Re: Edinger on Nebuchadnezzar

[Guest guest]

Hi fa,

>My question is, what is the correct response of the Self when the

>'arbitrary authority' is external, punitive and unfair?

>

I am not sure if you are asking in general terms or not.

The " correct " response must depend on the situation? Step aside, take

yourself out of the battle, would be one response. Or go along with what the

authority requires while being aware than you don't agree but you are doing

it to achieve a goal that does matter to the Self.

Artemis

[Guest guest]

The answer is in the quote itself:

.... This is a clear allusion to *the totality of the Self that emerges in the midst of the frustration of the ego power demands* (...) what one encounters *whenever one challenges an

arbitrary authority, whether internal or external*. Whether one gets through such a calcinatio *depends on whether one is acting on ego motives or Self motives.

 If there is no 'ring' of preparedness to fight with - that is to say feel antagonistic toward - this authority, be it outer or inner, the 'hook' of its intention (whether simply riding roughshod or more malevolent inclined) has nothing to catch on to.

So calcinatio always burns up the dross that is inside, regardless of where or how the flame is being applied. This is what Edinger is pointing at: all situations are ones one can learn from.-- Everything you know is wrong.

~Firesign TheatreThe intellect is meant for utilitarianism, and whatever creativity it may have operates within this limit and never beyond it.~D. T. Suzuki The way to completely liberate all of cyclic existence is to sustain the nature of present awareness with an uncontrived, non-grasping and watchful mindfulness in order to uproot the undercurrent of conceptions.

~Dungse Trinley Norbu Rinpoche

[Guest guest]

Hello fa,

Tried posting this another way, will now try through the website!

the correct response of the Self when the 'arbitrary authority' is external,

punitive and unfair?

I don't know exactly what you are referring to with your question, but if we are

using Edinger's example from , then the Self doesn't emerge until

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have endured the fire (calcinatio) without

burning. So the answer here might be that the Self remains with the ego until

the uninflated ego has endured the rage of arbitrary authority without falling

prey to its power. When/if the ego becomes inflated - possessed by the Self

rather than conscious of it - then the external authority has the power to be

punitive and unfair.

This being true, then the Self remains with the ego to insure that the authority

remains internal rather than external. The ego must, at the same time, remain

true to/in conscious relationship with the internal authority even when the

external authority has punitive and unfair consequences. Aren't we talking

about integrity here?

Joyce

[Guest guest]

Hi Artemis,

My question was general, but the prompting for it was a consideration of the position of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. Obviously, the play deals with extreme circumstances, but the fact was that Shylock was making a political point to highlight a very real injustice. Of course he was wrong, not only under the law of the land and of his own religion, but psychologically, in that he sinned against the Self. But when a people is so downtrodden, they have no individual or even collective ego to mediate.

When I was on the campaign trail for Obama last year, we were briefed about certain questions/concerns commonly raised by potential voters. In the late stage of the campaign when we were targeting people who had not taken advantage of the early voting system, we were told that many people fear going to the polls in case the line is too long and they risk losing their job by being late for work. We were told to reassure them that they have a Constitutional right to vote and that their employer cannot fire them or dock their pay for excersising that right. I was very glad, however, that I never encountered this particular objection. I do not doubt that the information given to me by my campaign manager was correct under US law. However, many of the potential Obama voters in Florida may not have been working strictly legally. I am not talking about criminals, merely people who find themselves having to take under the counter work, perhaps as a pool cleaner or something, just to feed their kids and pay the bills. By voting for a better system in which they could work legally with full rights and responsibilities, they risk the job they currently have with no immediate prospect of another.

Much of Jungian thought deals with our inner conflicts, but we do have to deal with an outer world too!

fa

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of Artemis PapertSent: 29 March 2009 19:52To: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Edinger on Nebuchadnezzar

Hi fa,>My question is, what is the correct response of the Self when the >'arbitrary authority' is external, punitive and unfair?>I am not sure if you are asking in general terms or not.The "correct" response must depend on the situation? Step aside, take yourself out of the battle, would be one response. Or go along with what the authority requires while being aware than you don't agree but you are doing it to achieve a goal that does matter to the Self.Artemis

[Guest guest]

Thanks Mike!

