Re: god image vs. god

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Since you quote me, I rather figured i was the target of that post???

I wrote you a long post, but I got carried away and deleted it. Just think

one set of feelings not hurt. I must say though, that I see no way logic has

anything to do with our Image of the Image of G-d.

Unbalanced archetypes? in whose judgment?

I for one, do not see the Apocalypse around the corner, either. Nor ,

personally have any kind of fear.

I also am sure many people believe G-d to be creator, and they too are

allowed to have that view whether you agree or not. Maybe you, like me,

needs to be less emphatic as we preach our personal views to the multitude.

god image vs. god

> >>If we find G-d within the Self, fear is sometimes

> a good thing, because it warns us we are not being

> true to ourSelf.<<

>

> --The great flaw is for the ego to confuse the image

> of God within the individual for the Creator of

> nature. In reality, nature has no humanoid creator, or

> if it does, it's not in any way preoccupied with human

> failures or with a need to be worshipped. No true

> deity gets angry, any more than a volcano gets angry.

> Nature has consequences, but it does not have wrath.

>

> The God-image within individuals does have wrath,

> insofar as the ego is identified with unbalanced

> archetypes. The wounded ego, identifying with the

> superego, wreaks havoc in the world when it discovers

> the sense of inner authority and absoluteness of the

> image of the Self, mistaking it for a god.

>

> There is no reason to fear the image of god within

> oneself. Better to fear the consequences of not

> allowing that image to bear fruit through creative

> action. If we collectively channel the opposites into

> a crusade against evil, we will have our house of

> glass irreparably shattered. If we unify the opposites

> within, without fear or the need for vicarious

> suffering or the pornography of holy war, we will

> rediscover our humanity and restore our empathy with

> nature. The choice is triggered in every individual

> when a tragic event is broadcast on global media.

> Princess 's funeral was an inkling of that event.

> 911 was the development of a main theme. We feel the

> steady drumbeat of suicide bombings around the

> pivot-point of Jerusalem and we sense intuitively the

> wheels within wheels counting down to the possibility

> of a nuclear state like Pakistan or North Korea

> blackmailing the US to force us off our energy

> addiction and humble our pride... The next event may

> be far more painful, but it will provide the catalytic

> energy necessary to unify the world's brightest

> thinkers and feelers into an organic mass. A series of

> smaller tragedies is preferable, but these things may

> already be decided by previous generations. It is hard

> to say.

>

> Love and Logic,

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2004 6:13:09 PM Central Standard Time, hoon@...

writes:

>I would suggest

>that about all we can do is admit that these incompatibilities are

>'just so' and there is little we can do about them.

Didn't Jung say that one of the signs of mental health is to be able to hold

in consciousness the paradox of opposites as both true?

[Guest guest]

all,

Toni, , your two views do exist, exist together, and what else

could we then say? They are, at the least, your own God imago.

T:I must say though, that I see no way logic has anything to do with

our Image of the Image of G-d.

M:In reality, nature has no humanoid creator, or if it does, it's not

in any way preoccupied with human failures or with a need to be

worshipped.

To take it further, personally, to call either " reality, " with the

implications of wider applications beyond your selves, is, at least,

a part of your growing God-imago(s).

(Toni, I refer here to not your statement about logic, but your many

profound expressions of your deep spirituality; expressions I've been

privileged to read.)

Aside from this personalization, there might be a non-personalized

viewpoint. This is implied all the time on this list, but, alas, at

the least, this too is more grist for the ol' imago.

***

In considering the obvious incompatibilities between the various

experiences of God, the Divine, reality, truth, etc., I would suggest

that about all we can do is admit that these incompatibilities are

'just so' and there is little we can do about them.

As I wrote to Alice, " It is because my typological tendency is to hold the

" nowhere " and the mysterium closer to my spirit than I hold the

" divinity " and the " diversity " .

(nowhere is, of course, now here)

So, I see in myself this vector of 'gravitation'. On the level it is

not compatible it is so. On another level, its just my own nutty

spoke in the great wheel.

This said, for myself, unlearning/learning, critical thinking

(logic), meditative insight, and, creative relationship, are the

current reductions that describe my spirituality.

These are not my spirit, on the other hand. About my spirit I know

little, and some day, God Willing, I shall no nothing about it.

regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

In the last few days and nights, I have been thinking of our e-mails, not just

your and mine but all of the list's.

It plagues me, that by being so emphatic about my image of the Image of G-d,

that some others may find their views weaken, or think they cannot get a handle

on their own image.

The last thing, I would want is for someone to feel I have been unkind and that

I have ridden all over them.

All our images change as we mature and I suppose that lasts as long as we do. I

hate the idea that someone would try to pound something into my head, and I

imagine that is what it must look like or feel like to some of those that never

are heard from.

