Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go back occassionally)

[Guest guest]

Thanks Toni,

The last one,

"

" The idea of G-d is an absolutely necessary psychological function of an irrational nature which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of G-d's existence. The human intellect can never answer this question, still less give any proof of G-d. Moreover,such proof is superfluous for the idea of an all powerful divine Being is present everywhere unconsciously if not consciously,because there is an archetype..."

[Guest guest]

Dear Betty,

I had some qualms about including this quote, because I saw some danger in it. You, of course put your finger on it. Jung seems to be relegating G-d purely to an archetype. To each of us, the meaning would come from how wide our understanding of 'archetype' stretches.

In this case, my antenna went up as I would have to put a footnote to this quote to meld it with my own understanding.

Psychology can do a lot for the spiritual, but it cannot do it all. Jung, I think understood this, particularly in his late years, and MDR shows this. He personally does not take the "mystery" that lies at the core of spirituality out of it by "closing the question", other do.. But does putting the spiritual in the collective unconscious only do that?

There are those who think psychological growth and spiritual growth are not synonymous...and Jung seems to understand this distinction....when he discusses the "objective psyche" ( which has always caused me some problems of understanding, not in spirituality but in psychology.)

Recently I read Gerald May's "Will and Spirit" in which he quotes Needleman ( a man whose other work on the meaning of money, I really liked. He said:

There are some philosophers and psychologists like him "who feel that psychology and spirituality should be separate rather than integrated because " the former seeks to help a person solve the problems of living; the later deepens the "Question" of human life itself.For the psychotherapist, therefore the great challenge is to assist the patient in solving his problems without closing the" Question"

May agrees, that mystery is then killed that which lies at the core of spirituality. Individuation, being what one was meant to be seems to imply spiritual concerns not just psychological. Even though Jung himself wrote about "good and evil sources" many people still equate that purely with the mind, and he solves all the problems by positing the "spiritual" in the collective unconscious"

Do we then have only a mental construct of "G-d" "G-dhead" "Cosmic Consciousness" the "Void"? I have had this problem since I first read Jung and tended always to slide over it. Are these just constructs of our minds? I was/am just not happy without metaphysics. How do I deal with my spiritual longing? Are all these questions just to be answered by psychology? And more importantly, where does one go for spiritual direction? To a Jungian psychologist whom one may need for other growth? Are all psychologists spiritually surrendered and therefore able to guide me? ( That is why Jung sent his patients back to their church or synagogue.He had no doubts about his ability here)

Psychologists, according to Jung should love their patients, and in that way he covers himself. But not all Jungian psychologists are spiritual. So then, psychology cannot help guide me spiritually however my spiritual needs overlap my mental health. At least, not in the way I expect a spiritual director to be himself surrendered. One cannot expect that depth in a therapist.( In fact I tried this myself with no result. it wasn't fair to my analyst at all)

So to get back to "G-d" being an archetype. W--e--l--l yes, but for me there is always a but. One is not supposed to "possess" an archetype, nor identify oneself with it for psychological health. But when it comes to the spiritual, there comes a time when "union" would mean just that. What else could 'union with G-d" possibly be? It is the mystery and the answer is not the mysterious "archetype" to me..but much more.

So far I have decided well, yes, i have just brought the collective unconscious to consciousness and thus my awareness of union would come from that. But it doesn't always satisfy me, i am afraid. It is all still in my psyche/ mind...and my spirit is restless.

So, I understand why the quote from Jung would appeal to many. But in my unconscious is not where I want to bury my Source. I think perhaps it is possible to be "individuated" without the spiritually understood union with G-d..mental healthy.

( Gerald may takes this farther than I because he is attempting to separate the act of willfulness and willingness, and of course the analyst must be willful in his guidance with his patience toward mental health...This would get us too deep here)

I have a feeling, Jungians will rise up to cut me off at the knees, but I am still on uncertain ground in my understanding of "union" and will not argue until and if I ever get to solid ground.

So for me, that quote was "iffy" The words "G-d" and psychology together recently have made me twitchy.G-d would be G-d as far as I am concerned even if no one anywhere thought of G-d consciously or unconsciously. And of course, Jung is correct, no intelligent human mind can answer the Question.

