“Enter alchemy – thing-words, image-words, craft-words. The five supposed sources of alchemy are each a technology. Each is a handwork physically grappling with sensate materials: (1) Metallurgy and Jewelry: mining, heating, smelting, forging, annealing; (2) Cloth and Fiber Dyeing: dipping, coloring, drying; (3) Embalming the Dead: dismembering, evacuating, infusing, preserving; (4) Perfumery and Cosmetics: grinding, mixing, distilling, diluting, evaporating; (5) Pharmacy: distinguishing, tincturing, measuring, dissolving, desiccating, pulverizing.”
Although admittedly going off on a tangent here, this post was inspired by Session Twelve of the Jung Platform’s course on James Hillman’s book, Alchemical Psychology. What I’ve recently come to appreciate is that the study of alchemy is as inexhaustible as is its application to my life.
Alchemy is styled and practiced in a number of traditions dating back at least to the 3rd and 4th century BCE. With that in mind, my focus here is to review the general structure of Western alchemy, while staying with Hillman’s emphasis to work one’s perspective by giving substance to soul and soul to substance.
Alchemy is a practice; a work in which a transformation of some kind is initiated through the desire and aim of a goal. In everyday life, it can be applied to cooking, writing, relationships to any person, place or thing, or the learning of a craft, trade or art. You may think of other applications.
Prior to the 18th century, before science divorced herself from the arts, it may have been more readily understood that the work on the materials would simultaneously “work” the practitioner. Alchemy then was a quest for knowledge about the nature of particular substances and processes in the world.
The modern sense of our individuality reflects science’s need to distinguish between subject and object, self and other. These changes bring much freedom to the individual, while also coinciding with a loss of soul, or soul’s substantiality. Not only a sense of one’s personal soul, but the felt sense that the world herself is ensouled, enlivened by all creatures and substances and their varying degrees of autonomy and obeisance.
One might say that the more one feels the divide and separation between themselves and others, the more we might miss, or dismiss the autonomy of other beings and things, leaving no room for acknowledging the invisible, autonomous forces, except where science quantifies them (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).
Modern ideas of alchemy deeply reflect these changes of self-perception and our place in the cosmos. To speak of a literal alchemy in which base materials are turned into precious metals has lost credibility with all but a few practitioners. As well, the work, if undertaken at all, seems narrowed by an emphasis on personal transformation. But, if alchemy itself is a reflection of an evolving consciousness of universal import, we might see this modern emphasis on self as a necessary stage before the gap between material and non-material existence can dissolve.
If alchemy lives on anywhere, as a practice of noting influence and correspondences between the microcosm of one’s human experience and the macrocosm of the hidden nature of the greater cosmos, we have astrologers to thank. For astrologers have never abandoned the idea that human nature and experience is a reflection of the nature, motion and resemblance shared throughout the cosmos, enhanced all the more by our apprehension of it.
With that in mind, we can break alchemy down into three dimensions of the practice: the materials, the operations and the stages of the work.
Materials
In alchemy, as in astrology, the elements are the givens, each of which have mythological, planetary or astrological correspondence. The idea of turning base medals into gold, literally or psychologically, requires coming to know the nature of each material substance. Alchemical psychology and Western astrology, borrowing much from their mythological heritage, see in each planet a corresponding metallic nature.
When alchemists link the planet Saturn to lead, it sees leaden characteristics, knowable by working directly with the substance lead. Alchemy, like astrology, does not stop here, but sees lead’s slow, heavy nature as an influential psychic force corresponding to our nature as well. For example, Saturn’s influence is said to be felt as weighty, depressive, slowing us down in some way in both mind, body and circumstance. As Saturn is associated with the Greek god Kronos, where we get our word for time (chronology), there may also be a need for time or attention to some aspect of our lives.
Hillman says of the alchemists work with metals:
“The metals were imagined to be made of coagulated moist vapors, like a condensed gas whose spirit could be released by the proper operations. Because the metals were inherently moist, that is, embodying phlegm, they had a phlegmatic tendency to be passive or inert, requiring fire. Resistance to change is given with the seeds of our nature and only intense heat can move human nature from its innate inertia.”
When we moderns deprive ourselves of seeing any correspondence between ourselves and the nature and motion of the cosmos, we risk increasing the feeling we may already have of alienation, with both ourselves, others and the world we are literally pieces and parts of.
