Archetypal Astrology Interview

[nadiya]

Hi Everyone!

I am fascinated with this book right now by Richard Tarnas called "Cosmos and Psyche". Its a part of my reading list in the MA in Cosmology program I am doing at the university of Kent.

So i recently discovered this on youtube and I thought I would share it. It's an interview of Tarnas in many parts, but really insightful. Good back ground noise when I am supposed to be studying!

Here's the link:
[youtube]MwtvWXOhkZw[/youtube]


Nadiya

[korndolly]

I totally agree with this...

I have read some of the Rosicrucian views on collective consciousness of animals. Having a fair few myself - 4 dogs/4 cats/3 birds - dont agree with this [concept] at all. I actually find it a bit arrogant (sorry Rosicrucians). I think all consciousness is equal, whether its birds, plants, us or the earth.

[Celtaur]

I think the life force itself is consciousness and all living things are conscious. I find it quite odd that many believe that animals are little more than robotic matter programmed with reflexes to external stimuli. I once read an article where scientists were considering orangotangs to be self aware, which I thought was simply preposterous to entertain the notion that they were not.

Intellect is another factor though in which humans have a great deal of potential capacity, beyond that which I think animals have. Intellect works with the consciousness to direct the will beyond the present moment, which I think makes humans unique.

Consciousness, which I believe all living being contain, is the awareness and presence in the moment, that which we humans try to attain through practices such as meditation for example. It seems as though the intellect encompasses a great deal of language which translates into mind chatter, and would seem to be an overlay onto our self awareness, our consciousness. Strip this away and we become not less of ourselves, but more like that of being in the present moment, as animals are. When we strip away this intellectualized mind chatter such things as worry (future concern), drop away as we become peacefully present experiencing the moment.

I think it is arrogant yes, to consider that living creatures do not experience their own life force, which I consider to be consciousness. How could they not, if they are alive? Anatomically when we examine animals they really are not that different than we are. Denying their capacity to feel pain, to feel comfort, etc., consciously doesn't make sense to me. It is as consciousness is the presence of life, and demonstrates itself as sentient beings.

Now on the consideration of plants, things become more mysterious as they are much different than we in consideration to our anatomy, so correlation is less obvious. Animism would be a good thing to consider also in relation to this question of consciousness.

[Maya]

I recently read something fascinating that suggests that some intellectual powers that many assume to be unique to humans are also present in animals.

A study was conducted concerning the ability of a small species of fish to distinguish quantity. The methodology depended on the tendency of these fish to join a school with the fewest current members as possible. The experimenters presented the fish with schools of various sizes for them to join. By their choiceds of which school to join, it was found that theses fish could distinguish quantities up to 6! (After that amount they were not able to distinguish specific single differences.)

The researchers speculate that this could be insight into the basis of arithmetic in us "higher" animals.

If fish can count, they are surely conscious!

Also, I think we are too restrictive in what entities we say are "living". The distinction between living and non-living seems artificial to me. I think all of existence is alive and conscious.

[Haruth]

A study was conducted concerning the ability of a small species of fish to distinguish quantity. The methodology depended on the tendency of these fish to join a school with the fewest current members as possible. The experimenters presented the fish with schools of various sizes for them to join. By their choiceds of which school to join, it was found that theses fish could distinguish quantities up to 6! (After that amount they were not able to distinguish specific single differences.)

I think we do need to be cautious here.

Many (female) mammals can apparently 'count', and the general case is that the counting ability depends on the number of teats available. Theory is that the animal needs to remain aware of the location of each offspring in order to protect the young. Thus, sheep can count to 2, but have problems when triplets are born, cows to 4 (though thankfully they rarely need to count more than 2...), pigs to 12.

However, it is not counting in the sense that humans count... a sheep will accept, and defend, two lambs, even though she only has had one herself. It appears to be a direct correspondence to her inate ability to nurture rather than any real connection with the quantities themselves.

I suspect that the fish counting is a response to the drive to join the smallest shoals (though surely the smallest shoal is the fish on its own ). Any number above 6 is automatically too big - so no need to make a quantative assessment. Of course, the fact that a shoal of 6 is automatically too big begs the question, how did the scientists manage to produce a shoal greater than 6 in order to test the hypothesis? It would be interesting to find out what the optimum shoal size was, as that may offer clues as to why the 6 fish shoal became the evolutionary 'maximum'.

(Footnote: All mammal males are pretty much innumerate... there only being 1...)