You know I had a feeling as i wrote the quote that you would "love" it, just from what I have read in your posts. I think it strengthens your thoughts at this time, no?

love,

Toni

Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go back occassionally)

Thanks Toni,

The last one,

"

" The idea of G-d is an absolutely necessary psychological function of an irrational nature which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question of G-d's existence. The human intellect can never answer this question, still less give any proof of G-d. Moreover,such proof is superfluous for the idea of an all powerful divine Being is present everywhere unconsciously if not consciously,because there is an archetype..."

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

No Toni, it doesn't strengthen my thoughts. Like says, fence sitting is honorable. Uncertainty(negative capability) makes a poem. As you said there is no answer to the question.

I watched a tape of Updike, that he did on cspan back in Dec this pm, and he answered a caller's question saying he decided either he went around depressed with a long face or he accepted belief and happiness or words to that affect. That is just about the crux of it. Freud went to his grave a non believer without comfort, C.S. chose belief and comfort. The existentialists say to find a meaning to our life, even if we concoct it (my choice of word). I think Jung," sent his patients back to their church or synagogue." because he thought it unwise to tinker with the attire of the archetype, just as the Dalai Lama doesn't think one should change religions. I've never been in analysis, so I am at a disadvantage, but I suspect transference in analysis is mistaken for a spiritual experience and thus the analyst gets dragged into the metaphysics of the patient. I think transference is common as a religious experience in a religious setting, especially during the Mass. My opinion. So the transcendental experience is through out society clothed in the attire of the setting in which it is experienced. The experience is real, but is our connotation of it real?

I have just received the new translation of The Tibetan Book of the Dead that was mentioned on this list a while back. It has an introduction by the Dalai Lama that I am anxious to read (after I finish present book), I think probably the Tibetans understand projections better than most cultures. Even though all these images from the unconscious assault the person during the dying process, there is the constant reminder that we are to recognize these as projections of our own mind.

I would imagine that there will be increased uncertainty about the Question as the Piscean age ends and the archetype finds new attire for the age of Aquarius. Far be it from me to have any answers. I'm not really sure I want any. The Mystery is better than the so called answers.

love,

Betty

PS: Toni, your post deserves a better answer, but this is the best I can do.

Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go back occassionally)

Dear Betty,

I had some qualms about including this quote, because I saw some danger in it. You, of course put your finger on it. Jung seems to be relegating G-d purely to an archetype. To each of us, the meaning would come from how wide our understanding of 'archetype' stretches.

In this case, my antenna went up as I would have to put a footnote to this quote to meld it with my own understanding.

Psychology can do a lot for the spiritual, but it cannot do it all. Jung, I think understood this, particularly in his late years, and MDR shows this. He personally does not take the "mystery" that lies at the core of spirituality out of it by "closing the question", other do.. But does putting the spiritual in the collective unconscious only do that?

There are those who think psychological growth and spiritual growth are not synonymous...and Jung seems to understand this distinction....when he discusses the "objective psyche" ( which has always caused me some problems of understanding, not in spirituality but in psychology.)

Recently I read Gerald May's "Will and Spirit" in which he quotes Needleman ( a man whose other work on the meaning of money, I really liked. He said:

There are some philosophers and psychologists like him "who feel that psychology and spirituality should be separate rather than integrated because " the former seeks to help a person solve the problems of living; the later deepens the "Question" of human life itself.For the psychotherapist, therefore the great challenge is to assist the patient in solving his problems without closing the" Question"

May agrees, that mystery is then killed that which lies at the core of spirituality. Individuation, being what one was meant to be seems to imply spiritual concerns not just psychological. Even though Jung himself wrote about "good and evil sources" many people still equate that purely with the mind, and he solves all the problems by positing the "spiritual" in the collective unconscious"

Do we then have only a mental construct of "G-d" "G-dhead" "Cosmic Consciousness" the "Void"? I have had this problem since I first read Jung and tended always to slide over it. Are these just constructs of our minds? I was/am just not happy without metaphysics. How do I deal with my spiritual longing? Are all these questions just to be answered by psychology? And more importantly, where does one go for spiritual direction? To a Jungian psychologist whom one may need for other growth? Are all psychologists spiritually surrendered and therefore able to guide me? ( That is why Jung sent his patients back to their church or synagogue.He had no doubts about his ability here)