Saturn = Lead
Jupiter = Tin
Mars = Iron
Sun = Gold
Mercury = Quicksilver (Mercury)
Venus = Copper
Moon = Silver
Operations
The operations used in alchemy for initiating action and reaction upon the materials are primarily salt, sulfur and mercury. Salt as agent for thickening, loosening and resistance to heat, sulphur for heating and combustion, and mercury or quicksilver for fluidity. Hillman warns that there is no purity in substance, operation or stages of alchemical work but a blending and merging of one into the other.
“Whatever is said about salt is always contaminated, and must be so contaminated by the materials, vessels, and operations with which it is in interaction. Psychic materials are always in diffuse interpenetration, with other materials and do not remain singly self-consistent, and so require multiple interpretation. In fact, this very contamination is part of their definition: let us say that alchemy is soft-edged. Lines between its elements cannot be drawn hard and fast because these elements are also elementary living natures.”
Stages
The work both progresses and regresses in stages associated with coloration, usually three or more of the following: Black, Blue, White, Yellow, Red. The colors themselves have astrological and mythological associations. Alchemy in contrast to modern science, is the practice of knowing the nature of anything by the qualities it presents to us. Where modern science reduces things down to size and mathematical relationships, alchemy seeks essence through the quality and nature of relationships within and between things.
Hillman emphasizes the alchemist’s ability to see psychologically through any practice that involves working with the worlds substantive qualities. From this work a truer understanding of ourselves and the nature of the world emerges into the unique expression each of us then presents daily to the world. In coming to know the substances, images, environments and actions/reactions which influence us, we are continually ensouled through our sensual, everyday experience that sees our nature reflected back to us through the nature of the cosmos.
All quotes: Hillman, James (2011-10-10). Alchemical Psychology (Uniform Edition of the Writings of James Hillman). Spring Publications, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Theoria 
Debra,
There are so many interesting posts to read here that I sometimes end up reading so much, and not getting around to sharing my thoughts with you. I have a fairly hectic personal life these days and I’m in the middle of so many concerns that I seem to keep falling behind in everything. I’ve begun to address this circumstance recently and hope to return to more regular attention to my own writing as well.
This quote from your piece stood out among the others:
“Where modern science reduces things down to size and mathematical relationships, alchemy seeks essence through the quality and nature of relationships within and between things.”
Jung had a serious interest in alchemy, and in volume 12 of his Collected works, Psychology and Alchemy, I found much that supported my own feelings about the quality and nature of relationships within and between things. Quoting Jung:
“In the overwhelming majority of cases, alchemy identifies its transforming substance with the argentum vivum or Mercurius. Chemically, this term denotes quicksilver, but philosophically it means the spiritus vitae, or even the world-soul, so that Mercurius also takes on the significance of Hermes, god of revelation.”
I was also struck by another passage in this post, where you sum up how important it is that we allow ourselves to feel and to seek out the deeper meaning of our everyday experience:
“From this work a truer understanding of ourselves and the nature of the world emerges into the unique expression each of us then presents daily to the world. In coming to know the substances, images, environments and actions/reactions which influence us, we are continually ensouled through our sensual, everyday experience that sees our nature reflected back to us through the nature of the cosmos.”
Again, Jung supports this idea in the same volume:
“In my experience, the conscious mind can claim only a relatively central position and must accept the fact that the unconscious psyche transcends and, as it were, surrounds it on all sides. Unconscious contents connect it backwards with physiological states on the one hand and archetypal data on the other. But it is extended forwards by intuitions which are determined partly by archetypes and partly by subliminal perceptions depending on the relativity of time and space in the unconscious.”
Your thorough and illuminating entry on Alchemy here is a highlight among many other interesting and stimulating works that appear here on a regular basis. I’m very glad to know that you visit with me along my own journey here, and hope you know how much I appreciate and admire your work, in spite of how infrequently it may appear that I do.
Warm regards….John H.
LikeLike
Hi John,
So nice to hear from you. Ditto to having a fairly hectic life these days. I hope to make room for more writing and reading here on WP.
Likewise, I very much enjoy your writing too. Thank you so much for your kind words. Alchemy is a very deep and fascinating topic. Thanks to Jung for bringing it back to life for us so we, and others, can now enjoy and experience its psychological symbolism and vision.
