to being the furthest at 1,340 light years, but that is nothing compared to the luminosity of the star, equal to 380,000 times greater than the Sun, ranking 27th of all known stars. It is a blue supergiant star, 31 times the diameter of the Sun and 40 solar masses. Extraordinarily young, only 4 million years old, somewhat colder than the previous one, with about 25,000ºC on the surface. It also has a powerful stellar wind with speeds of 2,000 km/s, 20 million times more than the solar wind. The temperature and radiation are so high in this star that it lights up a nebula of gas and dust called NGC 1990 by reflection. Alnilam is so young that it is not yet a stable star, but variable in its brightness (pulsating variable), due to its continuous expansion and contraction. The Sun is a stable star, it does not pulse, expand, or contract. The force of gravity pulling in on the Sun has been offset by the expansive force of thermonuclear reactions by converting hydrogen to helium, but in Alnilam, both forces continue without agreeing. If it is possible to have planets, life there as we know it would be impossible, due to the instability of the star. Alnilam will end its days as Alnitak, becoming a premature red supergiant, exposing its superdense core; a neutron star. Meanwhile, it is moving away from us at a speed of 26 km/s. Mintaka: Arabic word meaning "for belt." Another blue giant star, although the faintest in brightness of the three Marias reaching 2.5 magnitude. It contains 20 solar masses and a luminosity 90,000 times greater than that of the Sun. Located at a distance of 915 light years, it is surprising that it shines with such intensity, not in vain its surface temperature is 31,000ºC. Mintaka is one of the most complex multiple systems known. The main star, that is to say Mintaka, has a companion of magnitude 6.8 at a real distance of more than 2.3 trillion km, or what is the same, ¼ of a light year. But in turn, this star that appears to be 1' of arc distant from Mintaka, is a spectroscopic binary, that is, it has another companion so close to it that it is impossible to take it off with telescopes, but it can be done using spectroscopy; the only thing we can detect is the spectrum of the companion, but we can't see it. Between the spectroscopic binary and Mintaka, there is a faint 14th magnitude star that may belong to the system. But in addition, Mintaka has an extraordinarily close companion to her, which is why she is a spectroscopic binary. Curiously, the companion star has almost the same characteristics as Mintaka, the same mass, temperature and luminosity and must be the same size. A complex 5-star star system. Almost all stars are double or multiple, the rarity is our Sun, which is a solitary star. However, many researchers look for dwarf stars that may be trapped by the Sun's gravity.
www.abc.es/ciencia/20140122/abci-tres-marias-estrellas-co...
The two putti slowly disappeared in other decks, to be replaced by either a male or female figure. In this example from the Museo Civico, we see a woman holding a wand and a globe as she stands upon the globe (fig. II). Another early example of a female World card is the Cary-Yale Visconti deck (fig. III), depicting a royally-clothed woman wielding a scepter and a crown. It was not uncommon to portray the earth as a feminine figure, but these early examples seem to be stressing not so much a personification of the earth but rather the domination of earth by something/someone. Consider figure IV and figure V. Here we have a male figure, one clothed and the other nude, ruling over the world. Consider also the nude male in the Jacques Vieville deck and the Bologna deck (fig. VI). In Christian art, when Jesus is portrayed as the Christus Victor, he looms over the world holding a globe with a cross fixed to it. He is often surrounded by the four evangelists as he stands upon God’s throne. When he is surrounded by the four evangelists, Christ is enclosed within a mandorla, and the four evangelists are often in the four corners. Should we understand these male figures as Christ? The examples we’ve looked at that have a clothed male figure can clearly be an iconographic Christus Victor; the World card, being the last Major Arcana, is Christ victorious over the entire world after the Resurrection. But what of the nude figures? The only instance of Christ nude in Christian art, that I know of, is Michelangelo’s altar wall in the Sistine Chapel; there, Christ is nude and beardless, as with these particular cards. But there is a shift from the Christ standing upon the world to the Christ on God’s throne. As we see with the Jacques Vieville card (fig. VI), the nude Christ holds his standard iconographic scepter with attached globe, is enclosed by a mandorla (a laurel wreath), and surrounded by the four evangelists. Again, following the tradition of Christian art, Matthew is a human with wings, Mark is a lion, Luke is an ox, and John is an eagle. There is no essential difference between this Tarot card and an atypical Christus Victor. It should be noted that this visual structure was also used in alchemy through the 16 to the 18 century. The four
evangelists are correlated with the four elements of the world, the four seasons, and the four directions. Consider figure VII; note the chalice with the serpent, the attribute of John the Evangelist, unusually associated with the anima mundi. But something happened. Recall that the Marseilles deck, circa blueprint structure and pattern for most subsequent decks created in France, Italy, and Belgium, and also for the decks created by occultists in the 19th century deck is unusual considering its forerunners. We have the same iconography of the four evangelists and the mandorla, but instead of the Christus Victor or royally-clothed woman, there is a nude woman (figure VIII). There are many versions of this, of course, but we can say that she is often portrayed with long hair, with a loose banner rippling around her nude body. She sometimes holds a bottle and a scepter; more often, two equal wands (that is, wands with a knob on both ends). She is always enclosed within a laurel wreath, and the four evangelists remain in the four corners of the card. Suddenly, a nude woman is dancing, or floating, on God’s throne instead of Christ; perhaps, she is being assumed up into heaven. This card serves as the bridge between the City of God and the Christus Victor depictions to most of the subsequent World cards: the rather curious and baffling conflagration of Christian iconography and feminine/Goddess imagery. What does this shift mean, and how can we situate it within Christian art? Let us turn our attention, now, to the portrayal of Mary Magdalene in Christian art. Mary Magdalene underwent quite a transformation through Renaissance art. The sinner Magdalene ultimately becomes the penitent, holy reformer to which many upheld as an exemplary and relatable model. Mrs. Jameson locates the rising popularity of Magdalene as penitent in the 16th and 17th into heaven. Magdalene became “still more endeared to the popular imagination by more affecting and attractive associations, and even more eminently picturesque...We have Magdalenes who look as if they never could have sinned, and others who look as if they never could have repented.”11 Magdalene became more sexualized just as she became more penitent. Rachel Geschwind observes that in the 16th century, paintings like Rossiglio’s Conversion of the Magdalene began to give Venus-like characteristics to Magdalene; she is both divine and corporeal. and art, and sometimes one might even mistake a Venus for a Magdalene. Courtesans at this time would write of divine love and the desire to enter the ‘paradise of Venus’, which was a metaphor where she is praying for forgiveness or being reconciled and/or assumed up for the city. (Recall the City of God from the Visconti deck). Magdalene seemed to serve as a perfect model for passion and romance that was acceptable religiously, and as a locus for the world of divine love. The dichotomy between the corporeal and the divine is also inherent in Correggio’s Noli Me Tangere; Margaret A. Morse writes that “Correggio evoked a natural style, while maintain a beauty and sanctity for which his subjects called, whereby the beholder...would be able to recognize the divine in the physical.”14 She is a bridge between the viewer and Christ, between the body and the spirit. Given that Neo-Platonism was on the rise during the Renaissance, it makes sense that this balance between two kinds of love, “sacred and profane, formulated by Plato in the Symposium”15, found Mary Magdalene as the perfect template and model. In addition to Venus-like characteristics, Magdalene was also beginning to assume the role as a “new Eve” from the Virgin.The relationship between the images of the Tarot de Marseille and the medieval heresy of the Holy Grail. The followers of this heresy claimed that Jesus of Nazareth had married Mary Magdalene. In this work are presented all the symbols of the Tarot in relation to this heresy and, for the first time, it is revealed that these images constitute the secret heritage of Mary Magdalene. that the game was the lost Egyptian book of Thoth, containing the secret mysteries of Egyptian wisdom and magic; following Gebelin, occultists
2 began to syncretize the Tarot with the systems of Kabbalah, Hermeticism and Alchemy. We believe we can place the pinnacle of this appropriation in the Waite-Smith game of 1909 - the most familiar and popular game for the contemporary reader. Later we will look at the effect this has had on Tarot symbolism and its relationship to changes in religious understanding in France and other European countries.
Mary Magdalene (Mary of Magdala), the woman with jars in Christian symbolism, could very well in this case be represented in the star map. But their assumptions stopped there. No one had ever imagined that the Tarot itself represents in its entirety the teaching and life of Marie-Madeleine on the one hand and even less that the Tarot was created by Marie-Madeleine herself in the 1st century. This is the entirely new Tarot theory that I have been expounding since the beginning of the second millennium. If my theory of the Tarot turns out to be correct, it completely changes the vision and the understanding that one could have of the Tarot. It changes the dating of the Tarot which goes from the 14th century to the 1st century AD with Mary Magdalene, the Tarot de Marseille thus becoming the ancestor of all Western tarots, that is to say "the Tarot". Historians and experts said that the Tarot originated in Italy during the Renaissance era around the end of the 14th century the beginning of the 15th century. On the other hand, no one thought that the Tarot de Marseille itself originated from Marseille. When I started to propose the theory of a Marseille origin of the Tarot de Marseille, Tarot historians and Tarot experts thought that I was an eccentric or that I wanted to make a publicity stunt. In 1999, I explained publicly that in my opinion the Tarot had been transmitted to Europe around 415 by the monk Jean Cassien who was entirely dedicated to Marie-Madeleine and who founded the order of the Abbey of Saint-Victor in Marseille. My Tarot theory is based on thousands of secret codes that can be found in the new Tarot de Marseille Camoin that I drew in the 90s. The Mandorla that surrounds the naked woman indicates that it is a saint who has reached the beatific state. The most significant secret Tarot code in "The Mary Magdalene Theory" that I have discovered resides in the last two cards of the Tarot Major Arcana, Judgment and the World. Indeed, by their number, these two cards are naturally placed next to each other. I revealed that the two cards put together give the key to the mystery of the Tarot character that is found in the World card. Because the identity of this character had remained a mystery for centuries. Almost all Tarot researchers claimed that it was the androgynous Christ, so much so that it had become a real dogma in the Tarot world. Historians could not imagine that it was a woman because of the presence of the four living beings who are attributed to Christ in Christian sacred art. Some had interpreted this mysterious young woman as being the soul of the World, "Anima Mundi".
But the Tarot is coded in another way. Tarot codes are embedded in other Tarot codes and so on. Also, if we disregard the four living beings in the World map, we obtain a naked woman surrounded by an almond-shaped oval. This oval called mandorla symbolizes the state of beatific vision. We find the mandorla around some saints. This means that in the Tarot de Marseille, the woman on the World Map is a saint. My "Mary Magdalene theory" continues like this. In the pantheon of Western saints, there is only one saint who is depicted naked, and that is Saint Mary Magdalene. However, Marie de Magdala lived in the vicinity of Marseilles for 30 years. My theory, which is unique in the history of the Tarot, states that it is Mary Magdalene who is represented in the map of the World and that the Tarot de Marseille is therefore dedicated to this saint.