Psychologists, according to Jung should love their patients, and in that way he covers himself. But not all Jungian psychologists are spiritual. So then, psychology cannot help guide me spiritually however my spiritual needs overlap my mental health. At least, not in the way I expect a spiritual director to be himself surrendered. One cannot expect that depth in a therapist.( In fact I tried this myself with no result. it wasn't fair to my analyst at all)

So to get back to "G-d" being an archetype. W--e--l--l yes, but for me there is always a but. One is not supposed to "possess" an archetype, nor identify oneself with it for psychological health. But when it comes to the spiritual, there comes a time when "union" would mean just that. What else could 'union with G-d" possibly be? It is the mystery and the answer is not the mysterious "archetype" to me..but much more.

So far I have decided well, yes, i have just brought the collective unconscious to consciousness and thus my awareness of union would come from that. But it doesn't always satisfy me, i am afraid. It is all still in my psyche/ mind...and my spirit is restless.

So, I understand why the quote from Jung would appeal to many. But in my unconscious is not where I want to bury my Source. I think perhaps it is possible to be "individuated" without the spiritually understood union with G-d..mental healthy.

( Gerald may takes this farther than I because he is attempting to separate the act of willfulness and willingness, and of course the analyst must be willful in his guidance with his patience toward mental health...This would get us too deep here)

I have a feeling, Jungians will rise up to cut me off at the knees, but I am still on uncertain ground in my understanding of "union" and will not argue until and if I ever get to solid ground.

So for me, that quote was "iffy" The words "G-d" and psychology together recently have made me twitchy.G-d would be G-d as far as I am concerned even if no one anywhere thought of G-d consciously or unconsciously. And of course, Jung is correct, no intelligent human mind can answer the Question.

You know I had a feeling as i wrote the quote that you would "love" it, just from what I have read in your posts. I think it strengthens your thoughts at this time, no?

love,

Toni

[Guest guest]

Hi Toni. I think most Jungian writers who write re spirituality are

careful to note that they cannot make definitive, ontological claims

re things metaphysical. For instance, very good book re Jungian

thoughts re the " numinous " is Lionel Corbetts' " The Religious

Function of the Psyche " in which he carefully points out that

Jungians can & only do study the " experiential " effects and pathways

of the Spirit. Your concerns and view regarding " God " here would seem

to fit with a theological point of view known as panentheism-God as

both ground of creation and outside of creation. A good discussion of

that from Christian and similar religious standpoints can be found at

this website:

http://www.frimmin.com/faith/godinall.html---

In fact, I think for the theologically inclined panentheism probably

would be the most natural fit with Jungian thought. Thanks for your

thoughts, EarlIn JUNG-FIRE , " vienna19311 "

<Vienna19311@v...> wrote:

>

> Dear Betty,

>

> I had some qualms about including this quote, because I saw some

danger in it. You, of course put your finger on it. Jung seems to be

relegating G-d purely to an archetype. To each of us, the meaning

would come from how wide our understanding of 'archetype' stretches.

> In this case, my antenna went up as I would have to put a footnote

to this quote to meld it with my own understanding.

>

> Psychology can do a lot for the spiritual, but it cannot do it all.

Jung, I think understood this, particularly in his late years, and

MDR shows this. He personally does not take the " mystery " that lies

at the core of spirituality out of it by " closing the question " ,

other do.. But does putting the spiritual in the collective

unconscious only do that?

>

> There are those who think psychological growth and spiritual growth

are not synonymous...and Jung seems to understand this

distinction....when he discusses the " objective psyche " ( which has

always caused me some problems of understanding, not in spirituality

but in psychology.)