Gratefully,
Debra
LikeLike
Debra … I came here somehow from Hariods site …and I’m so grateful as I found your writing so wonder filled with valuable information that kept me captivated as Alchemy has always intrigued me … I recently used copper / Venus in one of my posts …wish I would have read your beautiful post first though …anyways , thank you Debra …xxx meg
LikeLiked by 1 person
naturally, I *mega-like* this post. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aww, thank you so much!
LikeLike
Great write, Debra.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Chris!
I am glad you enjoyed it.
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Debra,
My favorite part of your notes on alchemy is this, “Hillman warns that there is no purity in substance, operation or stages of alchemical work but a blending and merging of one into the other.” I love the idea of contamination in the quote that follows (something that I would normally think of as a ‘bad’ thing) but looking at it in this context, it’s simply empirical – an observation.
One thing turns into another quite naturally, it would seem. “Let us say that alchemy is soft-edged. Lines between its elements cannot be drawn hard and fast because these elements are also elementary living natures.” Also, the former has me thinking of the 3rd and 4th characteristics of the relationship between yin-yang: mutually consuming and inter-transforming. I enjoy perceiving this correlation.
Finally, I appreciate your use of term ‘ensoul,’ – the ‘verb’ form of soul. It brings movement into that which the mind can put under a pin. The ensouling is read by me as liberating. You write, “We are continually ensouled through our sensual, everyday experience that sees our nature reflected back to us through the nature of the cosmos.”
Does the astrologer see what the astrologer is? Nevertheless, in terms of the metals… refinement is the goal, no?
Can I ask you a synesthesia question? Do you ever (as a drummer) get the feeling for what these metals would make if you hit them with an implement? I look at the word ‘tin’ for Venus, and I see something high-pitched. Anyways, that’s what came up for me. For Saturn, well, Saturn doesn’t move much, lead is dense. Anyways, when I was studying astrology in my late twenties, and I encountered the metal assignments to planets, that is what came up for me then.
Fantastic post!
xoxo Ka
LikeLike
Hi Ka,
Yes, idea of blending and contamination reminds me that in seeking purity, beware! By being aware of contamination one can then stop valuing purity over blendedness, a tendency which is ever present.
Ensouled indeed! This idea is the hallmark of Hillman’s understanding of soul-making. Soul is not static but a perspective that deepens and expands through gathering of life experience; feelings, memories and reflections.
The goal in alchemy is an interesting idea. It’s what sets the work in motion, but also that which transforms through the work. The goal cannot be understood in the beginning of the work, but must transform itself as the work continues through the stages. I would see it also as cyclical, spiraling along throughout one’s lifetime.
Love your drumming question. 🙂 Yes, everything is a drum. I had not made the connection as you do to the nature of the planets, but love it!
Thank you for your lovely note!
xxx
Debra
LikeLike
Hi Debra,
I think I am most struck by the care and passion I see you have taken in putting this together. I was a paragraph or two in when I found myself connecting with or envisioning the mind that would take the time to assemble this exploration of alchemical principles. You wouldn’t do this without a deep love of the subject, and so that is what shone through most brilliantly for me.
I do not think I understand all of what you described, but did resonate with all of the quotes other readers have highlighted. Everytime I read about being influenced by the quality of the things around us, my heart flutters. It is true that everything possesses these qualities.
I don’t know if you are familiar with Walter Russell’s work, but he was perhaps a sort of alchemist. He viewed all of the elements as self-resonating, stable (to varying degrees) tones of light. Like musical notes. And he felt that being all formed of the same basic material, Light, that one element could be shifted into another. He even performed some experiments once at Westinghouse laboratories in which the gazinta’s and the gazoutta’s of a sealed quartz tube of gases were slightly altered in their elemental composition. I don’t know what, if anything, ultimately came of it.
For me the link between the material and the non-material is always this: the non-material takes on various ephemeral qualities, characteristics, and imbalances in order to render itself perceivable, and to simulate and express that which is eternal, balanced, and invisible. The material is the language of the invisible, if you will. And if we realize we are being spoken to, perhaps we can allow ourselves to respond in new ways, and to change along with the world, as we shift from rigidity of perception to the dialogue of being…
Much enjoyed this one!
