Thesis and Anti-thesis | Interpretations of Basic Mandalas
Freedom vs. Destiny
It’s easy to fall into the trap and assume that the opposite of freedom is an empty lack of freedom or imprisonment.
“The soul is free when it is educated.” – M. Eckhart, Goethe
On the opposite side of freedom lies a choice. The Choice is what ends freedom and reduces it to actualization. Freedom is potential (numerous) choices, and Destiny (non-freedom) is one choice.
We make this choice, or the external makes the choice for us. The illusion is of the individual assuming otherwise.
The drawing of the simplest mandala is the most illustrative example of the relationship between freedom and Destiny, potential and actualisation.
Mandala 1
A circle describing a point. The circle is an infinite series of points (choices), or an exponent of freedom, while the point in the middle represents the “singularity” of Destiny, or as Jung says, the Self.
Ref: Jung’s autobiographical sketches of daily Mandalas
Mandala 2
A circle cut in half (into two semicircles). In this mandala, the separation of the whole by the Center line is shown. Two sets, thesis and antithesis. This mandala in its simplest interpretation represents three points, connected by a straight line (alignment of three points). Thesis, Antithesis, and the Relation between. The point of relation (Center) is an exponent of the Self and the basic reference point based on which thesis and antithesis are aligned (recognized). This Mandala is the first step in the coordinate determination of the Self and the first step towards Destiny Choice.
Mandala 3
A circle describing a point, and connected by a spiral. We all want to reach the Center, and we reach it through “freedoms”. Freedoms decrease, or “purify”, in cycles, and gravitate towards the Center. The Center is the Goal and the final step.
Freedoms push, the Center pulls. Ref: Terence McKenna and the theory of time (novum).
Maturity of consciousness is needed for Destiny. Infantile awareness, as the predominant collective neurosis, complicates this form of awareness. In a Biblical sense, the Devil is dressed in “new” garments and presents himself as the most beautiful angel, freedom.
Comment:
Free will and multiverse movies
We can often interpret movies as compensatory manifestations of our collective (or personal) shortcomings. The era of superhero movies portrays a picture of individual impotence, which is somewhat understandable due to the time we live in. However, multiverse movies provide a more interesting compensation. Compensation for the lack of free will. By depicting endless arrays of potential scenarios and possible realities, they relativize the importance of singularity behind phenomena but provide the comfort of indefiniteness (freedom).
Individual state – How Human is greater than the Cosmos
The collective existence of indefiniteness is permissible to the Cosmos, which measures its story in billions of years, and its development has practically just begun, however, this is not a good position for the individual.
Our insignificance in years, on the other hand, offers us a solution.
Every story consists of three constituents: Beginning, Middle, and End. These constituents make up the story of the Cosmos as much as they make up the story of a single Human. Although our experience of the Cosmos is of something almost Infinite, although we feel practically frightened by this magnitude, there exists in us another feeling of greatness standing as opposition to this fear. That greatness is the greatness of hypothetical inner infinity, which is as great as the external infinity, only its miniature representation.
Both infinities stand in a parallel, balanced relationship. However, while the external Infinity will potentially need hundreds of billions of years to reach the “Middle” of its Story, inner Infinity has the advantage of accelerated development.
Wrong unit of measurement (reference)
“So the World works, so will I,” is the basic fallacy. The “World” has time. The World is part of the Cosmic narrative.
The entirety of our story (beginning – middle – end) is written and played in about 100 years. All chapters, all transformations, all conceptualizations, all actualizations, all archetypal representations.
The differences between the beginning and the middle, as well as the middle and the end, are evident. These are differences between the young and the mature, the mature and the wise. It is also evident that the world is still in the infancy of its teenage years. This child is not an ethical-aesthetic norm, but merely a reference to the stage of development. A reference to the collective antithesis, which is at the beginning of development and will need much more time to mature.