Do they? I'm sure you could cite some examples. I'll bet I could cite some examples where things separate for the good of the whole. But just because things come together doesn't mean it is good. Codependance, for example, is a case of where coming together is detrimental to all parties.

So in short, such aphorisms sound toothsome, but often to turn out to be unsatisfying, having no real substance.
They could not be construed as "One God" because some of what you call "facets" are mutually exclusive with other "facets". They directly contradict each other. The issue you cite is a clear example. One "facet" of God says don't have any other Gods. If you pick another God then you are in conflict with the first God. If they were really all just facets of the same God, then there would have been no need for God to say, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." It would be impossible to do so.

Maybe God hates some of his facets, eh? Which brings up an intriguing question. Since some people worship Satan as their God, does that mean Satan is a facet of God? If so, then it should be perfectly acceptable to worship Satan, since he is just another facet of God, wouldn't you say?
Same problem. Are there many or is there one? If all are facets of one, then there are not a myriad of Gods. Your attempt to combine all the world's religions into one is doomed to failure. People will always fight over who has the better imaginary friend.

The most obvious interpretation of the "no other gods" passage is that the One God of the Judeo-Christian traditions is accepted by them as the only "true" god and all the others are "false". Now perhaps you can blame religion for setting such rules which are not a part of God's wishes. But then, that is kind of the problem with religion. Each religion, including yours, thinks it knows God's wishes, and all are based on the same kind of evidence: the nonexistent kind.

Very true--but perhaps irrelevant. I don't think Iacchus means the same thing by "collective unconscious" as Jung did. As evidence This is the thread he labeled "the collective unconscious", if you will recall. (I really recommend looking at it again--it's a real hoot!)

What is a spiritual reality without its influx into the natural? And by what other means to accomplish this except through our unconscious natures?

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

LOL. Yeah, I'd forgotten about that one. Iacchy can't even get his new age BS down straight.
Though the term "spiritual reality" is a bit of an oxymoron, I would say that as soon as something has "influx" into the natural, then it is no longer spiritual. They are different realms, as you are so fond of pointing out.
What? Conscious spirituality won't work? What a pity. You place such a high value on consciousness, and not it turns out it is more useless for revealing the relationship of spiritualty to nature than unconsciousness. Does that mean that the more unconscious a thing is, the more spiritual it is?

Start cutting an OMRI door, Iacchy, because you've painted yourself into a corner again.

Have you actually read any of Jung's writings on the collective unconscious? If so, which titles?

Not so much Jung, but a student of Jung's, Robert A. Johnson. But I think I know what you're getting at, that Jung wasn't so much a spiritualist as he believed the "collective unconscious" was inherent with the brain itself. Albeit the fact that he worked so much with his dreams, and brought so many things to the forefront, many people have been able to use his work as a springboad into the spiritual experience. In fact this is why, in conjunction with my notions of Joseph Campbell and Emanuel Swedenborg, I think his revelations are inherently a part of this.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

I see you are just as knowledgable of energy and matter as you are of Jung, Iacchy. In case you didn't know it, energy and matter are interacting all the time. Photosynthetic plants turn energy into matter. Chemical reactions turn matter into energy.

Your "evidence" is nothing more than to say that the brain works at many different levels, something which is as obvious as gravity.

There is nothing that says the "observer" is not just those electrochemical processes within the brain. The evidence is that when the brain dies, the observer goes away. I know, you won't be satisfied unless you can have and observer that is independant of the body, but so far, your ability to demonstrate or even explain such a thing has resulted in a big fat zilch.

A question for Iacchus:

You are cutting and pasting from all over the world to here--in some of the places you cut from, people have responded to your posts (that is a very mild word--more accurately, they have torn holes through your posts). What I want to know is, when you bring your posts back here to your own home, have you ever considered modifying what you have said, based on legitimate criticism by these others? They can't all be irrelevant, surely! To the best of my ability to observe, you have never once actually attended to a criticism. Do you think that your posts, your ideas, are already perfect when they come out? Even I am not that arrogant!

LOL! Dream on, Diggy. Avoiding criticism is precisely the reason Iacchy cuts his posts and pastes them here. He even puts them in a thread where not even Dionysus forum members can comment on them directly.

This smacks of a narcissism that would make Donald Trump blush. He is so in love with his own words that he must preserve them in a shrine where they will be unsullied by criticism or cruel reality. It's kind of the way he preserves that one review from more than seven years ago that praised his book. Ah, the glory days...

Getting savaged by wild dogs may be reality, but it's a form of reality I'd rather avoid.

Then I'd advise you not to tie a pork chop around your neck and run naked through the Serengeti.

Interesting metaphor. Do you really feel that having your ideas about how the world really is scrutinized by others is the functional equivalent of being torn apart by dogs?

If you do, my admiration of scientists goes up immensely, because this is what they do in the course of their normal jobs...

So perhaps it is not that Iacchus is cowardly, but rather that science requires a bravery not seen in most folk?