>

> Recently I read Gerald May's " Will and Spirit " in which he quotes

Needleman ( a man whose other work on the meaning of money, I

really liked. He said:

> There are some philosophers and psychologists like him " who feel

that psychology and spirituality should be separate rather than

integrated because " the former seeks to help a person solve the

problems of living; the later deepens the " Question " of human life

itself.For the psychotherapist, therefore the great challenge is to

assist the patient in solving his problems without closing the "

Question "

>

> May agrees, that mystery is then killed that which lies at the core

of spirituality. Individuation, being what one was meant to be seems

to imply spiritual concerns not just psychological. Even though Jung

himself wrote about " good and evil sources " many people still equate

that purely with the mind, and he solves all the problems by positing

the " spiritual " in the collective unconscious "

>

> Do we then have only a mental construct of " G-d " " G-dhead " " Cosmic

Consciousness " the " Void " ? I have had this problem since I first read

Jung and tended always to slide over it. Are these just constructs of

our minds? I was/am just not happy without metaphysics. How do I deal

with my spiritual longing? Are all these questions just to be

answered by psychology? And more importantly, where does one go for

spiritual direction? To a Jungian psychologist whom one may need for

other growth? Are all psychologists spiritually surrendered and

therefore able to guide me? ( That is why Jung sent his patients back

to their church or synagogue.He had no doubts about his ability here)

>

> Psychologists, according to Jung should love their patients, and in

that way he covers himself. But not all Jungian psychologists are

spiritual. So then, psychology cannot help guide me spiritually

however my spiritual needs overlap my mental health. At least, not in

the way I expect a spiritual director to be himself surrendered. One

cannot expect that depth in a therapist.( In fact I tried this myself

with no result. it wasn't fair to my analyst at all)

>

> So to get back to " G-d " being an archetype. W--e--l--l yes, but for

me there is always a but. One is not supposed to " possess " an

archetype, nor identify oneself with it for psychological health. But

when it comes to the spiritual, there comes a time when " union " would

mean just that. What else could 'union with G-d " possibly be? It is

the mystery and the answer is not the mysterious " archetype " to

me..but much more.

> So far I have decided well, yes, i have just brought the collective

unconscious to consciousness and thus my awareness of union would

come from that. But it doesn't always satisfy me, i am afraid. It is

all still in my psyche/ mind...and my spirit is restless.

>

> So, I understand why the quote from Jung would appeal to many. But

in my unconscious is not where I want to bury my Source. I think

perhaps it is possible to be " individuated " without the spiritually

understood union with G-d..mental healthy.

>

> ( Gerald may takes this farther than I because he is attempting to

separate the act of willfulness and willingness, and of course the

analyst must be willful in his guidance with his patience toward

mental health...This would get us too deep here)

>

> I have a feeling, Jungians will rise up to cut me off at the knees,

but I am still on uncertain ground in my understanding of " union " and

will not argue until and if I ever get to solid ground.

>

> So for me, that quote was " iffy " The words " G-d " and psychology

together recently have made me twitchy.G-d would be G-d as far as I

am concerned even if no one anywhere thought of G-d consciously or

unconsciously. And of course, Jung is correct, no intelligent human

mind can answer the Question.

>

> You know I had a feeling as i wrote the quote that you

would " love " it, just from what I have read in your posts. I think

it strengthens your thoughts at this time, no?

>

> love,

> Toni

>

> Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000

journal ( I go back occassionally)

>

>

> Thanks Toni,

> The last one,

> "

> " The idea of G-d is an absolutely necessary psychological

function of an irrational nature which has absolutely nothing

whatever to do with the question of G-d's existence. The human

intellect can never answer this question, still less give any proof

of G-d. Moreover,such proof is superfluous for the idea of an all

powerful divine Being is present everywhere unconsciously if not

consciously,because there is an archetype... "

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Betty,

Sounds good to me, except you have transference confused. It has nothing to do with the spiritual per se. It has to do with the love that develops between analyst and analysand. Patient transfer unto analysts. That is transference. Counter transference is the analyst's feeling toward patient in response.

I wonder where you got the idea it was spiritual? I am only one case out of thousands, and my analysis was mine, not anyone else's. I did not transfer my spirituality unto the analyst...we talked about how i saw things, and she explained her ideas....which I must say were much less thought out than mine, and not all that important to her then.

Yep, have reread the Tibetan Book of the Dead any number of times. It is a classic and an important read. Still I have believed in reincarnation for years, of course I would be familiar with it.Do I take is as absolute truth, no, but there is much wisdom in it.

I am also interested in what the Dalai Llama has to say on compassion and on some other matters. His comment, if you saw it about changing religions was said in a certain context...at least the one I read was.It was not an absolute judgment at all. he is too wise for that.

As for fence sitting...whatever floats your boat.