The two cards form a new symbol. Mary of Magdala is the Saint who sees the Resurrection of Christ (in blue. Furthermore, we can locate similar attributes to Magdalene from apocryphal sources as well as the writings of Origen. In the apocryphal Pistis Sophia, Magdalene is the sole recipient of Christ’s gnosis, rather than Peter and the other disciples. Christ says, “Well done, Mary. You are more blessed than all women on earth, because you will be the fullness of fullnesses and the completion of completions.”17Although this apocryphal account could not have been known to people during the Renaissance, it reveals that even within the early Christian communities there was a holiness attributed to Magdalene that transcended all others. Yet the Gnostic contempt for materiality seems to clash with the embrace of dualism during the Renaissance. This dualism can be found in Origen’s writings, however. In his commentary on the Song of Songs, he allegorically reads the bride as the Christian church. The bride anoints her lover with an ointment; Origen connects this with the scriptural account of Mary Magdalene anointing Christ. He interprets the line spoken by the bride, “I am dark but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 1:5), as follows: “She has repented of her sins...beauty is the gift conversion has bestowed; that is the reason she is hymned as beautiful. She is called black, however, because she has not yet purged of every stain of sin, she has not yet been washed unto salvation, nevertheless she does not stay dark-hued, she is becoming white.”18 The dualism of black/evil and white/good is unfortunate, but the connection between the Bride of the Song of Songs and Magdalene reinforces her movement away from sin into penitence, and her positive association with the Church and Christ. The sexual language employed in the Song of Songs has always been difficult for commentators; however we see that when Magdalene is associated with the Bride, the sexuality is compounded with Magdalene’s penitence, in the same way we’ve seen in Renaissance painting. The portrayals of Magdalene’s assumption into heaven connect us back to the Tarot. Mrs. Jameson observes, dryly, that Italian paintings of Magdalene’s assumption began “to recall the idea of a Venus Meretrix.”19 Let us consider Giovanni Lanfranco’s La maddalenan portata in cielo, (fig. IX) and Sandro Botticelli’s Birth of Venus (fig. X). Jameson is quite correct in her observation, despite her negativity towards this shift. In the Lanfranco, Magdalene’s hair barely covers her nude body as she is borne aloft by three putti. She holds out her hands at an angle, and below her is the world’s expanse of mountains, lakes, and forests. It is sexual and chaste, physical and divine. Her figure is very much the Platonic divine love, the ideal Venus. In some of the Assumptions, she is almost dwarfed by the sublime immensity of the landscape. The fact that the very earth is prominent in these paintings underscores Magdalene’s dualistic characteristics of corporeality and divinity; the world gapes below her as she rises above it into the sky. Although she is always borne by putti in her assumption, she seems to float and dance in ecstasy as she rises. We observed the replacement of the Christus Victor with a female nude in the Marseilles World card. That card is remarkably similar to the Lanfranco, Durer’s Assumption of the Magdalene, and others. One gets the same sense of elevation and completion (recall Christ’s words in the Pistis Sophia) in the rise of Magdalene as one gets in the World card. I argue for a parallel between Magdalene’s evolution and the World card’s evolution; just as painting was infusing Magdalene with traits of divine love and worldliness, Tarot decks began to see the post- Resurrection world not in light of Christ but in a neo-Platonic Venus, a Magdalene/New Eve that encompasses the new World. We saw that some World cards have the woman holding a bottle of some sort, which is an attribute of Magdalene. Also, the instances of the two equal wands supports the dualism of divinity and corporeality, dark and light, sinner and penitent, in the portrayals of Magdalene. Robert Place agrees, writing that “She takes her position in the sacred center, which identifies her as the Anima Mundi and the Quinta Essentia...she has mastered or transcended duality...the World Soul is depicted as both Christ, or Sophia his female counterpart....divine wisdom.”20 She is the completion, the alchemical Great Work, the culmination of all earthly phases into the elevation of the world into heaven. This is, of course, an esoteric alchemical interpretation, which as we noted did not apply to Tarot until the late 1700s. I hold that Magdalene’s iconographic transition in the Renaissance parallels the exoteric symbolism of the World; but what to make of the occultists’ appropriation of this image in the late 1700s? Farley argues that, “With tarot removed from its original environment, its symbolism lost its previous relevance and context, rendering its imagery mysterious.”21 Institutionalized religion was being questioned at this time; indeed, the first publications by occultists on the Tarot coincide with the French Revolution. While we cannot delve deeply into the Revolution here, suffice it to say that it was characterized by a rejection of Christianity but a preservation of Christian structure. “It had its creeds, liturgies and sacred texts, its own vocabulary of virtues and vices...and the ambition of regenerating mankind itself, even if it denied divine intervention or the afterlife. The result was a series of deified abstractions worshipped through the denatured language and liturgy of Christianity.”22 Much of the Revolution’s tactics was the replacing of old symbols with new ones, but maintaining the same essential religious structure. Similarly, I argue that the occult appropriation of the Tarot was also an appropriation of Christian iconography, in a general sense; esoteric interpretations and the revisions of Tarot symbolism was an attempt to escape Christian doctrine through fabricated ancient lore (Egyptian roots, e.g.) and synthesized connections between the Tarot and old esoteric traditions such as Kabbalah.
Interpretation
According to A.E. Waite's 1910 book The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, the World card carries several divinatory associations:
Mary Magdalene (Mary of Magdala), the woman with jars in Christian symbolism, could very well in this case be represented in the star map. But their assumptions stopped there. No one had ever imagined that the Tarot itself represents in its entirety the teaching and life of Marie-Madeleine on the one hand and even less that the Tarot was created by Marie-Madeleine herself in the 1st century. This is the entirely new Tarot theory that I have been expounding since the beginning of the second millennium.
If my theory of the Tarot turns out to be correct, it completely changes the vision and the understanding that one could have of the Tarot. It changes the dating of the Tarot which goes from the 14th century to the 1st century AD with Mary Magdalene, the Tarot de Marseille thus becoming the ancestor of all Western tarots, that is to say "the Tarot". Historians and experts said that the Tarot originated in Italy during the Renaissance period around the end of the 14th century the beginning of the 15th century. On the other hand, no one thought that the Tarot de Marseille itself originated from Marseille.
21.THE WORLD—Assured success, recompense, voyage, route, emigration, flight, change of place. Reversed: Inertia, fixity, stagnation, permanence.
The World represents an ending to a cycle of life, a pause in life before the next big cycle beginning with the fool.[3] The figure is male and female, above and below, suspended between the heavens and the earth. It is completeness. It is also said to represent cosmic consciousness; the potential of perfect union with the One Power of the universe.[4] It tells us full happiness is to also give back to the world: sharing what we have learned or gained. As described in the book The New Mythic Tarot by Juliet Sharman-Burke and Liz Greene (p. 82), the image of the woman (Hermaphroditus in Greek Mythology) is to show wholeness unrelated to sexual identification but rather of combined male and female energy on an inner level, which integrates opposites traits that arise in the personality charged by both energies. Opposite qualities between male and female that create turmoil in our life are joined in this card, and the image of becoming whole is an ideal goal, not something that can be possessed rather than achieved.
According to Robert M. Place in his book The Tarot, the four beasts on the World card represent the fourfold structure of the physical world—which frames the sacred center of the world, a place where the divine can manifest. Sophia, meaning Prudence or Wisdom (the dancing woman in the center), is spirit or the sacred center, the fifth element. Prudence is the fourth of the Cardinal virtues in the tarot. The lady in the center is a symbol of the goal of mystical seekers. In some older decks, this central figure is Christ, whereas in others it is Hermes. Whenever it comes up, this card represents what is truly desired.
In other media
In the manga JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders, tarot cards are used to name the character's powers, named 'Stands'. The overarching antagonist of Stardust Crusaders, DIO, has a Stand named The World, named after The World card. This stand has the power to stop time whenever DIO commands it to, and he can move during frozen time. In Steel Ball Run, an alternate version of DIO, Diego Brando, later gains this Stand after being summoned by Funny Valentine.
In the film Cryptozoo, a tarot reading is done with the Waite-Smith Deck that reveals The World card as part of the protagonist's journey.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_(tarot_card)
The relationship between the images of the Tarot de Marseille and the medieval heresy of the Holy Grail. The followers of this heresy claimed that Jesus of Nazareth had married Mary Magdalene. In this work are presented all the symbols of the Tarot in relation to this heresy and, for the first time, it is revealed that these images constitute the secret heritage of Mary Magdalene. that the game was the lost Egyptian book of Thoth, containing the secret mysteries of Egyptian wisdom and magic; following Gebelin, occultists began to syncretize the Tarot with the systems of Kabbalah, Hermeticism and Alchemy. We believe we can place the pinnacle of this appropriation in the Waite-Smith game of 1909 - the most familiar and popular game for the contemporary reader. Later we will look at the effect this has had on Tarot symbolism and its relationship to changes in religious understanding in France and other European countries.The Mandorla that surrounds the naked woman indicates that it is a saint who has reached the beatific state.
The most significant secret Tarot code in "The Mary Magdalene Theory" that I have discovered resides in the last two cards of the Tarot Major Arcana, Judgment and the World. Indeed, by their number, these two cards are naturally placed next to each other. I revealed that the two cards put together give the key to the mystery of the Tarot character that is found in the World card.
Because the identity of this character had remained a mystery for centuries. Almost all Tarot researchers claimed that it was the androgynous Christ, so much so that it had become a real dogma in the Tarot world. Historians could not imagine that it was a woman because of the presence of the four living beings who are attributed to Christ in Christian sacred art. Some had interpreted this mysterious young woman as being the soul of the World, "Anima Mundi". But the Tarot is coded in another way. Tarot codes are embedded in other Tarot codes and so on. Also, if we disregard the four living beings in the World map, we obtain a naked woman surrounded by an almond-shaped oval. This oval called mandorla symbolizes the state of beatific vision. We find the mandorla around some saints. This means that in the Tarot de Marseille, the woman on the World Map is a saint. My "Mary Magdalene theory" continues like this. In the pantheon of Western saints, there is only one saint who is depicted naked, and that is Saint Mary Magdalene. However, Marie de Magdala lived in the vicinity of Marseilles for 30 years. My theory which is unique in the history of the Tarot stipulates that it is Mary Magdalene who is represented in the map of the World and that the Tarot of Marseilles is therefore dedicated to this saint.
fr.camoin.com/tarot/Tarot-Marie-Madeleine-Magdala.html
What is the name of the brightest star?
Sirius, also called Sirius, α Canis Majoris is the brightest star in the night sky visible to the naked eye, with an apparent magnitude of −1.46. In Greek mythology, Orion's hunting dogs are said to have ascended to heaven at the hands of Zeus, taking the form of the star Sirius.,What are the stars called?
they are called bright stars. How the stars are classified? Astronomers classify stars by size and surface temperature. Based on their size, stars can be called supergiants, bright giants, giants, subgiants, dwarfs or normals, and subdwarfs.
Источник: planetariodevitoria.org/estrelas/qual-e-o-nome-das-estrel...
Hebrew Letter: Tave
In this article The World Symbols, I refer to The World card from the Rider Waite Tarot deck, also known as the Waite-Smith, or Rider-Waite-Smith, or Rider tarot deck. The symbolism found on this trump card is primarily drawn from mythology, Christianity, alchemy, astrology. Contents
The World: Key Symbol. Compare The World Tarot Card Symbols with Historical Decks
What Does The Dancer Symbolize in The World Tarot Card? Dancer Purple Sash Red Hairband
Two Wands Crossed Legs Symbolism What is The Meaning of The Laurel Wreath in The World Card?Laurel Wreath Two Red Ribbons Who Are The Four Figures in The World Card and What do They Symbolize? Man Lion Eagle Bull What is The Meaning of The Blue Background? The Rider Waite World card borrows heavily from the Marseille Tarot. Waite himself says, “this final message of the Major Trumps is unchanged – and indeed unchangeable – in respect of its design”. In both instances the naked World dancer moves encased within a victory wreath. The four corners of the card contain tetramorphs, mystical creatures of antiquity and mythology depicting a bull, lion, bird and human face.
The dancer holds dual magical wands, as opposed to The Magician who only holds one. What Does The Dancer Symbolize in The World Tarot Card? Dancer. The dancer symbolizes the fetus waiting to be born again, as the Fool prepares to start over through the procession of the Major Arcana. However, this is no babe starting from scratch, we are presented with a woman at her height of beauty and youth. She signifies the next stage of evolution. Some occultists claim that the figure is a hermaphrodite, because her sexual gender is hidden by the scarf. They say she is the union of male and female, and that sexual identity is no longer relevant or defining. The dancer perfectly integrates aspects of the male and female. Wouldn’t this card be a suitable iconographic image for gender fluidity in todays times! The dancer is both the bride and bridegroom. Purple Sash. The purple sash is the color of divinity and wisdom. It evokes the images of a Catholic priest who puts on a purple stole when offering the sacrament during mass. The sash curves in the figure of eight, suggestive of the cosmic lemniscate or infinity sign.
Red Hairband. The dancer wears a red hairband, which draws fire energy to her head area. It symbolizes that her mind and conscious is active. This is not someone who exists only in the spiritual realm.