I have been reading some of the new works on Scripture, the Gospels especially

and I worry that what I adjust to readily must cause orthodox Christians

heartburn .I know when I first began to study seriously i found many of my

assumptions false, and it did cause we to wonder...had I been wrong all those

years? That was somewhat the impression I got the first time I met " Answer to

Job " .

I don't think it is ever possible for each person even in a group to have the

same image of the Image, so why would we diverse, perverse(?) people on this

list agree.? It is a long road to one's inner certainty, and I for one shouldn't

fool around with other people's.And because we find our images different, the

way to those images will also be different.

Some of us are ready for the rumble tumble, but I wonder if we are toxic to

anyone?

I read things even now, that make me sad for the good old days when everything

was so much easier.Having to rearrange one's Image of the Imago Dei is a

heartbreaking job, or can be.I think most people when they take up Jung, find

that they have to readjust some of their religious beliefs or at least examine

them again.Spirituality is too much a part of Jung, to skip over that.

Anyway,I don't want to be the cause of others fixing what isn't broken. There

will always be a time when we have to look into our psyche and see what is still

true for us, but i don't want to...what, pull out the rug on which someone

stands until thery are ready to have it losend.I really leave my computer sad

some days.

I am not even sure that at the end we don't all arrive at the same place. But we

must be true to ourselves on the way there.

I really feel sad when someone rips apart something that has been a comforting

idea that I wasn't quite ready to outgrow it yet. My spirituality is and will

always be different than anyone elses because of life experiences,grace,and

personality. Its hard to argue about our approaches to the All anyway because it

is so special and we tend to want to hug it to ourselves anyway. I have tried to

be as open as I can, but sometimes, as I knew would likely happen, I tend to

resent others telling me what to do that I do wrong.( pride never goes away

completely, does it?)

I take this path, this long path very seriously (not that it takes up the whole

time and allows for nothing else, but it is near me always.) It shapes my

ethics, my morality,my thinking, my doing, my reading, my art and most of all

my relationships.I have the leisure to do that nowadays.I just don't want to be

the unkindness that troubles someone else.What I believe and know as far as my

spirituality is concerned does matter to others, because it is in that context

that I approach them. So my applications have a wider circle than just myself.

G-d and I don't just sit happily on a mountain top.I'm down here mixing it up

and so is my image of the Imago Dei..

We can talk about those images all day long as long as we remain aware that we

are saying anything about the G-dhead, about which we know absolutely nothing.

It is this urge to dissassemble, to re-explain, to prove, to rationalize that

about which we know nothing that tends to give me heart-burn. I am not sure all

members of this list or others really understand that, or even accept it. I do

think that should be one of the ground rules for our discussions; that we

realize we are only describing our imahe of the Image of G-d, and not the

Unknowable.

And no, we cannot discount anyone's experience of their G-d image. It is true

for them at that moment and we may not interfer.

( I also cannot take an un-personal point of view. I don't see the subject is

possible from a de-personal point of view. I just cannot see a " de-personalized

point of view. We must still use only our own psyche, and that makes it

personal.

Toni

Re: god image vs. god

all,

Toni, , your two views do exist, exist together, and what else

could we then say? They are, at the least, your own God imago.

T:I must say though, that I see no way logic has anything to do with

our Image of the Image of G-d.

M:In reality, nature has no humanoid creator, or if it does, it's not

in any way preoccupied with human failures or with a need to be

worshipped.

To take it further, personally, to call either " reality, " with the

implications of wider applications beyond your selves, is, at least,

a part of your growing God-imago(s).

(Toni, I refer here to not your statement about logic, but your many

profound expressions of your deep spirituality; expressions I've been

privileged to read.)

Aside from this personalization, there might be a non-personalized

viewpoint. This is implied all the time on this list, but, alas, at

the least, this too is more grist for the ol' imago.

***

In considering the obvious incompatibilities between the various

experiences of God, the Divine, reality, truth, etc., I would suggest

that about all we can do is admit that these incompatibilities are

'just so' and there is little we can do about them.

As I wrote to Alice, " It is because my typological tendency is to hold the

" nowhere " and the mysterium closer to my spirit than I hold the

" divinity " and the " diversity " .

(nowhere is, of course, now here)

So, I see in myself this vector of 'gravitation'. On the level it is

not compatible it is so. On another level, its just my own nutty

spoke in the great wheel.

This said, for myself, unlearning/learning, critical thinking

(logic), meditative insight, and, creative relationship, are the

current reductions that describe my spirituality.

These are not my spirit, on the other hand. About my spirit I know

little, and some day, God Willing, I shall no nothing about it.

regards,