Just to clarify (with regard to external situations) - could we say that Parks acted from the Self when she quietly but persistently refused to give up her seat on the 'bus, but violent protest comes from the ego? Could there be any situation in which violence could come from the Self?

fa

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ] On Behalf Of mike dickmanSent: 29 March 2009 21:54To: JUNG-FIRE Subject: Re: Edinger on Nebuchadnezzar

The answer is in the quote itself:

.... This is a clear allusion to *the totality of the Self that emerges in the midst of the frustration of the ego power demands* (...) what one encounters *whenever one challenges an arbitrary authority, whether internal or external*. Whether one gets through such a calcinatio *depends on whether one is acting on ego motives or Self motives.

If there is no 'ring' of preparedness to fight with - that is to say feel antagonistic toward - this authority, be it outer or inner, the 'hook' of its intention (whether simply riding roughshod or more malevolent inclined) has nothing to catch on to.So calcinatio always burns up the dross that is inside, regardless of where or how the flame is being applied. This is what Edinger is pointing at: all situations are ones one can learn from.-- Everything you know is wrong.~Firesign TheatreThe intellect is meant for utilitarianism, and whatever creativity it may have operates within this limit and never beyond it.~D. T. Suzuki The way to completely liberate all of cyclic existence is to sustain the nature of present awareness with an uncontrived, non-grasping and watchful mindfulness in order to uproot the undercurrent of conceptions.~Dungse Trinley Norbu Rinpoche

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

Good to hear from you again!

I totally agree with you that integrity is the key factor here. My problem is that Jungians almost always discuss these issues from an internal standpoint without taking external circumstances into account. Some years ago I attended a conference on Primo Levi. Although primarily an academic event, it was sponsored by the Jewish Chronicle and so more interested members of the public attended than is usual at such events, making it a very rich occasion. I was privileged to make the acquaintance there of an elderly Holocaust survivor. The man was very sick, I would be surprised if he even saw the next year. More than his bodily ailments, though, he was troubled by a sickness of soul which went way beyond textbook survivor guilt. He was troubled by the things which he had had to do in order to survive the camps, and kept insisting that "all the good people died". He wanted me, as a young Jewess, to know what really happened. I was completely at a loss, as of course I couldn't condemn him for stealing food from starving people when he was starving himself, but in his last years he was haunted by this and his conscience would give him no peace.

So, under those kind of circumstances, do we maintain our integrity and die, or do whatever it takes to live?

fa

PS Sorry about not snipping - still getting used to a new computer!

Hello fa,Tried posting this another way, will now try through the website!the correct response of the Self when the 'arbitrary authority' is external, punitive and unfair?I don't know exactly what you are referring to with your question, but if we are using Edinger's example from , then the Self doesn't emerge until Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have endured the fire (calcinatio) without burning. So the answer here might be that the Self remains with the ego until the uninflated ego has endured the rage of arbitrary authority without falling prey to its power. When/if the ego becomes inflated - possessed by the Self rather than conscious of it - then the external authority has the power to be punitive and unfair. This being true, then the Self remains with the ego to insure that the authority remains internal rather than external. The ego must, at the same time, remain true to/in conscious relationship with the internal authority even when the external authority has punitive and unfair consequences. Aren't we talking about integrity here? Joyce

[Guest guest]

Hello again fa,

It's good to hear from you too! Your question:

" So, under those kind of circumstances, do we maintain our integrity and die, or

do whatever it takes to live? "

Are you asking for the " proper " or " ideal " answer to this? If so, then there is

no " correct " answer. And what any one of us would do, we can only know when/if

the circumstances arrive in our own lives. Our egos want to believe that we

could maintain our integrity no matter what we would choose to do, but that is

an " ideal. " What is more interesting is how we deal with what we actually do.

The man you met had obviously gone against his " ideal " behavior, or had lost his

integrity to his own bodily hunger. But he will not betray his integrity

further by forgiving himself for this. So he's in a " double bind " with his own

ideals (his identification with the Self). His god is merciless because his god

expects perfection, denying this man his own humanity. His ego/Self axis is

broken. What he seeks is a mercy that only he can grant himself.

Isn't this a primary example of the need for analysis? The need to be heard and

accepted by someone else as we work out our own salvation?

What else could be offered?

Joyce