Two Wands. The dancer holds two double-sided wands, which represent the polarity powers of involution and evolution. Involution is the decent of God into the soul or consciousness, and evolution is the assent of the soul back to God or the creator. ⭐Wands also appear here: The Magician Symbols
Crossed Legs Symbolism. The dancer crosses her legs in a similar manner to the Hanged Man. However, the triangle he represents is under the cross of the tree, symbolizing he is still bound by earthly things. The dancer is reversed, she forms a triangle pointing upwards, from the tip of her head to her two outstretched hands. Thus the triangle of Spirit now overturns the cross of the material earthly plane. What is The Meaning of The Laurel Wreath in The World Card? Laurel Wreath. The woman is surrounded by a large laurel wreath, traditionally a symbol of success and victory. The implication here, on the Fools Journey, is that there is cause for celebration. This is the end of the road before a new era begins. The wreath forms the shape of a zero, which is the number of The Fool card. The wreath also symbolizes the womb, signaling that the woman is like an embryo waiting to be reborn. The oval shape of the wreath is also used by the Golden Dawn in their Tattva cards. These colorful cards were designed to aid the development of clairvoyance through visual meditation, and one of the symbols in the cards is an oval. The oval corresponds to the Akasha, ether or spiritual realm (see Akashic Records). See Shamanism for more information on Tattva cards. ⭐A laurel wreath also appears here: The Chariot Symbols, Ace of Swords Symbols, Seven of Cups Symbols, Six of Wands Symbols Two Red Ribbons. The red ribbon bindings at the top and bottom of the wreath indicate completion, the circle has been made complete.
It also reminds one of the ancient quote, “as above, so below”. Who Are The Four Figures in The World Card and What do They Symbolize? The four beasts represent the four living figures or hayyot, which are a class of heavenly beings in Jewish mythology. According to both Jewish and Christian tradition, the creatures vary by description. In this card we see the four tetramorph, a lion, man, eagle and bull.
These creatures represent the four seasons, as well as the four elements of Fire, Air, Water and Earth. Their presence implies that they are the cornerstones of a balanced life. Man. The blond-haired man represents the astrological sign of Aquarius, winter season and the element Air. Lion. The Lion represents Leo, summer and fire. Eagle. The Eagle represents Scorpio, autumn and water.
Bull. The Bull represents Taurus, spring and earth. What is The Meaning of The Blue Background?
The blue background is the cosmic mind or ‘Universe’ as it has come to be known in the New Age. The dancer is able to manipulate this realm easily with her two wands.
karinastarot.com/world-symbols/
Furthermore, we can locate similar attributes to Magdalene from apocryphal sources as well as the writings of Origen. In the apocryphal Pistis Sophia, Magdalene is the sole recipient of Christ’s gnosis, rather than Peter and the other disciples. Christ says, “Well done, Mary. You are more blessed than all women on earth, because you will be the fullness of fullnesses and the completion of completions.”17Although this apocryphal account could not have been known to people during the Renaissance, it reveals that even within the early Christian communities there was a holiness attributed to Magdalene that transcended all others. Yet the Gnostic contempt for materiality seems to clash with the embrace of dualism during the Renaissance. This dualism can be found in Origen’s writings, however. In his commentary on the Song of Songs, he allegorically reads the bride as the Christian church. The bride anoints her lover with an ointment; Origen connects this with the scriptural account of Mary Magdalene anointing Christ. He interprets the line spoken by the bride, “I am dark but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 1:5), as follows: “She has repented of her sins...beauty is the gift conversion has bestowed; that is the reason she is hymned as beautiful. She is called black, however, because she has not yet purged of every stain of sin, she has not yet been washed unto salvation, nevertheless she does not stay dark-hued, she is becoming white.” The dualism of black/evil and white/good is unfortunate, but the connection between the Bride of the Song of Songs and Magdalene reinforces her movement away from sin into penitence, and her positive association with the Church and Christ. The sexual language employed in the Song of Songs has always been difficult for commentators; however we see that when Magdalene is associated with the Bride, the sexuality is compounded with Magdalene’s penitence, in the same way we’ve seen in Renaissance painting.
The portrayals of Magdalene’s assumption into heaven connect us back to the Tarot. Mrs. Jameson observes, dryly, that Italian paintings of Magdalene’s assumption began “to recall the idea of a Venus Meretrix.”19 Let us consider Giovanni Lanfranco’s La maddalenan portata in cielo, (fig. IX) and Sandro Botticelli’s Birth of Venus (fig. X). Jameson is quite correct in her observation, despite her negativity towards this shift. In the Lanfranco, Magdalene’s hair barely covers her nude body as she is borne aloft by three putti. She holds out her hands at an angle, and below her is the world’s expanse of mountains, lakes, and forests. It is sexual and chaste, physical and divine. Her figure is very much the Platonic divine love, the ideal Venus. In some of the Assumptions, she is al
A selection of mixed media works by Diane Kramer
aka She wolf
Works are based in intuition.
If interested please see my profile page for more information.
To see all the calendars click
www.redbubble.com/people/studiokramer/collections/111541-...
Intuitions - by Jacqueline Damon.
artist's brief: Lighthouses have guided many past hazards. Our intuitions guide us past life's dangers and wrong turns. This transparent lighthouse is here but not obvious. How do we learn to honour and listen to our own intuitive warning system? Do we have the courage needed to pay attention to what we can't see.
Swell Sculpture Festival
This quote is from Henri Poincare, who was a French mathematician, theoretical physicist, engineer, and a philosopher of science.
withart x TAOP The Act of Painting "INTUITION" (Works on Paper)
Moerenuma Park, Sapporo, Hokkaido
2022.09.07-16
withart x TAOP The Act of Painting "直感" (紙の作品)
モエレ沼公園 札幌 北海道
2022.09.07-16
the Exhibit will be a continuation of my mixed media work- rooted in intuition.
I will be including some of the work from the first series as part of its exhibit history. I feel it is important to include past and new work as it all stems from same source of inspiration and mediums.
All in the family-
Please, if any of you are in the area or can come....
please do!
Mark it on your calendars.
thank you for your visits and for your friendships!
withart x TAOP The Act of Painting "INTUITION" (Works on Paper)
Moerenuma Park, Sapporo, Hokkaido
2022.09.07-16
withart x TAOP The Act of Painting "直感" (紙の作品)
モエレ沼公園 札幌 北海道
2022.09.07-16
Jay Maisel talked a lot about having fun with photography. If we are not enjoying it why are we doing it? He also encouraged creativity and invention, seeing the same old thing in a completely new way. He said "focus on not being focused, let go!" He suggested that we daydream, doodle, and play. It was quite fun and invigorating to go out shooting with this mindset.
View the Entire - Jay Maisel Workshop Set
View my - Most Interesting according to Flickr
This is my second attempt on this theme.
I have turned the second dog around so he is looking with the majority of the group and made him larger in the frame. I have also put space between the photographer and the edge of the frame.
I have called it, "Intuition" as the woman is looking in the opposite direction, as if to say, "Its behind you"?
I have also added a texture.
The people and the dogs have been squeezed to elongate them to give a, "Lowry" effect.
1. The Mind-Body Problem and the History of Dualism
1.1 The Mind-Body Problem
The mind-body problem is the problem: what is the relationship between mind and body? Or alternatively: what is the relationship between mental properties and physical properties?
Humans have (or seem to have) both physical properties and mental properties. People have (or seem to have)the sort of properties attributed in the physical sciences. These physical properties include size, weight, shape, colour, motion through space and time, etc. But they also have (or seem to have) mental properties, which we do not attribute to typical physical objects These properties involve consciousness (including perceptual experience, emotional experience, and much else), intentionality (including beliefs, desires, and much else), and they are possessed by a subject or a self. Physical properties are public, in the sense that they are, in principle, equally observable by anyone. Some physical properties – like those of an electron – are not directly observable at all, but they are equally available to all, to the same degree, with scientific equipment and techniques. The same is not true of mental properties. I may be able to tell that you are in pain by your behaviour, but only you can feel it directly. Similarly, you just know how something looks to you, and I can only surmise. Conscious mental events are private to the subject, who has a privileged access to them of a kind no-one has to the physical. The mind-body problem concerns the relationship between these two sets of properties. The mind-body problem breaks down into a number of components. The ontological question: what are mental states and what are physical states? Is one class a subclass of the other, so that all mental states are physical, or vice versa? Or are mental states and physical states entirely distinct?
The causal question: do physical states influence mental states? Do mental states influence physical states? If so, how?
Different aspects of the mind-body problem arise for different aspects of the mental, such as consciousness, intentionality, the self. The problem of consciousness: what is consciousness? How is it related to the brain and the body? The problem of intentionality: what is intentionality? How is it related to the brain and the body? The problem of the self: what is the self? How is it related to the brain and the body? Other aspects of the mind-body problem arise for aspects of the physical. For example:
The problem of embodiment: what is it for the mind to be housed in a body? What is it for a body to belong to a particular subject?
The seemingly intractable nature of these problems have given rise to many different philosophical views.
Materialist views say that, despite appearances to the contrary, mental states are just physical states. Behaviourism, functionalism, mind-brain identity theory and the computational theory of mind are examples of how materialists attempt to explain how this can be so. The most common factor in such theories is the attempt to explicate the nature of mind and consciousness in terms of their ability to directly or indirectly modify behaviour, but there are versions of materialism that try to tie the mental to the physical without explicitly explaining the mental in terms of its behaviour-modifying role. The latter are often grouped together under the label ‘non-reductive physicalism’, though this label is itself rendered elusive because of the controversial nature of the term ‘reduction’.
Idealist views say that physical states are really mental. This is because the physical world is an empirical world and, as such, it is the intersubjective product of our collective experience.
Dualist views (the subject of this entry) say that the mental and the physical are both real and neither can be assimilated to the other. For the various forms that dualism can take and the associated problems, see below.
In sum, we can say that there is a mind-body problem because both consciousness and thought, broadly construed, seem very different from anything physical and there is no convincing consensus on how to build a satisfactorily unified picture of creatures possessed of both a mind and a body.
Other entries which concern aspects of the mind-body problem include (among many others): behaviorism, consciousness, eliminative materialism, epiphenomenalism, functionalism, identity theory, intentionality, mental causation, neutral monism, and physicalism.
1.2 History of dualism
In dualism, ‘mind’ is contrasted with ‘body’, but at different times, different aspects of the mind have been the centre of attention. In the classical and mediaeval periods, it was the intellect that was thought to be most obviously resistant to a materialistic account: from Descartes on, the main stumbling block to materialist monism was supposed to be ‘consciousness’, of which phenomenal consciousness or sensation came to be considered as the paradigm instance.
The classical emphasis originates in Plato’s Phaedo. Plato believed that the true substances are not physical bodies, which are ephemeral, but the eternal Forms of which bodies are imperfect copies. These Forms not only make the world possible, they also make it intelligible, because they perform the role of universals, or what Frege called ‘concepts’. It is their connection with intelligibility that is relevant to the philosophy of mind. Because Forms are the grounds of intelligibility, they are what the intellect must grasp in the process of understanding. In Phaedo Plato presents a variety of arguments for the immortality of the soul, but the one that is relevant for our purposes is that the intellect is immaterial because Forms are immaterial and intellect must have an affinity with the Forms it apprehends (78b4–84b8). This affinity is so strong that the soul strives to leave the body in which it is imprisoned and to dwell in the realm of Forms. It may take many reincarnations before this is achieved. Plato’s dualism is not, therefore, simply a doctrine in the philosophy of mind, but an integral part of his whole metaphysics.
One problem with Plato’s dualism was that, though he speaks of the soul as imprisoned in the body, there is no clear account of what binds a particular soul to a particular body. Their difference in nature makes the union a mystery.
Aristotle did not believe in Platonic Forms, existing independently of their instances. Aristotelian forms (the capital ‘F’ has disappeared with their standing as autonomous entities) are the natures and properties of things and exist embodied in those things. This enabled Aristotle to explain the union of body and soul by saying that the soul is the form of the body. This means that a particular person’s soul is no more than his nature as a human being. Because this seems to make the soul into a property of the body, it led many interpreters, both ancient and modern, to interpret his theory as materialistic. The interpretation of Aristotle’s philosophy of mind – and, indeed, of his whole doctrine of form – remains as live an issue today as it was immediately after his death (Robinson 1983 and 1991; Nussbaum 1984; Rorty and Nussbaum, eds, 1992). Nevertheless, the text makes it clear that Aristotle believed that the intellect, though part of the soul, differs from other faculties in not having a bodily organ. His argument for this constitutes a more tightly argued case than Plato’s for the immateriality of thought and, hence, for a kind of dualism. He argued that the intellect must be immaterial because if it were material it could not receive all forms. Just as the eye, because of its particular physical nature, is sensitive to light but not to sound, and the ear to sound and not to light, so, if the intellect were in a physical organ it could be sensitive only to a restricted range of physical things; but this is not the case, for we can think about any kind of material object (De Anima III,4; 429a10–b9). As it does not have a material organ, its activity must be essentially immaterial.