Peace
Michael
LikeLike
Dear Michael,
Wow! I am so pleased that the love I have for these ideas comes through here. That is quite a compliment for any writer to receive. Thank you dear friend. I have not heard of Russell’s work before, but will look him up. His experiments do resonate with me. The most interesting question I still carry around with me since childhood is not how do things change, but how is it that they stay the same? When I think of the evolution of life forms, there seems to be an inherent tension between change and stability. While theories of evolution account for change, they do not account for what doesn’t change. There’s a stability to expressions of life forms that amazes me. That both stability and change happen is even more fascinating, yes?
Love how you say, the material is the language of the invisible. That is what I refer to as expression. It’s as if life must ever seek every possibility of expression for the joy and beauty of it. Otherwise, we may ask, why anything at all? When we are tempted to see life mechanistically, we deem awareness and consciousness as a superflous mistake. There it is, alienation. Our awareness becomes an anomaly, as if we alone in the universe could claim such a thing. 🙂
Thank you for your inspirational words!
Much love,
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Debra,
I’m intrigued by your question about why things stay the same… At work sometimes we have to prepare construction cost estimates for large projects, or produce models of systems with many moving parts, and different people will tend to approach these in different ways. Experienced estimators will agree on one thing, however– at some point the effort reaches a state where more fine-tuning and more attention yields little to no change in the outcome. It’s as if you cross this threshold where the overall data set is so robust, the things you may have missed are offset by something else on which you over did it, and so you can’t really make it change all that much. It’s too dense, and has too many layers of information built in to push around easily.
My sense is that it is kind of like that in nature. Every element is built off of other elements, and to make wholesale changes requires difficult, simultaneous revisions to information embedded within information– to systems embedded within systems all the way from the macro to the micro level. The properties of water and of the elements inform the geometry of proteins, and the geometry of proteins encode the nature of materials, and determine the degree to which light and electricity activate biological processes. By the time you build up to a mouse, or a chickadee, or a dahlia, there are countless levels of scale, all interdependent on precise parameters of one another…
I think it is this nested interdependence, which is very robust, which in part creates such stability. And in living organisms, because everything is “tuned” to everything else, it is difficult for any one piece to go off in a new direction. A weakened element can be supported by all the others. Every part reinforces every other part, through mutual intertwining… through resonant connectedness…
Evolution is fascinating because it isn’t just a story of change, but of the emergence of greater degrees of scale and complexity.
Michael
LikeLike
I loved this post. I particularly liked the concept of warmth as an important part of creation or freedom.
“Alchemy in contrast to modern science, is the practice of knowing the nature of anything by the qualities it presents to us….”
That quote feels a little like the concept of goethe’s science, and Robbins concept of cultural healing by learning to see not in terms of modernity and fractured and diced up realities but by looking at the whole, the integrity or dignity of what we hold in our perception. To do this is meant to lead to an awakening of our organs of perception.
It seems to tie in so wonderfully with what James Hillman has to say.
LikeLike
Hi Nicci,
Thank you for your kind words.
Yes, anything that can bring a sense of feeling back into our relationship with each other and the world can help return us to a sense of belonging which might help us value all things of the world for their presence among us, rather than as commodities, yes? I know you share with me a deep concern that we live more peacefully with oureslves and each other and every living/nonliving thing on the planet. We have such a long way to go, but we also have a vast amount of knowledge and the means to share with each other like nenver before. I think this is where Hillman’s contributions are the most evident. I think he really wanted us to make our peace with ourselves, each other and the world we continue to destroy.
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
An excellent text, I really enjoyed reading it, it was informative and captivating, and it does stir my curosity and thirst for knowledge.
LikeLike
Dear Oloriel,
Thank you so much for reading here and leaving a note. I am glad you enjoyed the post. Alchemy is a pretty amazing study for us moderns. There are so many aspects to it, and many perspectives on alchemical thinking.
Thank you,
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree wholeheartedly, because the subject attracted me at a very young age. I think I was about 9 years old when I was drawn to alchemy texts.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Stuff Jeff Reads and commented:
I don’t often reblog posts, only because I read so many and I would be reblogging several each day, but this one really struck me this morning. I find alchemy a fascinating topic and Debra’s post is excellent. If you are unfamiliar with her blog, I encourage you to check it out. It is one of my favorite. Cheers!!
