Cio Sophy Kind, Carl Jung, Jay Nelson discussed on Awakening with Jay Nelson Forrest
Uh-huh. Welcome to awakening. I'm Jay Nelson forest today. I wanna talk about psychology and spirituality. So as I've been continually continuing my study. I've taken the dive into what's called trans personal psychology. And the reason I've left that particular branch of psychology for last to delve into is because it hasn't Tennessee to. Crossed the lines from a science into religion. It is kind of like a religious psychology. And what I mean by that is they will accept paranormal. Phenomenon such as psychic abilities, clairvoyance, ghosts demons. Spiritual worlds. It's kind of like a. Acceptance of the religious aspects, but trying to deal with it from a psychological. In other words, it's not institutional in the sense. It's not a church. It's not a denomination. It's kind of like a psychological version of the Asif iw. With the. CIO Sophy kind of throws everything into one big bundle. You know, it's, it's kind of the, the catalyst for the new age movement. So the new age movement does pretty much. Express some the eclecticism the in. Oh, there's no truth. But your own truth can of idea, even though they claim that no truth is hire them or no religions higher than truth. The truth are speaking of is your own truce. So it's a very subjective truth in that sense. And that's why you have different Theophilus going different directions because there's not any real direction, it's kind of like these all teach the same thing you've got to figure out how they are the same because, you know, if if you know anything about Christianity and Buddhism, they're not the same thing. And there's no way that you can harmonize those two things. With, like Teradata Buddhism, and even Djelic Christianity. Those things are not no matter how many maneuvers and, and contortions you go into there's no way to reconcile those if you're honest with the, the systems themselves, and what they do is they're, they're dishonest in the sense that they. Reinterpret those in the archetypal setting. And then try to, you know, bake all, you know, square pegs fit the round holes. So the JAMA men and, and they're not honest with the, the, the, the traditions themselves. So, so that's my problem with why postpone getting into transfers transferral psychology. 'cause I knew that it embraced aspects that were not verifiable by science and departed from the. Lou world view that I hold, which is naturalism the natural world has all there is. And because of that, I knew that I'd be treading on two areas that in which I disagreed. And so when I got to into the study and started looking at much of the material, I found that I was actually correct. You know you have things that in there like, you know, levitated and. The soul. Some these spiritual healing stuff near death experiences. The shock rose. Things of this nature. That, of course, science hasn't verified that such things exist. And then to build your whole psychology on something that's not verifiable to me, doesn't sound like a good plan. So that's why. Kind of a void getting into until now, one of the things, though, that I did think about when I was doing, this is really, we need to distinguish, even if we take psychology in it's more naturalistic sense. And that's what I do cognitive therapy, things of this nature, even many of things Carl Jung has said qualify within the natural Listrik setting although he does crossover and I would consider him.