It is common for modern Aristotelians, who otherwise have a high view of Aristotle’s relevance to modern philosophy, to treat this argument as being of purely historical interest, and not essential to Aristotle’s system as a whole. They emphasize that he was not a ‘Cartesian’ dualist, because the intellect is an aspect of the soul and the soul is the form of the body, not a separate substance. Kenny (1989) argues that Aristotle’s theory of mind as form gives him an account similar to Ryle (1949), for it makes the soul equivalent to the dispositions possessed by a living body. This ‘anti-Cartesian’ approach to Aristotle arguably ignores the fact that, for Aristotle, the form is the substance.
These issues might seem to be of purely historical interest. But we shall see in below, in section 4.5, that this is not so.
The identification of form and substance is a feature of Aristotle’s system that Aquinas effectively exploits in this context, identifying soul, intellect and form, and treating them as a substance. (See, for example, Aquinas (1912), Part I, questions 75 and 76.) But though the form (and, hence, the intellect with which it is identical) are the substance of the human person, they are not the person itself. Aquinas says that when one addresses prayers to a saint – other than the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is believed to retain her body in heaven and is, therefore, always a complete person – one should say, not, for example, ‘Saint Peter pray for us’, but ‘soul of Saint Peter pray for us’. The soul, though an immaterial substance, is the person only when united with its body. Without the body, those aspects of its personal memory that depend on images (which are held to be corporeal) will be lost.(See Aquinas (1912), Part I, question 89.)
The more modern versions of dualism have their origin in Descartes’ Meditations, and in the debate that was consequent upon Descartes’ theory. Descartes was a substance dualist. He believed that there were two kinds of substance: matter, of which the essential property is that it is spatially extended; and mind, of which the essential property is that it thinks. Descartes’ conception of the relation between mind and body was quite different from that held in the Aristotelian tradition. For Aristotle, there is no exact science of matter. How matter behaves is essentially affected by the form that is in it. You cannot combine just any matter with any form – you cannot make a knife out of butter, nor a human being out of paper – so the nature of the matter is a necessary condition for the nature of the substance. But the nature of the substance does not follow from the nature of its matter alone: there is no ‘bottom up’ account of substances. Matter is a determinable made determinate by form. This was how Aristotle thought that he was able to explain the connection of soul to body: a particular soul exists as the organizing principle in a particular parcel of matter.
The belief in the relative indeterminacy of matter is one reason for Aristotle’s rejection of atomism. If matter is atomic, then it is already a collection of determinate objects in its own right, and it becomes natural to regard the properties of macroscopic substances as mere summations of the natures of the atoms.
Although, unlike most of his fashionable contemporaries and immediate successors, Descartes was not an atomist, he was, like the others, a mechanist about the properties of matter. Bodies are machines that work according to their own laws. Except where there are minds interfering with it, matter proceeds deterministically, in its own right. Where there are minds requiring to influence bodies, they must work by ‘pulling levers’ in a piece of machinery that already has its own laws of operation. This raises the question of where those ‘levers’ are in the body. Descartes opted for the pineal gland, mainly because it is not duplicated on both sides of the brain, so it is a candidate for having a unique, unifying function.
The main uncertainty that faced Descartes and his contemporaries, however, was not where interaction took place, but how two things so different as thought and extension could interact at all. This would be particularly mysterious if one had an impact view of causal interaction, as would anyone influenced by atomism, for whom the paradigm of causation is like two billiard balls cannoning off one another.
Various of Descartes’ disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, concluded that all mind-body interactions required the direct intervention of God. The appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such intervention, not real causes. Now it would be convenient to think that occasionalists held that all causation was natural except for that between mind and body. In fact they generalized their conclusion and treated all causation as directly dependent on God. Why this was so, we cannot discuss here.
Descartes’ conception of a dualism of substances came under attack from the more radical empiricists, who found it difficult to attach sense to the concept of substance at all. Locke, as a moderate empiricist, accepted that there were both material and immaterial substances. Berkeley famously rejected material substance, because he rejected all existence outside the mind. In his early Notebooks, he toyed with the idea of rejecting immaterial substance, because we could have no idea of it, and reducing the self to a collection of the ‘ideas’ that constituted its contents. Finally, he decided that the self, conceived as something over and above the ideas of which it was aware, was essential for an adequate understanding of the human person. Although the self and its acts are not presented to consciousness as objects of awareness, we are obliquely aware of them simply by dint of being active subjects. Hume rejected such claims, and proclaimed the self to be nothing more than a concatenation of its ephemeral contents.
In fact, Hume criticised the whole conception of substance for lacking in empirical content: when you search for the owner of the properties that make up a substance, you find nothing but further properties. Consequently, the mind is, he claimed, nothing but a ‘bundle’ or ‘heap’ of impressions and ideas – that is, of particular mental states or events, without an owner. This position has been labelled bundle dualism, and it is a special case of a general bundle theory of substance, according to which objects in general are just organised collections of properties. The problem for the Humean is to explain what binds the elements in the bundle together. This is an issue for any kind of substance, but for material bodies the solution seems fairly straightforward: the unity of a physical bundle is constituted by some form of causal interaction between the elements in the bundle. For the mind, mere causal connection is not enough; some further relation of co-consciousness is required. We shall see in 5.2.1 that it is problematic whether one can treat such a relation as more primitive than the notion of belonging to a subject.
One should note the following about Hume’s theory. His bundle theory is a theory about the nature of the unity of the mind. As a theory about this unity, it is not necessarily dualist. Parfit (1970, 1984) and Shoemaker (1984, ch. 2), for example, accept it as physicalists. In general, physicalists will accept it unless they wish to ascribe the unity to the brain or the organism as a whole. Before the bundle theory can be dualist one must accept property dualism, for more about which, see the next section.
A crisis in the history of dualism came, however, with the growing popularity of mechanism in science in the nineteenth century. According to the mechanist, the world is, as it would now be expressed, ‘closed under physics’. This means that everything that happens follows from and is in accord with the laws of physics. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in the physical world by the mind in the way that interactionism seems to require. According to the mechanist, the conscious mind is an epiphenomenon (a notion given general currency by T. H. Huxley 1893): that is, it is a by-product of the physical system which has no influence back on it. In this way, the facts of consciousness are acknowledged but the integrity of physical science is preserved. However, many philosophers found it implausible to claim such things as the following; the pain that I have when you hit me, the visual sensations I have when I see the ferocious lion bearing down on me or the conscious sense of understanding I have when I hear your argument – all have nothing directly to do with the way I respond. It is very largely due to the need to avoid this counterintuitiveness that we owe the concern of twentieth century philosophy to devise a plausible form of materialist monism. But, although dualism has been out of fashion in psychology since the advent of behaviourism (Watson 1913) and in philosophy since Ryle (1949), the argument is by no means over. Some distinguished neurologists, such as Sherrington (1940) and Eccles (Popper and Eccles 1977) have continued to defend dualism as the only theory that can preserve the data of consciousness. Amongst mainstream philosophers, discontent with physicalism led to a modest revival of property dualism in the last decade of the twentieth century. At least some of the reasons for this should become clear below.
2. Varieties of Dualism: Ontology
There are various ways of dividing up kinds of dualism. One natural way is in terms of what sorts of things one chooses to be dualistic about. The most common categories lighted upon for these purposes are substance and property, giving one substance dualism and property dualism. There is, however, an important third category, namely predicate dualism. As this last is the weakest theory, in the sense that it claims least, I shall begin by characterizing it.
2.1 Predicate dualism
Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates. For a mental predicate to be reducible, there would be bridging laws connecting types of psychological states to types of physical ones in such a way that the use of the mental predicate carried no information that could not be expressed without it. An example of what we believe to be a true type reduction outside psychology is the case of water, where water is always H2O: something is water if and only if it is H2O. If one were to replace the word ‘water’ by ‘H2O’, it is plausible to say that one could convey all the same information. But the terms in many of the special sciences (that is, any science except physics itself) are not reducible in this way. Not every hurricane or every infectious disease, let alone every devaluation of the currency or every coup d’etat has the same constitutive structure. These states are defined more by what they do than by their composition or structure. Their names are classified as functional terms rather than natural kind terms. It goes with this that such kinds of state are multiply realizable; that is, they may be constituted by different kinds of physical structures under different circumstances. Because of this, unlike in the case of water and H2O, one could not replace these terms by some more basic physical description and still convey the same information. There is no particular description, using the language of physics or chemistry, that would do the work of the word ‘hurricane’, in the way that ‘H2O’ would do the work of ‘water’. It is widely agreed that many, if not all, psychological states are similarly irreducible, and so psychological predicates are not reducible to physical descriptions and one has predicate dualism. (The classic source for irreducibility in the special sciences in general is Fodor (1974), and for irreducibility in the philosophy of mind, Davidson (1971).)
2.2 Property Dualism
Whereas predicate dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of predicates in our language, property dualism says that there are two essentially different kinds of property out in the world. Property dualism can be seen as a step stronger than predicate dualism. Although the predicate ‘hurricane’ is not equivalent to any single description using the language of physics, we believe that each individual hurricane is nothing but a collection of physical atoms behaving in a certain way: one need have no more than the physical atoms, with their normal physical properties, following normal physical laws, for there to be a hurricane. One might say that we need more than the language of physics to describe and explain the weather, but we do not need more than its ontology. There is token identity between each individual hurricane and a mass of atoms, even if there is no type identity between hurricanes as kinds and some particular structure of atoms as a kind. Genuine property dualism occurs when, even at the individual level, the ontology of physics is not sufficient to constitute what is there. The irreducible language is not just another way of describing what there is, it requires that there be something more there than was allowed for in the initial ontology. Until the early part of the twentieth century, it was common to think that biological phenomena (‘life’) required property dualism (an irreducible ‘vital force’), but nowadays the special physical sciences other than psychology are generally thought to involve only predicate dualism. In the case of mind, property dualism is defended by those who argue that the qualitative nature of consciousness is not merely another way of categorizing states of the brain or of behaviour, but a genuinely emergent phenomenon.
2.3 Substance Dualism
There are two important concepts deployed in this notion. One is that of substance, the other is the dualism of these substances. A substance is characterized by its properties, but, according to those who believe in substances, it is more than the collection of the properties it possesses, it is the thing which possesses them. So the mind is not just a collection of thoughts, but is that which thinks, an immaterial substance over and above its immaterial states. Properties are the properties of objects. If one is a property dualist, one may wonder what kinds of objects possess the irreducible or immaterial properties in which one believes. One can use a neutral expression and attribute them to persons, but, until one has an account of person, this is not explanatory. One might attribute them to human beings qua animals, or to the brains of these animals. Then one will be holding that these immaterial properties are possessed by what is otherwise a purely material thing. But one may also think that not only mental states are immaterial, but that the subject that possesses them must also be immaterial. Then one will be a dualist about that to which mental states and properties belong as well about the properties themselves. Now one might try to think of these subjects as just bundles of the immaterial states. This is Hume’s view. But if one thinks that the owner of these states is something quite over and above the states themselves, and is immaterial, as they are, one will be a substance dualist.
Substance dualism is also often dubbed ‘Cartesian dualism’, but some substance dualists are keen to distinguish their theories from Descartes’s. E. J. Lowe, for example, is a substance dualist, in the following sense. He holds that a normal human being involves two substances, one a body and the other a person. The latter is not, however, a purely mental substance that can be defined in terms of thought or consciousness alone, as Descartes claimed. But persons and their bodies have different identity conditions and are both substances, so there are two substances essentially involved in a human being, hence this is a form of substance dualism. Lowe (2006) claims that his theory is close to P. F. Strawson’s (1959), whilst admitting that Strawson would not have called it substance dualism.
3. Varieties of Dualism: Interaction
If mind and body are different realms, in the way required by either property or substance dualism, then there arises the question of how they are related. Common sense tells us that they interact: thoughts and feelings are at least sometimes caused by bodily events and at least sometimes themselves give rise to bodily responses. I shall now consider briefly the problems for interactionism, and its main rivals, epiphenomenalism and parallelism.