My comments were about the Jungian quote and how I interpreted it. I wasn't telling you or anyone else how to understand it at all. Dear Betty, I am not trying to convert anyone to anything. I was making my own case, since i am still somewhat ambivalent about this latest bit.

I talk about my own processes as they go through my psyche to help me understand myself and to get anyone's take they wish to give. You are not me...my way is my way and my truth. I have no judgment on anyone else's and I would hesitate very long before i tried to change anyone's opinion on anything to do with spirituality...except actual facts, like who said what, and what a term means.

I am sorry if you took my remark about my spiritual discussions with my analyst wrong. That is NOT transference but exchange of ideas. It was an after thought, because transference is a feeling state, really took place...but it was totally based on love, not specific notions of hers.( There a large number of books and articles on "transference" if you want to understand the experience from afar and not personally.) Jung says quite a bit on the subject himself. That is the reason why he feels he cannot heal anyone unless he actually loves him/her.

I am delighted you are not looking for answers. in one of your posts to , you said you were, or so I understood. I personally believe that there comes a time when we no longer need or want them. Again that is my own personal view.

I also disagree with your comment on C.S. whose works , all of them I have read and reread. You are making what seems to me a value judgment out of the context. His depth of understanding was not as you mentioned, at least not in the biographies and works I have of him. Again, personal opinion. He is not so easy to categorize. Comfort was not his concern at all.

As for Freud, as a Jew he had other traditions which he chose to leave behind. Comfort again was outweighed by what he thought was his truth. Both these men had integrity and did not settle for comfort as I hope we never will.

What is "real" and what is not is hardly a matter on which either of us are final judges. I do know one thing however in which I agree with Jung. Personal experience does come with certainty. One knows if one has had it. And that is the basis for one's spirituality, not the ideas and experience of others however "great" they are.

I have no guru, no teacher or human master, although I would dearly love a spiritual director as I once had. Because I know the teachings and the experience of discernment, I can make do, but I would prefer another voice as well.( I have had some unpleasant experiences with some who were not cut out to do spiritual direction as well.)

Please, Betty, I am in no way trying to get other people to see things "my way" that would be impossible...even my kids and dearly beloved husband think I have a screw lose somewhere. I am too intense about the spiritual for them and have always been. I learned long ago to not even try to explain.

Sorry, I did think that would appeal to you (my comment in last post). But never mind, it really does not matter at all.

As with most people I understand Jung differently, and appreciate him completely differently than others. I owe him a lot and I believe him to have been a very wise man. I reread him constantly for his great insights, psychological and even spiritual. He has been worth my study for almost 20 years. And I owe him my growth to an extent.

Sit on all the fences you wish to, right there along with and anyone else who finds it comfortable. Whether it is honorable or not is certainly not a judgment anyone including me would be willing to make.In fact non judgment is necessary. Whatever floats your boat! I won't push you down, believe me. It takes a completely opposite type personality from mine who can find it comfortable, so I won't join you I am afraid. I guess I find it hard to be on a fence once I have my face to the ground. But that too, is a matter of temperament and one's experiences. And those too, I would never disavow....or expect others to see the same way as I.

love,

Toni

Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go back occassionally)

Dear Betty,

I had some qualms about including this quote, because I saw some danger in it. You, of course put your finger on it. Jung seems to be relegating G-d purely to an archetype. To each of us, the meaning would come from how wide our understanding of 'archetype' stretches.

In this case, my antenna went up as I would have to put a footnote to this quote to meld it with my own understanding.

Psychology can do a lot for the spiritual, but it cannot do it all. Jung, I think understood this, particularly in his late years, and MDR shows this. He personally does not take the "mystery" that lies at the core of spirituality out of it by "closing the question", other do.. But does putting the spiritual in the collective unconscious only do that?

There are those who think psychological growth and spiritual growth are not synonymous...and Jung seems to understand this distinction....when he discusses the "objective psyche" ( which has always caused me some problems of understanding, not in spirituality but in psychology.)

