singularity

"The goals seem to be anticipated by the archetypal symbols which represent something like the circumambulation of a centre. With increasing approximation to the centre there is a corresponding depotentiation of the ego in favor of the influence of the “empty” centre which is certainly not identical with the archetype but is the thing the archetype points to. As the Chinese would say, the archetype is only the name of Tao, not Tao itself. Just as the Jesuits translated Tao as “God”, so we can describe the “emptiness” of the centre as “god”. Emptiness in this sense doesn’t mean “absence” or “vacancy”, but something unknowable which is endowed with the highest intensity… I call this unknowable the Self… The whole course of individuation is dialectical, and the so-called “end” is the confrontation of the ego with the “emptiness” or the centre.- C. G. Jung (Quoted by The Centre for Applied Jungian Studies, South Africa)The idea of a SINGULARITY comes to mind with regard to the central point (which exists only by way of an indicated location with reference to an external observer).This place can be a transition to another space/time location or frequency (transdimension), or, finally, into nothingness (mu). Nothingness (as noumenon play) is regarded as potential for somethingness (ka, phenomenon).(Possibly how astronomical black holes function.)

What does this mean?

One of its meanings is that we have the core (sic) of any creation myth (archetypal schemata). Basically, the point expanded becomes the sphere of being. Coordinated by the several primary directions (and the subsequent genesis of calendars and prescribed seasonality).

All creatures, like every other form of manifestation, are thus coordinated. Geophysical compass being essential for material existence. At subtler levels (psyche) the same holds true. This is why the power of archetypal myth, the codifications of existence and its forever becoming to depart.

'God', as Jung loosely mentions, is at the centre. Of course, this can be described in more relevant detail. For God is something. Perhaps God as the first global indication of somethingness would be a useful way of contemplating this enigma of source's interface with its products ('10,000 things').

To equate God directly with Tao (Dow) seems rash. Some may prefer to regard Tao as the intelligent life force which animates deity and therefore animates all of Creation, the vehicle of deity (God's entity). This 'breath' only perceptible through its actions (as exampled by zoka; 'creativity of nature')

To equate Self (Atman) in a similar manner is useful. The microcosmically contained replication of the macrocosmic deity ('Multibeing') and infinitely variable.

"If Atman is Brahman in a pot (the body), then one need merely break the pot to fully realize the primordial unity of the individual soul with the plenitude of Being that was the Absolute." - paraphrase of Yogic saying

NOTES

1 That the archetype and its image (perhaps as Tao/God respectively) is an important distinction which is often overlooked. Jung emphasises this.

2 At the final interface, the ineffable (unspeakable) Tao as archetypal ocean (energy), articulated by 'currents' of movement (force) and 'waves' of distinction (form).

3 The the concept of yin-yang ('shadow and light' - 3D in its fullness) examples nothing and something in their eternal dynamic interplay. The totality of this kind of duality figured by the concept of yin-yang is a great and most subtle mystery.

jp©