3.1 Interactionism
Interactionism is the view that mind and body – or mental events and physical events – causally influence each other. That this is so is one of our common-sense beliefs, because it appears to be a feature of everyday experience. The physical world influences my experience through my senses, and I often react behaviourally to those experiences. My thinking, too, influences my speech and my actions. There is, therefore, a massive natural prejudice in favour of interactionism. It has been claimed, however, that it faces serious problems (some of which were anticipated in section 1).
The simplest objection to interaction is that, in so far as mental properties, states or substances are of radically different kinds from each other, they lack that communality necessary for interaction. It is generally agreed that, in its most naive form, this objection to interactionism rests on a ‘billiard ball’ picture of causation: if all causation is by impact, how can the material and the immaterial impact upon each other? But if causation is either by a more ethereal force or energy or only a matter of constant conjunction, there would appear to be no problem in principle with the idea of interaction of mind and body.
Even if there is no objection in principle, there appears to be a conflict between interactionism and some basic principles of physical science. For example, if causal power was flowing in and out of the physical system, energy would not be conserved, and the conservation of energy is a fundamental scientific law. Various responses have been made to this. One suggestion is that it might be possible for mind to influence the distribution of energy, without altering its quantity. (See Averill and Keating 1981). Another response is to challenge the relevance of the conservation principle in this context. The conservation principle states that ‘in a causally isolated system the total amount of energy will remain constant’. Whereas ‘[t]he interactionist denies…that the human body is an isolated system’, so the principle is irrelevant (Larmer (1986), 282: this article presents a good brief survey of the options). This approach has been termed conditionality, namely the view that conservation is conditional on the physical system being closed, that is, that nothing non-physical is interacting or interfering with it, and, of course, the interactionist claims that this condition is, trivially, not met. That conditionality is the best line for the dualist to take, and that other approaches do not work, is defended in Pitts (2019) and Cucu and Pitts (2019). This, they claim, makes the plausibility of interactionism an empirical matter which only close investigation on the fine operation of the brain could hope to settle. Cucu, in a separate article (2018), claims to find critical neuronal events which do not have sufficient physical explanation.This claim clearly needs further investigation.
Robins Collins (2011) has claimed that the appeal to conservation by opponents of interactionism is something of a red herring because conservation principles are not ubiquitous in physics. He argues that energy is not conserved in general relativity, in quantum theory, or in the universe taken as a whole. Why then, should we insist on it in mind-brain interaction?
Most discussion of interactionism takes place in the context of the assumption that it is incompatible with the world’s being ‘closed under physics’. This is a very natural assumption, but it is not justified if causal overdetermination of behaviour is possible. There could then be a complete physical cause of behaviour, and a mental one. The strongest intuitive objection against overdetermination is clearly stated by Mills (1996: 112), who is himself a defender of overdetermination.
For X to be a cause of Y, X must contribute something to Y. The only way a purely mental event could contribute to a purely physical one would be to contribute some feature not already determined by a purely physical event. But if physical closure is true, there is no feature of the purely physical effect that is not contributed by the purely physical cause. Hence interactionism violates physical closure after all.
Mills says that this argument is invalid, because a physical event can have features not explained by the event which is its sufficient cause. For example, “the rock’s hitting the window is causally sufficient for the window’s breaking, and the window’s breaking has the feature of being the third window-breaking in the house this year; but the facts about prior window-breakings, rather than the rock’s hitting the window, are what cause this window-breaking to have this feature.”
The opponent of overdetermination could perhaps reply that his principle applies, not to every feature of events, but to a subgroup – say, intrinsic features, not merely relational or comparative ones. It is this kind of feature that the mental event would have to cause, but physical closure leaves no room for this. These matters are still controversial.
The problem with closure of physics may be radically altered if physical laws are indeterministic, as quantum theory seems to assert. If physical laws are deterministic, then any interference from outside would lead to a breach of those laws. But if they are indeterministic, might not interference produce a result that has a probability greater than zero, and so be consistent with the laws? This way, one might have interaction yet preserve a kind of nomological closure, in the sense that no laws are infringed. Because it involves assessing the significance and consequences of quantum theory, this is a difficult matter for the non-physicist to assess. Some argue that indeterminacy manifests itself only on the subatomic level, being cancelled out by the time one reaches even very tiny macroscopic objects: and human behaviour is a macroscopic phenomenon. Others argue that the structure of the brain is so finely tuned that minute variations could have macroscopic effects, rather in the way that, according to ‘chaos theory’, the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in China might affect the weather in New York. (For discussion of this, see Eccles (1980), (1987), and Popper and Eccles (1977).) Still others argue that quantum indeterminacy manifests itself directly at a high level, when acts of observation collapse the wave function, suggesting that the mind may play a direct role in affecting the state of the world (Hodgson 1988; Stapp 1993).
3.2 Epiphenomenalism
If the reality of property dualism is not to be denied, but the problem of how the immaterial is to affect the material is to be avoided, then epiphenomenalism may seem to be the answer. According to this theory, mental events are caused by physical events, but have no causal influence on the physical. I have introduced this theory as if its point were to avoid the problem of how two different categories of thing might interact. In fact, it is, at best, an incomplete solution to this problem. If it is mysterious how the non-physical can have it in its nature to influence the physical, it ought to be equally mysterious how the physical can have it in its nature to produce something non-physical. But that this latter is what occurs is an essential claim of epiphenomenalism. (For development of this point, see Green (2003), 149–51). In fact, epiphenomenalism is more effective as a way of saving the autonomy of the physical (the world as ‘closed under physics’) than as a contribution to avoiding the need for the physical and non-physical to have causal commerce.
There are at least three serious problems for epiphenomenalism. First, as I indicated in section 1, it is profoundly counterintuitive. What could be more apparent than that it is the pain that I feel that makes me cry, or the visual experience of the boulder rolling towards me that makes me run away? At least one can say that epiphenomenalism is a fall-back position: it tends to be adopted because other options are held to be unacceptable.
The second problem is that, if mental states do nothing, there is no reason why they should have evolved. This objection ties in with the first: the intuition there was that conscious states clearly modify our behaviour in certain ways, such as avoiding danger, and it is plain that they are very useful from an evolutionary perspective.
Frank Jackson (1982) replies to this objection by saying that it is the brain state associated with pain that evolves for this reason: the sensation is a by-product. Evolution is full of useless or even harmful by-products. For example, polar bears have evolved thick coats to keep them warm, even though this has the damaging side effect that they are heavy to carry. Jackson’s point is true in general, but does not seem to apply very happily to the case of mind. The heaviness of the polar bear’s coat follows directly from those properties and laws which make it warm: one could not, in any simple way, have one without the other. But with mental states, dualistically conceived, the situation is quite the opposite. The laws of physical nature which, the mechanist says, make brain states cause behaviour, in no way explain why brain states should give rise to conscious ones. The laws linking mind and brain are what Feigl (1958) calls nomological danglers, that is, brute facts added onto the body of integrated physical law. Why there should have been by-products of that kind seems to have no evolutionary explanation.
The third problem concerns the rationality of belief in epiphenomenalism, via its effect on the problem of other minds. It is natural to say that I know that I have mental states because I experience them directly. But how can I justify my belief that others have them? The simple version of the ‘argument from analogy’ says that I can extrapolate from my own case. I know that certain of my mental states are correlated with certain pieces of behaviour, and so I infer that similar behaviour in others is also accompanied by similar mental states. Many hold that this is a weak argument because it is induction from one instance, namely, my own. The argument is stronger if it is not a simple induction but an ‘argument to the best explanation’. I seem to know from my own case that mental events can be the explanation of behaviour, and I know of no other candidate explanation for typical human behaviour, so I postulate the same explanation for the behaviour of others. But if epiphenomenalism is true, my mental states do not explain my behaviour and there is a physical explanation for the behaviour of others. It is explanatorily redundant to postulate such states for others. I know, by introspection, that I have them, but is it not just as likely that I alone am subject to this quirk of nature, rather than that everyone is?
For more detailed treatment and further reading on this topic, see the entry epiphenomenalism.
3.3 Parallelism
The epiphenomenalist wishes to preserve the integrity of physical science and the physical world, and appends those mental features that he cannot reduce. The parallelist preserves both realms intact, but denies all causal interaction between them. They run in harmony with each other, but not because their mutual influence keeps each other in line. That they should behave as if they were interacting would seem to be a bizarre coincidence. This is why parallelism has tended to be adopted only by those – like Leibniz – who believe in a pre-established harmony, set in place by God. The progression of thought can be seen as follows. Descartes believes in a more or less natural form of interaction between immaterial mind and material body. Malebranche thought that this was impossible naturally, and so required God to intervene specifically on each occasion on which interaction was required. Leibniz decided that God might as well set things up so that they always behaved as if they were interacting, without particular intervention being required. Outside such a theistic framework, the theory is incredible. Even within such a framework, one might well sympathise with Berkeley’s instinct that once genuine interaction is ruled out one is best advised to allow that God creates the physical world directly, within the mental realm itself, as a construct out of experience.
4. Arguments for Dualism
4.1 The Knowledge Argument Against Physicalism
One category of arguments for dualism is constituted by the standard objections against physicalism. Prime examples are those based on the existence of qualia, the most important of which is the so-called ‘knowledge argument’. Because this argument has its own entry (see the entry qualia: the knowledge argument), I shall deal relatively briefly with it here. One should bear in mind, however, that all arguments against physicalism are also arguments for the irreducible and hence immaterial nature of the mind and, given the existence of the material world, are thus arguments for dualism.
The knowledge argument asks us to imagine a future scientist who has lacked a certain sensory modality from birth, but who has acquired a perfect scientific understanding of how this modality operates in others. This scientist – call him Harpo – may have been born stone deaf, but become the world’s greatest expert on the machinery of hearing: he knows everything that there is to know within the range of the physical and behavioural sciences about hearing. Suppose that Harpo, thanks to developments in neurosurgery, has an operation which finally enables him to hear. It is suggested that he will then learn something he did not know before, which can be expressed as what it is like to hear, or the qualitative or phenomenal nature of sound. These qualitative features of experience are generally referred to as qualia. If Harpo learns something new, he did not know everything before. He knew all the physical facts before. So what he learns on coming to hear – the facts about the nature of experience or the nature of qualia – are non-physical. This establishes at least a state or property dualism. (See Jackson 1982; Robinson 1982.)
There are at least two lines of response to this popular but controversial argument. First is the ‘ability’ response. According to this, Harpo does not acquire any new factual knowledge, only ‘knowledge how’, in the form of the ability to respond directly to sounds, which he could not do before. This essentially behaviouristic account is exactly what the intuition behind the argument is meant to overthrow. Putting ourselves in Harpo’s position, it is meant to be obvious that what he acquires is knowledge of what something is like, not just how to do something. Such appeals to intuition are always, of course, open to denial by those who claim not to share the intuition. Some ability theorists seem to blur the distinction between knowing what something is like and knowing how to do something, by saying that the ability Harpo acquires is to imagine or remember the nature of sound. In this case, what he acquires the ability to do involves the representation to himself of what the thing is like. But this conception of representing to oneself, especially in the form of imagination, seems sufficiently close to producing in oneself something very like a sensory experience that it only defers the problem: until one has a physicalist gloss on what constitutes such representations as those involved in conscious memory and imagination, no progress has been made.
The other line of response is to argue that, although Harpo’s new knowledge is factual, it is not knowledge of a new fact. Rather, it is new way of grasping something that he already knew. He does not realise this, because the concepts employed to capture experience (such as ‘looks red’ or ‘sounds C-sharp’) are similar to demonstratives, and demonstrative concepts lack the kind of descriptive content that allow one to infer what they express from other pieces of information that one may already possess. A total scientific knowledge of the world would not enable you to say which time was ‘now’ or which place was ‘here’. Demonstrative concepts pick something out without saying anything extra about it. Similarly, the scientific knowledge that Harpo originally possessed did not enable him to anticipate what it would be like to re-express some parts of that knowledge using the demonstrative concepts that only experience can give one. The knowledge, therefore, appears to be genuinely new, whereas only the mode of conceiving it is novel.