Recently I read Gerald May's "Will and Spirit" in which he quotes Needleman ( a man whose other work on the meaning of money, I really liked. He said:

There are some philosophers and psychologists like him "who feel that psychology and spirituality should be separate rather than integrated because " the former seeks to help a person solve the problems of living; the later deepens the "Question" of human life itself.For the psychotherapist, therefore the great challenge is to assist the patient in solving his problems without closing the" Question"

May agrees, that mystery is then killed that which lies at the core of spirituality. Individuation, being what one was meant to be seems to imply spiritual concerns not just psychological. Even though Jung himself wrote about "good and evil sources" many people still equate that purely with the mind, and he solves all the problems by positing the "spiritual" in the collective unconscious"

Do we then have only a mental construct of "G-d" "G-dhead" "Cosmic Consciousness" the "Void"? I have had this problem since I first read Jung and tended always to slide over it. Are these just constructs of our minds? I was/am just not happy without metaphysics. How do I deal with my spiritual longing? Are all these questions just to be answered by psychology? And more importantly, where does one go for spiritual direction? To a Jungian psychologist whom one may need for other growth? Are all psychologists spiritually surrendered and therefore able to guide me? ( That is why Jung sent his patients back to their church or synagogue.He had no doubts about his ability here)

Psychologists, according to Jung should love their patients, and in that way he covers himself. But not all Jungian psychologists are spiritual. So then, psychology cannot help guide me spiritually however my spiritual needs overlap my mental health. At least, not in the way I expect a spiritual director to be himself surrendered. One cannot expect that depth in a therapist.( In fact I tried this myself with no result. it wasn't fair to my analyst at all)

So to get back to "G-d" being an archetype. W--e--l--l yes, but for me there is always a but. One is not supposed to "possess" an archetype, nor identify oneself with it for psychological health. But when it comes to the spiritual, there comes a time when "union" would mean just that. What else could 'union with G-d" possibly be? It is the mystery and the answer is not the mysterious "archetype" to me..but much more.

So far I have decided well, yes, i have just brought the collective unconscious to consciousness and thus my awareness of union would come from that. But it doesn't always satisfy me, i am afraid. It is all still in my psyche/ mind...and my spirit is restless.

So, I understand why the quote from Jung would appeal to many. But in my unconscious is not where I want to bury my Source. I think perhaps it is possible to be "individuated" without the spiritually understood union with G-d..mental healthy.

( Gerald may takes this farther than I because he is attempting to separate the act of willfulness and willingness, and of course the analyst must be willful in his guidance with his patience toward mental health...This would get us too deep here)

I have a feeling, Jungians will rise up to cut me off at the knees, but I am still on uncertain ground in my understanding of "union" and will not argue until and if I ever get to solid ground.

So for me, that quote was "iffy" The words "G-d" and psychology together recently have made me twitchy.G-d would be G-d as far as I am concerned even if no one anywhere thought of G-d consciously or unconsciously. And of course, Jung is correct, no intelligent human mind can answer the Question.

You know I had a feeling as i wrote the quote that you would "love" it, just from what I have read in your posts. I think it strengthens your thoughts at this time, no?

love,

Toni

[Guest guest]

Hi,

Read it and have it to reread..it is much underlined.. I am also familiar

with Fox and panentheism.Read him first in 1974, and have given most

of his books as gifts.especially " Original Blessing " Also used to read

" Creation Spirituality " when it was a magazine.All the 'bear books

also.His " Cosmic Christ " is great

I am still thrashing out my own thoughts, like for the last 40 years or so,

and try to read anything pertinent. But thanks. If you have any other ideas

on books, I would be happy to see them. This is obviously my favorite

subject to think about.

Toni

Original Message -----

To: <JUNG-FIRE >

Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 9:01 PM

Subject: Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go

back occassionally)

> Hi Toni. I think most Jungian writers who write re spirituality are

> careful to note that they cannot make definitive, ontological claims

> re things metaphysical. For instance, very good book re Jungian

> thoughts re the " numinous " is Lionel Corbetts' " The Religious

> Function of the Psyche " in which he carefully points out that

> Jungians can & only do study the " experiential " effects and pathways

> of the Spirit. Your concerns and view regarding " God " here would seem

> to fit with a theological point of view known as panentheism-God as

> both ground of creation and outside of creation. A good discussion of

> that from Christian and similar religious standpoints can be found at

> this website:

> http://www.frimmin.com/faith/godinall.html---

> In fact, I think for the theologically inclined panentheism probably

> would be the most natural fit with Jungian thought. Thanks for your

> thoughts, EarlIn JUNG-FIRE , " vienna19311 "

> <Vienna19311@v...> wrote:

>>

>> Dear Betty,

>>

>> I had some qualms about including this quote, because I saw some

> danger in it. You, of course put your finger on it. Jung seems to be

> relegating G-d purely to an archetype. To each of us, the meaning

> would come from how wide our understanding of 'archetype' stretches.