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Thank you so much for the reblog! I’m glad you enjoyed the post enough to share with your readers.
Alchemy is so fascinating and can be seen in so many different contexts.
Cheers!
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am fascinated with alchemy and curious to learn more. I have a facsimile reproduction of John Dee’s text, which is the prize of my book collection. Some day when I have time I will start working on that in earnest.
LikeLike
Hi Jeff,
Wow, would love to see the reproduction of John Dee’s text! I am so glad you enjoyed the post and wanted to thank you again for reblogging it!
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Debra. You can actually see a small part of the spine if you look at my picture I have at the top of my blog page. 😉 Yes, those are my books and just a wee, small slice of my library.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most interesting Debra. I must confess I never quite know what people mean when they refer to a ‘soul’ – it seems it always requires qualification or contextualisation – though I get the vague sense of it here. The nugget for me in all this was the following: “. . . if alchemy itself is a reflection of an evolving consciousness of universal import, we might see this modern emphasis on self as a necessary stage before the gap between material and non-material existence can dissolve.” One can’t help but think there’s something teleological going on, not in a personal sense, but with the whole of it all. Many thanks – Hariod. ❤
LikeLike
Hi Hariod,
This may or may not surprise you, but I agree that ideas of soul are squishy and can mean many different things to different people and cultures.To be honest, I see many words like self, love, spirit, as a bit squishy. I think we do ourselves a favor when we struggle to understand and gain meaning from considering and reconsidering all that life presents to us.
Hillman’s definition of soul was that it is a perspective. I am pleased to see this Wiki entry:
Although Hillman avoided committing his idea of soul to a metaphysic (and he gets a lot flack for this from detractors these days), I can see soul both as an underlying substrate of consciousness and also entertain the idea of a metaphysical aspect. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the so-called reality of these things, but rather on what the idea of soul understood as a primary imaginal reality always filtering our perspective.
All ideas, images and words are subject to our imaginal capacity for understanding them and bringing them to life in our awareness. That is the beauty of soul, as that which gathers our insights together giving to each of us a participation in the whole. It’s a bridge built upon reflection, review, understanding, insight, compassion and love.
As you probably know, the ancients understood soul as the animating life force. I think for humans we expand life force to include not only base physical function; the heartbeat and metabolic function, for seeing only physical function as that which enlivens us is a very modern materialistic emphasis, but also the non-physical realm of ideas, feelings, memories and reflections. If there’s truly no split between mind and matter, than mind matters and matter minds.
I am grateful as always for your question as it inspires me to articulate my understanding, which remains a work in progress.
Oh yes, I was daring enough to hint at a teleological vision, something I am not always comfortable doing. 🙂
Hugs,
Debra
LikeLike
Thank you so much Debra, for providing all of this further detail here, and for doing so with eloquence, profundity and not a little beauty. I read what you said to Paul below as regards this rejection of the concept of the ‘soul’ and had therefore supposed you might have groaned a little at my original comment. Many decades ago, as a very young adult, I was struck by the fact much of religion hinged on the existence of this putative ‘soul’, and yet I somehow felt certain that within or about me, no such ‘thing’ existed. There was nothing to transmigrate upon my death. Why then, should I care in the least about what others say happens to this ‘soul’ once I am dead? It doesn’t affect me – arrogant I know, but there you have it, I was young! That was what informed me then that religion could only ever be a dead end for myself. Then, after a little while, I read about how Buddhist psychology rejects the concept wholly, and so this doctrine of anatta (‘no soul’) got me started on that path decades ago.
Moving on, it seems from your descriptions that ‘soul’ is not so very far apart from our ever-occluded unconscious. Perhaps there is more to your understanding than this, though it seems to me that our imaginal capacity is indeed the crossing of your metaphorical ‘bridge’, the difference being that I see it as a crossing from unconscious to consciousness, and you, from soul (as imagining substrate) to consciousness. In many ways it doesn’t matter; it’s a semantic distinction in the main; though for myself I incline to stripping away the mysterious as best I can. Why engage a new category, the existence of which is only ever at best inferred? And whilst having said the unconscious is ever-occluded, it is only so until its content crosses the bridge, something which may occur in states of concentration, reverie, or perhaps with the aid of psychotropic drugs, hypnotherapy or whatever.