Proponents of the epistemic argument respond that it is problematic to maintain both that the qualitative nature of experience can be genuinely novel, and that the quality itself be the same as some property already grasped scientifically: does not the experience’s phenomenal nature, which the demonstrative concepts capture, constitute a property in its own right? Another way to put this is to say that phenomenal concepts are not pure demonstratives, like ‘here’ and ‘now’, or ‘this’ and ‘that’, because they do capture a genuine qualitative content. Furthermore, experiencing does not seem to consist simply in exercising a particular kind of concept, demonstrative or not. When Harpo has his new form of experience, he does not simply exercise a new concept; he also grasps something new – the phenomenal quality – with that concept. How decisive these considerations are, remains controversial.
4.2 The Argument from Predicate Dualism to Property Dualism
I said above that predicate dualism might seem to have no ontological consequences, because it is concerned only with the different way things can be described within the contexts of the different sciences, not with any real difference in the things themselves. This, however, can be disputed.
The argument from predicate to property dualism moves in two steps, both controversial. The first claims that the irreducible special sciences, which are the sources of irreducible predicates, are not wholly objective in the way that physics is, but depend for their subject matter upon interest-relative perspectives on the world. This means that they, and the predicates special to them, depend on the existence of minds and mental states, for only minds have interest-relative perspectives. The second claim is that psychology – the science of the mental – is itself an irreducible special science, and so it, too, presupposes the existence of the mental. Mental predicates therefore presuppose the mentality that creates them: mentality cannot consist simply in the applicability of the predicates themselves.
First, let us consider the claim that the special sciences are not fully objective, but are interest-relative.
No-one would deny, of course, that the very same subject matter or ‘hunk of reality’ can be described in irreducibly different ways and it still be just that subject matter or piece of reality. A mass of matter could be characterized as a hurricane, or as a collection of chemical elements, or as mass of sub-atomic particles, and there be only the one mass of matter. But such different explanatory frameworks seem to presuppose different perspectives on that subject matter.
This is where basic physics, and perhaps those sciences reducible to basic physics, differ from irreducible special sciences. On a realist construal, the completed physics cuts physical reality up at its ultimate joints: any special science which is nomically strictly reducible to physics also, in virtue of this reduction, it could be argued, cuts reality at its joints, but not at its minutest ones. If scientific realism is true, a completed physics will tell one how the world is, independently of any special interest or concern: it is just how the world is. It would seem that, by contrast, a science which is not nomically reducible to physics does not take its legitimation from the underlying reality in this direct way. Rather, such a science is formed from the collaboration between, on the one hand, objective similarities in the world and, on the other, perspectives and interests of those who devise the science. The concept of hurricane is brought to bear from the perspective of creatures concerned about the weather. Creatures totally indifferent to the weather would have no reason to take the real patterns of phenomena that hurricanes share as constituting a single kind of thing. With the irreducible special sciences, there is an issue of salience , which involves a subjective component: a selection of phenomena with a certain teleology in mind is required before their structures or patterns are reified. The entities of metereology or biology are, in this respect, rather like Gestalt phenomena.
Even accepting this, why might it be thought that the perspectivality of the special sciences leads to a genuine property dualism in the philosophy of mind? It might seem to do so for the following reason. Having a perspective on the world, perceptual or intellectual, is a psychological state. So the irreducible special sciences presuppose the existence of mind. If one is to avoid an ontological dualism, the mind that has this perspective must be part of the physical reality on which it has its perspective. But psychology, it seems to be almost universally agreed, is one of those special sciences that is not reducible to physics, so if its subject matter is to be physical, it itself presupposes a perspective and, hence, the existence of a mind to see matter as psychological. If this mind is physical and irreducible, it presupposes mind to see it as such. We seem to be in a vicious circle or regress.
We can now understand the motivation for full-blown reduction. A true basic physics represents the world as it is in itself, and if the special sciences were reducible, then the existence of their ontologies would make sense as expressions of the physical, not just as ways of seeing or interpreting it. They could be understood ‘from the bottom up’, not from top down. The irreducibility of the special sciences creates no problem for the dualist, who sees the explanatory endeavor of the physical sciences as something carried on from a perspective conceptually outside of the physical world. Nor need this worry a physicalist, if he can reduce psychology, for then he could understand ‘from the bottom up’ the acts (with their internal, intentional contents) which created the irreducible ontologies of the other sciences. But psychology is one of the least likely of sciences to be reduced. If psychology cannot be reduced, this line of reasoning leads to real emergence for mental acts and hence to a real dualism for the properties those acts instantiate (Robinson 2003).
4.3 The Modal Argument
There is an argument, which has roots in Descartes (Meditation VI), which is a modal argument for dualism. One might put it as follows:
It is imaginable that one’s mind might exist without one’s body.
therefore
It is conceivable that one’s mind might exist without one’s body.
therefore
It is possible one’s mind might exist without one’s body.
therefore
One’s mind is a different entity from one’s body.
The rationale of the argument is a move from imaginability to real possibility. I include (2) because the notion of conceivability has one foot in the psychological camp, like imaginability, and one in the camp of pure logical possibility and therefore helps in the transition from one to the other.
This argument should be distinguished from a similar ‘conceivability’ argument, often known as the ‘zombie hypothesis’, which claims the imaginability and possibility of my body (or, in some forms, a body physically just like it) existing without there being any conscious states associated with it. (See, for example, Chalmers (1996), 94–9.) This latter argument, if sound, would show that conscious states were something over and above physical states. It is a different argument because the hypothesis that the unaltered body could exist without the mind is not the same as the suggestion that the mind might continue to exist without the body, nor are they trivially equivalent. The zombie argument establishes only property dualism and a property dualist might think disembodied existence inconceivable – for example, if he thought the identity of a mind through time depended on its relation to a body (e.g., Penelhum 1970).
Before Kripke (1972/80), the first challenge to such an argument would have concerned the move from (3) to (4). When philosophers generally believed in contingent identity, that move seemed to them invalid. But nowadays that inference is generally accepted and the issue concerns the relation between imaginability and possibility. No-one would nowadays identify the two (except, perhaps, for certain quasi-realists and anti-realists), but the view that imaginability is a solid test for possibility has been strongly defended. W. D. Hart ((1994), 266), for example, argues that no clear example has been produced such that “one can imagine that p (and tell less imaginative folk a story that enables them to imagine that p) plus a good argument that it is impossible that p. No such counterexamples have been forthcoming…” This claim is at least contentious. There seem to be good arguments that time-travel is incoherent, but every episode of Star-Trek or Doctor Who shows how one can imagine what it might be like were it possible.
It is worth relating the appeal to possibility in this argument to that involved in the more modest, anti-physicalist, zombie argument. The possibility of this hypothesis is also challenged, but all that is necessary for a zombie to be possible is that all and only the things that the physical sciences say about the body be true of such a creature. As the concepts involved in such sciences – e.g., neuron, cell, muscle – seem to make no reference, explicit or implicit, to their association with consciousness, and are defined in purely physical terms in the relevant science texts, there is a very powerful prima facie case for thinking that something could meet the condition of being just like them and lack any connection with consciousness. There is no parallel clear, uncontroversial and regimented account of mental concepts as a whole that fails to invoke, explicitly or implicitly, physical (e.g., behavioural) states.
For an analytical behaviourist the appeal to imaginability made in the argument fails, not because imagination is not a reliable guide to possibility, but because we cannot imagine such a thing, as it is a priori impossible. The impossibility of disembodiment is rather like that of time travel, because it is demonstrable a priori, though only by arguments that are controversial. The argument can only get under way for those philosophers who accept that the issue cannot be settled a priori, so the possibility of the disembodiment that we can imagine is still prima facie open.
A major rationale of those who think that imagination is not a safe indication of possibility, even when such possibility is not eliminable a priori, is that we can imagine that a posteriori necessities might be false – for example, that Hesperus might not be identical to Phosphorus. But if Kripke is correct, that is not a real possibility. Another way of putting this point is that there are many epistemic possibilities which are imaginable because they are epistemic possibilities, but which are not real possibilities. Richard Swinburne (1997, New Appendix C), whilst accepting this argument in general, has interesting reasons for thinking that it cannot apply in the mind-body case. He argues that in cases that involve a posteriori necessities, such as those identities that need discovering, it is because we identify those entities only by their ‘stereotypes’ (that is, by their superficial features observable by the layman) that we can be wrong about their essences. In the case of our experience of ourselves this is not true.
Now it is true that the essence of Hesperus cannot be discovered by a mere thought experiment. That is because what makes Hesperus Hesperus is not the stereotype, but what underlies it. But it does not follow that no one can ever have access to the essence of a substance, but must always rely for identification on a fallible stereotype. One might think that for the person him or herself, while what makes that person that person underlies what is observable to others, it does not underlie what is experienceable by that person, but is given directly in their own self-awareness.
This is a very appealing Cartesian intuition: my identity as the thinking thing that I am is revealed to me in consciousness, it is not something beyond the veil of consciousness. Now it could be replied to this that though I do access myself as a conscious subject, so classifying myself is rather like considering myself qua cyclist. Just as I might never have been a cyclist, I might never have been conscious, if things had gone wrong in my very early life. I am the organism, the animal, which might not have developed to the point of consciousness, and that essence as animal is not revealed to me just by introspection.
But there are vital differences between these cases. A cyclist is explicitly presented as a human being (or creature of some other animal species) cycling: there is no temptation to think of a cyclist as a basic kind of thing in its own right. Consciousness is not presented as a property of something, but as the subject itself. Swinburne’s claim that when we refer to ourselves we are referring to something we think we are directly aware of and not to ‘something we know not what’ that underlies our experience seemingly ‘of ourselves’ has powerful intuitive appeal and could only be overthrown by very forceful arguments. Yet, even if we are not referring primarily to a substrate, but to what is revealed in consciousness, could it not still be the case that there is a necessity stronger than causal connecting this consciousness to something physical? To consider this further we must investigate what the limits are of the possible analogy between cases of the water-H2O kind, and the mind-body relation.
We start from the analogy between the water stereotype – how water presents itself – and how consciousness is given first-personally to the subject. It is plausible to claim that something like water could exist without being H2O, but hardly that it could exist without some underlying nature. There is, however, no reason to deny that this underlying nature could be homogenous with its manifest nature: that is, it would seem to be possible that there is a world in which the water-like stuff is an element, as the ancients thought, and is water-like all the way down. The claim of the proponents of the dualist argument is that this latter kind of situation can be known to be true a priori in the case of the mind: that is, one can tell by introspection that it is not more-than-causally dependent on something of a radically different nature, such as a brain or body. What grounds might one have for thinking that one could tell that a priori?
The only general argument that seem to be available for this would be the principle that, for any two levels of discourse, A and B, they are more-than-causally connected only if one entails the other a priori. And the argument for accepting this principle would be that the relatively uncontroversial cases of a posteriori necessary connections are in fact cases in which one can argue a priori from facts about the microstructure to the manifest facts. In the case of water, for example, it would be claimed that it follows a priori that if there were something with the properties attributed to H2O by chemistry on a micro level, then that thing would possess waterish properties on a macro level. What is established a posteriori is that it is in fact H2O that underlies and explains the waterish properties round here, not something else: the sufficiency of the base – were it to obtain – to explain the phenomena, can be deduced a priori from the supposed nature of the base. This is, in effect, the argument that Chalmers uses to defend the zombie hypothesis. The suggestion is that the whole category of a posteriori more-than-causally necessary connections (often identified as a separate category of metaphysical necessity) comes to no more than this. If we accept that this is the correct account of a posteriori necessities, and also deny the analytically reductionist theories that would be necessary for a priori connections between mind and body, as conceived, for example, by the behaviourist or the functionalist, does it follow that we can tell a priori that consciousness is not more-than-causally dependent on the body?
It is helpful in considering this question to employ a distinction like Berkeley’s between ideas and notions. Ideas are the objects of our mental acts, and they capture transparently – ‘by way of image or likeness’ (Principles, sect. 27) – that of which they are the ideas. The self and its faculties are not the objects of our mental acts, but are captured only obliquely in the performance of its acts, and of these Berkeley says we have notions, meaning by this that what we capture of the nature of the dynamic agent does not seem to have the same transparency as what we capture as the normal objects of the agent’s mental acts. It is not necessary to become involved in Berkeley’s metaphysics in general to feel the force of the claim that the contents and internal objects of our mental acts are grasped with a lucidity that exceeds that of our grasp of the agent and the acts per se. Because of this, notions of the self perhaps have a ‘thickness’ and are permanently contestable: there seems always to be room for more dispute as to what is involved in that concept. (Though we shall see later, in 5.2.2, that there is a ‘non-thick’ way of taking the Berkeleyan concept of a notion.)