>> In this case, my antenna went up as I would have to put a footnote

> to this quote to meld it with my own understanding.

>>

>> Psychology can do a lot for the spiritual, but it cannot do it all.

> Jung, I think understood this, particularly in his late years, and

> MDR shows this. He personally does not take the " mystery " that lies

> at the core of spirituality out of it by " closing the question " ,

> other do.. But does putting the spiritual in the collective

> unconscious only do that?

>>

>> There are those who think psychological growth and spiritual growth

> are not synonymous...and Jung seems to understand this

> distinction....when he discusses the " objective psyche " ( which has

> always caused me some problems of understanding, not in spirituality

> but in psychology.)

>>

>> Recently I read Gerald May's " Will and Spirit " in which he quotes

> Needleman ( a man whose other work on the meaning of money, I

> really liked. He said:

>> There are some philosophers and psychologists like him " who feel

> that psychology and spirituality should be separate rather than

> integrated because " the former seeks to help a person solve the

> problems of living; the later deepens the " Question " of human life

> itself.For the psychotherapist, therefore the great challenge is to

> assist the patient in solving his problems without closing the "

> Question "

>>

>> May agrees, that mystery is then killed that which lies at the core

> of spirituality. Individuation, being what one was meant to be seems

> to imply spiritual concerns not just psychological. Even though Jung

> himself wrote about " good and evil sources " many people still equate

> that purely with the mind, and he solves all the problems by positing

> the " spiritual " in the collective unconscious "

>>

>> Do we then have only a mental construct of " G-d " " G-dhead " " Cosmic

> Consciousness " the " Void " ? I have had this problem since I first read

> Jung and tended always to slide over it. Are these just constructs of

> our minds? I was/am just not happy without metaphysics. How do I deal

> with my spiritual longing? Are all these questions just to be

> answered by psychology? And more importantly, where does one go for

> spiritual direction? To a Jungian psychologist whom one may need for

> other growth? Are all psychologists spiritually surrendered and

> therefore able to guide me? ( That is why Jung sent his patients back

> to their church or synagogue.He had no doubts about his ability here)

>>

>> Psychologists, according to Jung should love their patients, and in

> that way he covers himself. But not all Jungian psychologists are

> spiritual. So then, psychology cannot help guide me spiritually

> however my spiritual needs overlap my mental health. At least, not in

> the way I expect a spiritual director to be himself surrendered. One

> cannot expect that depth in a therapist.( In fact I tried this myself

> with no result. it wasn't fair to my analyst at all)

>>

>> So to get back to " G-d " being an archetype. W--e--l--l yes, but for

> me there is always a but. One is not supposed to " possess " an

> archetype, nor identify oneself with it for psychological health. But

> when it comes to the spiritual, there comes a time when " union " would

> mean just that. What else could 'union with G-d " possibly be? It is

> the mystery and the answer is not the mysterious " archetype " to

> me..but much more.

>> So far I have decided well, yes, i have just brought the collective

> unconscious to consciousness and thus my awareness of union would

> come from that. But it doesn't always satisfy me, i am afraid. It is

> all still in my psyche/ mind...and my spirit is restless.

>>

>> So, I understand why the quote from Jung would appeal to many. But

> in my unconscious is not where I want to bury my Source. I think

> perhaps it is possible to be " individuated " without the spiritually

> understood union with G-d..mental healthy.

>>

>> ( Gerald may takes this farther than I because he is attempting to

> separate the act of willfulness and willingness, and of course the

> analyst must be willful in his guidance with his patience toward

> mental health...This would get us too deep here)

>>

>> I have a feeling, Jungians will rise up to cut me off at the knees,

> but I am still on uncertain ground in my understanding of " union " and

> will not argue until and if I ever get to solid ground.

>>

>> So for me, that quote was " iffy " The words " G-d " and psychology

> together recently have made me twitchy.G-d would be G-d as far as I

> am concerned even if no one anywhere thought of G-d consciously or

> unconsciously. And of course, Jung is correct, no intelligent human

> mind can answer the Question.