If there is a substrate to consciousness, and my experience tells me that there is, then I think of this simply as awareness – which is consciousness with no knowledge other than that of its own existence; it is of that same category. That there should be a Tabula Rasa behind or underlying the objects of knowledge makes perfect sense in the way that an underlying silence permits the distinction of different sounds. The former is within the domain of knowledge, that latter that of audition. There is no mysterious new category springing into existence by virtue of no more than a pre-existing word-concept. This will doubtless seem a rather dry and unimaginative perspective, though as I have blathered on about here before, I see this blank slate of awareness as being non-local, not some epiphenomenon that floats around the cranial cavity as if tethered to it.
Good grief, I’ve said far too much as always, and hope you can accept that I have done so only as a gentle exchange of views. Whether anyone accords with my own perspective has long since ceased to be of import to me. This is not to be disrespectful, merely an acknowledgement that the world of views is rich and varied, and that it is all the better left to be just that. On this, I think we certainly will agree dear Debra.
H ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra I love this post of yours! This is a wonderful distillation of what alchemy is and what it serves. I particularly love:
The modern sense of our individuality reflects science’s need to distinguish between subject and object, self and other. These changes bring much freedom to the individual, while also coinciding with a loss of soul, or soul’s substantiality. Not only a sense of one’s personal soul, but the felt sense that the world herself is ensouled, enlivened by all creatures and substances and their varying degrees of autonomy and obeisance.
One might say that the more one feels the divide and separation between themselves and others, the more we might miss, or dismiss the autonomy of other beings and things, leaving no room for acknowledging the invisible, autonomous forces, except where science quantifies them (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).
This is so important – the alienation that we moderns feel from What Is – it is a loss of soul that it leads to so much suffering and pain.
Thank you for being you and for your wonderful comments about my post. Your writing brings such wonderful attention and insights to a world that is suffering from alienation.
Love,
Margaret
LikeLike
Hi Margaret,
Thanks so much! I am glad you enjoyed this one. That’s it, yes? Alienation as a loss of soul is a primary driver of pain and suffering. We know it when we have lived it. Oh that we could gather together and acknowledge the need to attend to what matters to the soul.
Thank you again for your kind words! They mean a lot to me.
Debra
LikeLike
Really enjoyable read. Have a better take on traditional alchemy. I think that any trans formative activity can be considered “Postmodern” alchemy. Yes to the astrological parallels. I so prefer copper and silver to gold, hmm.
hugs,
Linda
LikeLike
Thank you Linda!
It seemed time to reflect on my understanding of alchemy as a structured whole, something I’ve never been able to do before. Yes, I find that the more attentive I am to each little task I do, the more love I feel for what I am doing, rather than doing a task for the sake of being done with it. Whether or not these little things can be seen as alchemy or not, I like to see them that way because they remind me that my relationship to people and things in the world are transformational as much as the inner work of reflection is.
I like silver and gold equally, partially depending on my mood.
Hugs,
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really good post Debra. I’ll recommend it as an excellent summary of alchemy.
I very much liked the point that:
“The modern sense of our individuality reflects science’s need to distinguish between subject and object, self and other. These changes bring much freedom to the individual, while also coinciding with a loss of soul, or soul’s substantiality.”
I tend to focus on the negative aspects of the modernist worldview (the loss of soul – especially in relation to our separation from nature which then leads directly to the current ecological crisis) rather then the gains from this in terms of personal freedom and ability to think critically. Richard Tarnas does a good job in showing both these aspects of the rational, modernist worldview in his magnum opus ‘The Passion of the Western mind’.
This throws light too on my sense that the indigenous people I work with in Peru don’t have this sense of freedom in terms of independence of thought as we understand it in the West. I need to think about that more – I’m currently immersed in a small research project which will help look at differences between the Shipibo indigenous and the Western worldview. I hope to get my first blog post up about this soon.
LikeLike
Dear Paul,
Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed the post.
Yes, I too tend to focus on the more negative aspects of our modern emphasis that discards the idea of soul altogether. Maybe I am being too optimistic to see the possibility of a merging between materialistic science and spiritual expressions.
Loved the Tarnas book, although it’s been a few years since I’ve read it.
You’re in an interesting situation to live and work so closely with people’s whose consciousness still assumes a tribal identity. Can’t wait to read more as you post about the contrasting views.
Debra
LikeLike