Spirit and Psyche ~ Complementary Paradigms
Abstract: Depth psychology cannot compensate for the loss of spiritual tradition, nor can God make his abode in the psyche. Today, spiritual symbols are often misinterpreted in psychological terms. To remedy this, psychological theory must be developed to accommodate spiritual transcendence as complementary to psychology’s worldly perspective. The path of worldly withdrawal and spiritual contemplation is equally important as the psychological integration of the unconscious and cultural expression. The article discusses various spiritual traditions and takes a critical look at the Hermetic tradition. The nature of faith is discussed.
Keywords: religiosity, faith, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, metaphorical unconscious, mysticism, Wasteland, animism, synchronicity, Baining people, Pseudo-Dionysius, Kirpal Singh, Carl Jung.
Read the article here:
http://www.two-paths.com/spiritual_paradigm.htm
Mats Winther
Replies
alex
agreed in principle. I would reword your last sentence, "And Jung's psychologizing has also become a piece of me." to... Something inside of me both consciously and unconsciously appropriated elements of Jung's thought to use in the assembly of my own psychological construct.
With that said i would like to clarify my thought on the outtake of an element of Jung's dream.... My tendency to get carried away with my thoughts obfuscated the essence of my limited contribution to mats dream interpretation. It was an epiphany of the fool/archetype that filled Jung with the feeling of idiocy. Who else but a fool would inspire a man to posit a completely individual solution to the human predicament aka sponsor the purposive blossoming of individuality. And it would be the archetype of individuality and Jung's identification with it that prevented him from bowing his head completely to the ground before the manifestation of the self that confronted him in the dream. If one is going to reunite with the self shouldn't one do so with his head held high as a unique individual consciousness. Is this what the dream is communicating to Jung...Isn't this what the neoplatonists were aiming at... an individual reintegration with the self. The culmination of the original process set off by our individuation from the neoplatonic Self.
itinerant idealist
Exactly. I was waiting for Mats to say something about it, but...
Those who aren't affected by formal education or working experience (for instance with mental patients with suicidal or (self)destructive tendencies - hence I'm inevitably different than someone who deals with screams and mental pain on a daily basis) are interested in something else than other people. I am an engineer and as such more interested in how stuff works, hence more likely to make an (right or wrong) assumption that Jung should still be acknowledged as an important system theorist. And his colleagues cannot care less about it. As far as I'm concerned, Jung (since he is, again, the central figure of this discussion) was pushing just enough in the spiritual realm. He wasn't just psychologizing, just as religious people/agnostics among quantum physicists aren't just physicalizing. He has discovered (something resembling) the spiritual realm behind or beyond the psyche. He or anyone else for that matter wasn't able to please everyone. For instance, if a nun decides to be silent, her decision to behave like other nuns didn't just happen in a vacuum. Serbian is my terrestrial language and Christianity (combined with other stuff, including atheistic childhood) is my spiritual language. That's who I am and it's in no way better, deeper, or more complete than anything else. And Jung's psychologizing has also become a piece of me.
Mats and Klemens - If I may ask, what are your professions? If this comment receives any response, I'll write about why I ask that.
bonnie has amassed a great video collection.... Any of these videos she doesn't have would be great additions to her list...
I for one am going to immediately watch Jung Legacy and Influence... My off the cuff summation of my personal understanding of Jungs influence definitely needs to be extended and supplemented. Thanks so much...
as to the psychological typology I suspect it developed by Jung for understanding and orientational purposes. That some degree of integration of the inferior function happened during psychological growth was an important observation but was more an observable and secondary result of that growth…. chalk that up to my opinion...Introversion and extroversion are of decidedly more consequence. I am tussling with these empirically observable phenomenon now… I suspect Jung was too restrictive when he empirically observed and defined them.
Aha, so I got that link from you. I have collected some valuable video links here:
The Way of the Dream by Marie-Louise von Franz
Remembering Jung series - talk with Marie-Louise von Franz
Carl Jung - The Wisdom of the Dream - A Life of Dreams Part 1 of 3
Carl Jung - The Wisdom of the Dream - Inheritance of Dreams Part 2 ...
Carl Jung - The Wisdom of the Dream - A World of Dreams Part 3 of 3
The World Within - C.G. Jung in His Own Words
Carl Jung - Sea of Faith
Carl Gustav Jung: A Matter of The Heart
Carl Jung - Face to Face
Carl Jung - Legacy and Influence (Rowland Smith/Vernon/Lachman)
Alan Watts - A Critique of Carl Jung, Seeing Through the Game (soun...