Because ‘thickness’ always leaves room for dispute, this is one of those cases in philosophy in which one is at the mercy of the arguments philosophers happen to think up. The conceivability argument creates a prima facie case for thinking that mind has no more than causal ontological dependence on the body. Let us assume that one rejects analytical (behaviourist or functionalist) accounts of mental predicates. Then the above arguments show that any necessary dependence of mind on body does not follow the model that applies in other scientific cases. This does not show that there may not be other reasons for believing in such dependence, for so many of the concepts in the area are still contested. For example, it might be argued that identity through time requires the kind of spatial existence that only body can give: or that the causal continuity required by a stream of consciousness cannot be a property of mere phenomena. All these might be put forward as ways of filling out those aspects of our understanding of the self that are only obliquely, not transparently, presented in self-awareness. The dualist must respond to any claim as it arises: the conceivability argument does not pre-empt them.......
5.2 The Unity of the Mind
Whether one believes that the mind is a substance or just a bundle of properties, the same challenge arises, which is to explain the nature of the unity of the immaterial mind. For the Cartesian, that means explaining how he understands the notion of immaterial substance. For the Humean, the issue is to explain the nature of the relationship between the different elements in the bundle that binds them into one thing. Neither tradition has been notably successful in this latter task: indeed, Hume, in the appendix to the Treatise, declared himself wholly mystified by the problem, rejecting his own initial solution (though quite why is not clear from the text).
_______________________________________________
I.
________________________________________________
[...] The shamanism is much older than all the world religions, he is as old as mankind. Many cave paintings from the Stone Age shamanic rituals are dar. We deal with our own roots as it were, if we now turn our attention to shamanic dreams. Many people today have a great yearning for the lost connection with these roots.
We have lost the one-sided by the full development of the intellect. We have said somewhat simplified, only used our left side of the face and put all the right areas out of service. This unused storage spaces of our options would be responsible for feelings, intuition, imagination, visual, symbolic way of thinking, intuition for the irrational.
Moreover, use our intellect, and I will not demonize the way, only the directed way of thinking, so we fixed a certain point that you want to see as sharp. It's the same principle as a telescope:
The price, however, you pay for this focus is a very narrow field of view. [...]____________________________________________
Source: Susanne Elsensohn - "Schamanismus und Traum"
Translated by Mr. Google!
________________________________________________
Although you probably know that the third eye is associated with wisdom and intuition, you may not be aware of the side effects that can come with opening your third eye. For example, it can induce uncomfortable physical sensations. Similarly, it can make it hard to regulate your own behavior, and it can lead to confusing experiences during your sleep. So, does this mean that it is better to keep your third eye closed? Alternatively, do the benefits outweigh the potential costs?
We’ll explore how to open your third eye and explain how to tell if your third eye is open already, along with considering the dangers of opening third eye chakras. As it turns out, all of these dangers can be mitigated by careful foresight. To that end, we'll suggest a range of techniques that will help you ensure that your third eye is a source of empowerment rather than fear.
What Is Your ‘Third Eye’?
The third eye is located in your pineal gland, which ancient philosophers believed was the seat of the soul. It is the third eye that allows us to intuit possible futures and make sense of our own potential, and it evolved to help us identify underlying patterns in our lives.
Everyone has a third eye, and everyone gains access to it. However, some use it more than others, and with greater intensity.
Any time that you have a gut feeling, you're drawing from the perception of your third eye. For example, just think about the times when you simply knew you should go to a particular place or seek contact with a particular person, even though you couldn't justify this choice with articulable logic.
It's helpful to think of the third eye as a unique sense organ; one that can be honed and sharpened with work.
In addition to helping you read your environment and access intuitions about the path you should follow in life, it can help you tune into particular vibrations in other people. This means that strengthening your use of the third eye not only enhances your perception but also assists you in connecting with people whose energy fits with yours.
Further Reading
Third Eye Chakra Healing For Beginners: How To Open Your Third Eye
7 Chakras: What Is A Chakra? How To Balance Chakras For Beginners
Third Eye Awakening: How To Know If Your Third Eye Is Open
Many people mistakenly think that they need to work on causing a third eye awakening when in fact it is already open. This is largely because fear and uncertainty can prompt us to ignore what we take in with the third eye; we are often raised to discount our “hunches”.
So, how do you know if your own third eye is open? The easiest way to answer this question is to pay attention to whether you have gut feelings, even one that you suppress. The more seemingly baseless intuitions you have, the more likely it is that your third eye is currently open, whether you want it to be or not.
Third Eye Opening Side Effects
In addition to causing strong gut feelings, having an open third eye can induce a wide range of other side effects.
In particular, look out for the following third eye opening side effects:
A light feeling of pressure between your eyebrows. This could be similar to the sensation of someone gently pressing a finger to the skin in that area. This needn't happen when you're feeling particularly spiritual, but it is often a reminder that the spiritual dimension of life is currently relevant.
Starting to picture things in your mind (or even starting to dream about particular things) before they happen.
A sense that colors are brighter and that your environment is sharper. An open third eye allows you to take in light and details that you would otherwise miss, and this can be intense or overwhelming at first.
Feeling like you are changing on a fundamental level, even if you struggle to put it into words. It's common for the third eye to open because of transformative experiences, or to occur just before a period of great growth.
More frequent tension headaches (i.e., headaches that feel like pressure on your temples or like a band around your head). This is sometimes explained as being a result of your mind working harder than usual.
(Attention: Energy healing seekers, get this incredible ‘Reiki Energy Healing Bracelet‘ for free! Click here now to get yours.)
What Causes Third Eye Chakra Blockages Or Imbalances?
It's important to be aware that you may struggle to open or utilize your third eye. In particular, blockages or imbalances can develop in the location of the third eye chakra, and it is only by dislodging these blockages that you'll be able to access the full power of your intuition. Common causes of this sort of imbalance include exhaustion, resistance to the power of your third eye, high levels of consistent stress, and repeated emotional conflict in your life.
Remember, your third eye can be underactive or overactive, so be aware of different cues. If it is underactive, you may struggle to concentrate, feel anxious, find it difficult to self-reflect, and feel somehow disconnected from the people around you.
Meanwhile, if you're dealing with an overactive third eye, you may be trapped in over-analyzing your current situation, feel mentally “fogged up”, and repeatedly escape into daydreams rather than engaging with real life.
7 ‘Dangers’ Of Opening Your Third Eye
As you’re now aware, there are many reasons why you might want to open your third eye and lots of ways in which you can benefit from doing so.
Of course, however, opening one’s third eye is not without risks.
If the process is improperly managed, you can end up feeling overwhelmed and may struggle to deal with your new sense of power. Third eye opening side effects include the following, all of which can be effectively managed with careful planning.
1. Vivid Dreams And Nightmares
If your third eye opens at a time that you don't expect and you're ill-equipped to manage it, your sleep can be severely disrupted.
In particular, you may experience especially intense dreams and nightmares, some of which can be frightening. You may also wake up feeling tired, and find the images from your dreams keep returning throughout the day in a way that makes it hard to concentrate or relax.
Meditating before going to bed can help you to counteract this possible side effect of third eye experiences, encouraging your mind to enter into a calm and balanced state that facilitates less erratic input from the third eye.
In addition, keeping a dream journal can help you understand the underlying themes from dreams and nightmares, and your third eye will typically stop overloading you with repeatedly intense imagery if you process the lesson or message that is being represented during your sleep.
2. Scary Accurate Intuition
When your third eye first opens, your finely honed faculty of intuition may feel like more of a burden than a gift. You may become so good at predicting what will happen in your life (or how others behave) that you feel truly unnerved by it and find it daunting rather than useful.
In time, you will become used to the improved accuracy of your gut feelings. The lesson here is not to try and repress your gut feelings. Instead of reducing their frequency, pushing them away tends to make them come back with a greater level of intensity. This includes in the form of dreams, as mentioned above.
To deal with the scarily accurate predictions involved in opening your third eye, try to remind yourself that these intuitions will help you make good choices. While it can seem bizarre at first, it is also the key to a happier, more informed future.
3. You May Become Fearless
Sometimes, people report a fearlessness associated with opening your third eye chakra, as they have a sense of being invincible or super-human. The opening of the third eye can be deeply empowering, and with this empowerment often comes a dramatic increase in self-confidence.
So, what should you do to ensure that this new fearlessness is healthy?
Firstly, it's important to note that an open third eye doesn't make you omniscient So, it's still important to think carefully about everything you choose to do in life.
Secondly, it's helpful to deliberately engage the rational parts of your mind in order to make sure you get some logical input to balance the raw intuition few to you by the third eye. For example, it can be helpful to write a pros and cons list about something you're thinking about doing. In addition, write down all the feelings and intuitions that strike you.
4. Astral Projection
When you astrally project, part of you leaves your body and travels elsewhere. This typically happens in bed at night, when your soul or essence may raise up above your physical body and leave you feeling frightened and confused. As you become more spiritually powerful by opening your third eye, this power can emerge at unpredictable times and this can be difficult to get used to at first.
The trick here is to realize that there is nothing inherently dangerous about astral projection. You can not get “stuck” outside of your body. Plus, nothing bad will happen to your body during the period in which you temporarily detach from it. Try to view experiences of astral projection as signals that your intuitive faculties are sharpening and that you are becoming more and more in tune with the universe. Once this type of experience becomes more normal, you may even find it pleasurable or profound.
5. Your Eye Chakra Could Become Overactive
When your third eye becomes oversensitive, you may experience some of the physical side effects that we discussed above. Most notably, you may develop a sensitivity to light, with bright sun and vivid colors becoming almost offensive to look at.
In addition, you might start to get uncomfortable headaches that your doctor considers to be unexplained. It's unpleasant to deal with these signs of having an oversensitive third eye. Therefore, it's important to work on balancing your third eye charka (more on that below).
In addition to this balancing, you may find it helpfully to temporarily limit your exposure to, especially stimulating environments. By gradually increasing the time you spend outside, for example, you can slowly allow your third eye to become acclimatized to the intense sights and sounds that flood it. Meanwhile, relaxing your body will help to reduce the tension in your head muscles, potentially dulling your headaches.
(For hundreds and thousands of years, energy healers have used specific stones to calm and focus the mind, reduce stress, and foster vitality. Find out more and get your free energy bracelet, just click here now to find out more…)
6. Third Eye Awakening Can Be Confusing And Scary
The mere opening of the third eye can itself lead to feeling confused and frightened. In this way, you may even start to ask how to close your third eye as the new flood of information can leave you destabilized. In some cases, you may even wonder if there's a way to go back to how things were before.
However, it's vital to remember that you are merely gaining access to information that already existed all around you.
You're not changing the future or reading the thoughts of others; you're just tuning in to cues that you didn't use to know how to interpret.
When you attempt to view the opening of the third eye as just an increase in a previous capacity, it can seem much less frightening. Further, try to remind yourself that your spiritual awakening can really only be good for you in the long term. It will help you understand your life's true purpose.
7. Chaotic Behavior
Finally, as well as feeling frightened, you might notice you start to behave in inconsistent ways. This is similar to the way in which any major change can lead to erratic behavior. You may want time to adjust to the opening of your third eye, and time to figure out what your newly sharpened intuition should mean for how you behave.
Be patient with yourself, and don't expect yourself to immediately know exactly how to manage everything you're learning and feeling.
As well as simply waiting out this adjustment period, it can be helpful to exercise a little more restraint than usual. In other words, question the urges you feel before simply acting on them. Plus, quickly check that you can stand by your behavior before you choose to put it into practice.
Meanwhile, let those you are close to knowing that you're going through a period of growth and adjustment so that they can offer support and compassion.
“I Opened My Third Eye And I Regret It!” – How To Balance Your Third Eye
If you're worried about opening your third eye and want to ensure that you don't regret it, make a consistent effort to keep your third eye chakra balanced in a healthy way.
The following techniques are especially effective in balancing your third eye:
Practice meditation on a daily basis. This can be a simple 10-minute exercise during which you focus on your breathing or scan your body for sensations. Or, it can be a more complex meditative journey if you're already experienced.