Alan Watts on Carl Jung (longer version of above video)
/Mats
mats:
Klemens, I have gotten virtually no response from Jungian academics, although I have presented my ideas in an academic forum. (It's not that I expected it, but I would have benefitted from having my ideas challenged.) Your intellectual grasp is clearly better than the average Jungian's. In this interesting podcast (approx. 1 hour) at "Zurich lab" Sean McGrath is in conversation with David Tacey, who comments on the Jungian intellectual ineptitude. He discusses the "tremendously disappointing Jungian culture" and the inability of Jungian psychology to get recognition in academia. He also goes into Hillman and Giegerich: The Zurich Laboratory.
I reject the Jungian notion of unceasing individuation, because it is extravagant and out of proportion. After all, nobody seems to have lived through his programme of individuation: from the shadow, via the anima and the wise old man, to the Self. To my knowledge, nobody claims to have followed this path. It's now gone a hundred years since he introduced his concept of individuation. Why aren't any empirical results forthcoming?
According to Neoplatonism, the Self is One. Thus, it is simple--a 'coniunctio oppositorum' in which the opposites are cancelled out. In Jung's vision, however, the Self is a 'complexio oppositorum' where the opposites are held in tension, as if keeping each others in check. This means that the opposites are always ready to fly apart, and conscious personality must hold them on a tight leash. Thus, Jung's Self could easily become ambivalent. As I say in my article 'Ethical Complementarity':
"It is obvious that there is a limit to the amount of opposites that can be integrated in personality, because at some point consciousness cannot stand the tension anymore. We don't have the energy and time for such a project, anyway. I cannot become equally much extraverted as introverted, or equally much feeling as thinking, or equally much instinctual as rational. I can only better myself to a degree, and take away the worst inbalances in my psychology. Only by adopting a more modest ideal can one avoid becoming ambivalent. So at a point in time we cannot go further on the path of integration. It is then that the spiritual Self becomes the goal, at the point of reversion (the Neoplatonic concept of epistrophê). So Jung's Self is overbearing and exaggerated and needs to be downsized. There is no such thing as an overpowering, ambivalent, multifarious Self that incorporates all the opposites." (here)
Arguably, the Janusian complementarian Self, as I have defined it, appears in this dream of Jung's:
"In his autobiography, Jung accounts for the dream about Akbar and Uriah (Jung, MDR, pp.217-220). Jung associated the sultan Akbar with the "lord of this world". Uriah represents the vertical striving, because he lives far above the mandala in a solitary (hermit's) chamber; a place "which no longer corresponded to reality". He is "the highest presence" and Jung is compelled to bow before him. But he could not bring his forehead quite down to the floor. This means that it never clicked. The coin never dropped. In the dream he is portrayed as an "idiot" who cannot understand his father's brilliant biblical lecture. His father, the minister, is a representative of the vertical path. Thus, we get an entirely different picture than his conscious view." (here)
So here the two Self aspects have been downsized. It is not the Christ versus the devil. Rather, it is Uriah versus Akbar. These are two more modest Self-images. Akbar does not represent the worldly Self, who has integrated *all* the opposites, keeping them in suspension. He is merely Akbar, and he is whole to a sufficient degree.
The dream relates that Jung's view of Self is a misconception, and that's why he is portrayed as an "idiot" who cannot bow down properly to the transcendental Self. Jung's "empirical spirituality" is a failure. The "conglomerative Self", where spirit is coalesced with psyche, only promotes unconsciousness and a revival of paganism.
Don't you think that it is problematic that Jung leaves no room for the spiritual reclusive in Jung's model, that is, the personality who centers his life upon faith, ascetism, and simpleness? Spiritual tradition has had an enormous following throughout history. Still, Jung dismisses the contemplative life in an off-hand way. He also rejects the philosophy underlying spiritual practices of the East, such as Yoga (cf. Jung, CW11, p.484). It is implausible that such a central aspect of human nature and history should be the result of a mere miscomprehension in spiritual matters.
Mats Winther
"They tried to make me go to rehab but I said, 'No, no, no.'" - Amy Winehouse
There are all kinds of abandonment, but it seems to me that a psychological approach to individual and collective life isn't a totally bad idea. Maybe it doesn't provide all explanations, but there are far worse reasons to accept or abandon stuff.