Put lavender or neroli essential oils on the pulse points of your wrists, or light scented candles that include these oils.
Ensure you get approximately eight hours of sleep per night. Practice good sleep hygiene! For example, remove electronic devices from your bedroom and do something relaxing for at least an hour before bed.
Eat foods to nourish the third eye (including red onion, blueberries, blackberries, eggplant, red grapes, and raspberries). In general, any red and purple foods are said to be connected to a balanced third eye chakra.
Recite daily affirmations that relate to the third eye, such as “I acknowledge the wisdom that comes from within me” and “I am open to the inner guidance of my third eye.”
www.thelawofattraction.com/dangers-opening-third-eye/
Since ancient times, the third eye had been revered by all kinds of cultures. Today, we know it as the pineal gland, but it is still called the third eye in the spiritual realm. The third eye is viewed as a spiritual sign representing our capability to conquer all kinds of challenges in daily life by tapping into our inner wisdom.
But there is much more to the third eye than that. In most Eastern traditions, the third eye is undoubtedly real; a thing that anybody can perceive and obviously feel if they have a strong sense of self and mindfulness. It is what is often referred to as the connection between our body and our spirit.
When we meditate with any consistency, the third eye opens and your inner guide becomes stronger and a more present guiding force in your life.
HERE ARE FIVE SIGNS YOUR THIRD EYE IS OPENING:
1. A DULL SENSATION OF PRESSURE BETWEEN THE EYEBROWS.
Generally when the third eye starts to manifest on a much deeper level, there’s a related consciousness of sensation between eyebrows. It could seem like somebody is lightly touching us at that moment, or you might feel a spreading of warmth.
Sometimes this sensation could appear from nowhere; whether we have spiritual feelings or not. It’s as if it’s a signal to pull us back in that spiritual state of mind.
2. INCREASED FORESIGHT.
Among the most obvious signals of third eye opening is an increase in foresight or intuition we start to experience – if we are paying attention.
Intuition is the capability to know something might happen before it does or knowing something is right or wrong because of a feeling or sense. It often comes and goes without notification. However with time, this feeling could get stronger, and turn out to be a guiding process in our daily lives.
We might start to sense warning signs or what our next action should be without explanation. Don’t dispute your intuition. Use it! It might not always be right; however it most certainly will put us on the right path.
3. PRONE TO LIGHT SENSITIVITY.
With the opening third eye, we could find ourselves a little more sensitive to light and seeing colors more brightly.
Vivid colors and our awareness of light may begin subtly; they are not always instantly obvious or overwhelming. However, the sensitivity to light often brings further awareness of what is happening around us. When focusing deeply on the third eye (like in meditation), the lights of the third eye might appear.
The third eye and it’s reference to light has been talked about for years in many traditions worldwide. It is well-known in many forms of art and religious works. If you study the works, you can often see the light reference in circular shapes and star-shaped lights peeking through the clouds.
Our eyes will change over time, and we might feel like we just can’t get enough sun on our skin. This is normal. Soak it up! Just make sure you are not harming the skin.
4. A FEELING OF GRADUAL AND CONTINUAL CHANGE.
Most importantly, fostering a healthy third eye steadily changes our perspective and personality in life. It results in beneficial changes because we want, and maybe even crave them. We can usually see it in the way we treat others. We might become more tolerant and less selfish.
5. INCREASED HEADACHES.
A headache pressure is stronger than the pressure talked about earlier that happens between the eyebrows. At times, that pressure can begin to ache a little. Consider it a little bit of energy overload. Go outdoors and do a thing you cherish, like meditate or walk.
Head pressure is an actual sign of the spiritual eye opening, particularly in the center of the forehead. It is an indication that one’s pineal gland is developing energetically.
Never apologize for being a strong woman!
Volume 90%
TIPS TO ENGAGE THE THIRD EYE
When our Third Eye is opening, we’ll begin body-to-soul discussions in our mind with an understanding of our place in the Universe and that we are the creator of our reality!
We will encounter greater states of mindfulness, enabling us to visualize a better life and take focused action to help us live up to our potential. We’ll become very intuitive, possess a good memory, and we’ll have the ability to understand without any problem.
In civilizations of a traditional nature, intellectual intuition lies at the root of everything; in other words, it is the pure metaphysical doctrine that constitutes the essential, everything else being linked to it, either in the form of consequences or applications to the various orders of contingent reality.
Not only is this true of social institutions, but also of the sciences, that is, branches of knowledge bearing on the domain of the relative, which in such civilizations are only regarded as dependencies, prolongations, or reflections of absolute or principial knowledge.
Thus a true hierarchy is always and everywhere preserved: the relative is not treated as non-existent, which would be absurd; it is duly taken into consideration, but is put in its rightful place, which cannot but be a secondary and subordinate one; and even within this relative domain there are different degrees of reality, according to whether the subject lies nearer to or further from the sphere of principles.
Thus, as regards science, there are two radically different and mutually incompatible conceptions, which may be referred to respectively as traditional and modern. We have often had occasion to allude to the 'traditional sciences' that existed in antiquity and the Middle Ages and which still exist in the East, though the very idea of them is foreign to the Westerners of today. It should be added that every civilization has had 'traditional sciences' of its own and of a particular type. Here we are no longer in the sphere of universal principles, to which pure metaphysics alone belongs, but in the realm of adaptations.
(…)
By seeking to sever the connection of the sciences with any higher principle, under the pretext of assuring their independence, the modern conception robs them of all deeper meaning and even of all real interest from the point of view of knowledge; it can only lead them down a blind alley, by enclosing them, as it does, in a hopelessly limited realm.
Moreover, the development achieved in this realm is not a deepening of knowledge, as is commonly supposed, but on the contrary remains completely superficial, consisting only of the dispersion in detail already referred to and an analysis as barren as it is laborious; this development can be pursued indefinitely without coming one step closer to true knowledge.
It must also be remarked that it is not for its own sake that, in general, Westerners pursue science; as they interpret it, their foremost aim is not knowledge, even of an inferior order, but practical applications, as can be deduced from the ease with which the majority of our contemporaries confuse science and industry, and from the number of those for whom the engineer represents the typical man of science.
(…)
Modern experimentalism involves the curious illusion that a theory can be proven by facts, whereas in reality the same facts can always be equally well explained by several different theories; some of the pioneers of the experimental method, such as Claude Bernard, have themselves recognized that they could interpret facts only with the help of preconceived ideas, without which they would remain 'brute facts' devoid of all meaning and scientific value.
Since we have been led to speak of experimentalism, the opportunity may be taken to answer a question that may be raised in this connection: why have the experimental sciences received a development in modern civilization such as they never had in any other?
The reason is that these sciences are those of the sensible world, those of matter, and also those lending themselves most directly to practical applications; their development, proceeding hand in hand with what might well be called the 'superstition of facts', is therefore in complete accord with specifically modern tendencies, whereas earlier ages could not find sufficient interest in them to pursue them to the extent of neglecting, for their sake, knowledge of a higher order. It must be clearly understood that we are not saying that any kind of knowledge can be deemed illegitimate, even though it be inferior; what is illegitimate is only the abuse that arises when things of this kind absorb the whole of human activity, as we see them doing at present.
(…)
One of the characteristics of the present age is the exploitation of everything that had hitherto been neglected as being of insufficient importance for men to devote their time and energy to, but which nevertheless had to be developed before the end of the cycle, since the things concerned had their place among the possibilities destined to be manifested within it; such in particular is the case of the experimental sciences that have come into existence in recent centuries.
There are even some modern sciences that represent, quite literally, residues of ancient sciences that are no longer understood: in a period of decadence, the lowest part of these sciences became isolated from all the rest, and this part, grossly materialized, served as the starting-point for a completely different development, in a direction conforming to modern tendencies; this resulted in the formation of sciences that have ceased to have anything in common with those that preceded them. Thus, for example, it is wrong to maintain, as is generally done, that astrology and alchemy have respectively become modern astronomy and modern chemistry, even though this may contain an element of truth from a historical point of view; it contains, in fact, the very element of truth to which we have just alluded, for, if the latter sciences do in a certain sense come from the former, it is not by 'evo-lution' or 'progress' - as is claimed - but on the contrary, by degeneration.
(…)
These are the two complementary functions proper to the traditional sciences: on the one hand, as applications of the doctrine, they make it possible to link the different orders of reality and to integrate them into the unity of a single synthesis, and on the other, they constitute, at least for some, and in accordance with their individual aptitudes, a preparation for a higher knowledge and a way of approach to it - forming by virtue of their hierarchical positioning, according to the levels of existence to which they refer, so many rungs as it were by which it is possible to climb to the level of pure intellectuality.
It is only too clear that modern sciences cannot in any way serve either of these purposes; this is why they can be no more than 'profane science', whereas the 'traditional sciences', through their connection with metaphysical principles, are effectively incorporated in 'sacred science'.
The ways leading to knowledge may be extremely different at the lowest degree, but they draw closer and closer together as higher levels are reached. This is not to say that any of these preparatory degrees are absolutely necessary, since they are mere contingent methods having nothing in common with the end to be attained; it is even possible for some persons, in whom the tendency to contemplation is predominant, to attain directly to true intellectual intuition without the aid of such means; but this is a more or less exceptional case, and in general it is accepted as being necessary to proceed upward gradually.
The whole question may also be illustrated by means of the traditional image of the 'cosmic wheel': the circumference in reality exists only in virtue of the center, but the beings that stand upon the circumference must necessarily start from there or, more precisely, from the point thereon at which they actually find themselves, and follow the radius that leads to the center. Moreover, because of the correspondence that exists between all the orders of reality, the truths of a lower order can be taken as symbols of those of higher orders, and can therefore serve as 'supports' by which one may arrive at an understanding of these; and this fact makes it possible for any science to become a sacred science, giving it a higher or 'anagogical' meaning deeper than that which it possesses in itself.
Every science, we say, can assume this character, whatever may be its subject-matter, on the sole condition of being constructed and regarded from the traditional standpoint; it is only necessary to keep in mind the degrees of importance of the various sciences according to the hierarchical rank of the diverse realities studied by them; but whatever degree they may occupy, their character and functions are essentially similar in the traditional conception.
What is true of the sciences is equally true of the arts, since every art can have a truly symbolic value that enables it to serve as a support for meditation, and because it’s rules, like the laws studied by the sciences, are reflections and 'applications of fundamental principles: there are then in every normal civilization 'traditional arts', but these are no less unknown to the modern West than are the 'traditional sciences'. The truth is that there is really no 'profane realm' that could in any way be opposed to a 'sacred realm'; there is only a 'profane point of view', which is really none other than the point of view of ignorance.
This is why 'profane science', the science of the moderns, can as we have remarked elsewhere be justly styled 'ignorant knowledge', knowledge of an inferior order confining itself entirely to the lowest level of reality, knowledge ignorant of all that lies beyond it, of any aim more lofty than itself, and of any principle that could give it a legitimate place, however humble, among the various orders of knowledge as a whole. Irremediably enclosed in the relative and narrow realm in which it has striven to proclaim itself independent, thereby voluntarily breaking all connection with transcendent truth and supreme wisdom, it is only a vain and illusory knowledge, which indeed comes from nothing and leads to nothing.
This survey will suffice to show how great is the deficiency of the modern world in the realm of science, and how that very science of which it is so proud represents no more than a deviation and, as it were, a downfall from true science, which for us is absolutely identical with what we have called 'sacred' or 'traditional' science. Modern science, arising from an arbitrary limitation of knowledge to a particular order-the lowest of all orders, that of material or sensible reality-has lost, through this limitation and the consequences it immediately entails, all intellectual value; as long, that is, as one gives to the word 'intellectuality' the fullness of its real meaning, and refuses to share the 'rationalist' error of assimilating pure intelligence to reason, or, what amount to the same thing, of completely denying intellectual intuition.
The root of this error, as of a great many other modern errors - and the cause of the entire deviation of science that we have just described - is what may be called 'individualism', an attitude indistinguishable from the anti-traditional attitude itself and whose many manifestations in all domains constitute one of the most important factors in the confusion of our time; we shall therefore now study this individualism more closely.
----
excerpts from The Crisis of the Modern World by René Guenon
Chapter 4: Sacred and profane science
----
Dekoulou Monastery, Greece