>>

>> You know I had a feeling as i wrote the quote that you

> would " love " it, just from what I have read in your posts. I think

> it strengthens your thoughts at this time, no?

>>

>> love,

>> Toni

[Guest guest]

"I am delighted you are not looking for answers. in one of your posts to , you said you were, or so I understood. I personally believe that there comes a time when we no longer need or want them."

My dialogue with was trying to understand another point of view with an open mind, not necessarily answers.

I don't think transference is limited to analyst and analysand. (my life experience) right or wrong. Epiphany experiences.

To me fence sitting honors the Mystery more, and as you said we no longer need or want answers.

love,

Betty

[Guest guest]

Dear Toni,

In Jung's "Psychology of the Transference" he discusses a spiritual dimension taking place in the unconscious, in terms of the alchemical coniunctio. This does, of course, by no means happen between all analysands and their analysts, but is a very real thing when it does. It cannot be forced and can only happen if both analyst and analysand are totally ready. The danger is that it can sometimes be mistaken for sexual feelings which then become acted out. The positive is that when it works, both are transformed, but each individual remains true to their own spiritual calling.

love, fa

PS I snipped everything except for the salient comments to which I reply. My e-mail connection seems to get slower on a daily basis, and in Europe we pay per minute for online time!

Sounds good to me, except you have transference confused. It has nothing to do with the spiritual per se. It has to do with the love that develops between analyst and analysand. Patient transfer unto analysts. That is transference. Counter transference is the analyst's feeling toward patient in response.

I wonder where you got the idea it was spiritual? I am only one case out of thousands, and my analysis was mine, not anyone else's. I did not transfer my spirituality unto the analyst...we talked about how i saw things, and she explained her ideas....which I must say were much less thought out than mine, and not all that important to her then.

[Guest guest]

Dear fa,

Thanks for your clarification. As I think I have told you before there was a lot of transference, counter transference in my analysis.It didn't seem spiritual as much as just loving. I do see and understand that it can go overboard if not kept within bounds. Even if two women are the analyst and the analysand.

I also understand the sexual feeling part. It is well know (well, maybe) that in the intense spiritual relationship known as union , contemplation....the emotion is often hard to differentiate. of Avila, St of the Cross and St of Siena all wrote in almost explicit sexual terms which used to embarrass me tremendously. I didn't of course understand because I did not yet have the relationship they were experiencing. It is true, according to most mystics and spiritual writers that "surrender" in itself, which is so necessary for union, especially in women always slides over into sex.

For a woman, I believe this is a natural emotion in the sexual act, and I imagine something like it must go for men also. Anyway, these chaste, celibate religious suddenly erupted into the kind of emotion and feeling that we see in the Song of Songs attributed to . I believe I read it in Jung somewhere that this is a perfectly natural progression in worship, adoration, love and surrender which is part of the mystics spiritual truth.

I remember a quote somewhere where( I think,PSYCHOLOGY OF TRANSFERENCE ,Jung says that in long psychological treatment its success or failure might depend on the phenomenon of transference.(I remember it because at the time I read everything on this strange urge to projection with Jan. I needed confirmation for myself, that I was within 'normal" bounds. With my feeling function strong, I wanted to be aware of what was going on.)

The point I tried to make to Betty was that in analysis, there can be no :"impersonal" type feelings and that is when the psychological term used by Jung was "transference" I was never using it as a synonym for "projection" in analysis, and never used "transference" when speaking about other than analysis. I know, I know I do get pedantic, don't I?

As far as transference being spiritual, I am sure it is possible if one doesn't have a strong spiritual life already. And then of course, love itself when it isn't romantic, is spiritual to most people.

I was trying to explain the Jungian ( if I may use that term without getting shot) the actual term itself to Betty,as I had read it myself before I ever had the experience.I have a bad habit of trying to use terms as I had learned them because there is always so much confusion on the list when people use terms to have different meanings or connotations.

I have a lot of difficulty with Jung's alchemy business.I know it was the unconscious angle and not the other mumbo-jumbo of the alchemists he was interested in. It sounds so convoluted, but like a good student I suffered through it a few times. (once when you wrote about it, I decided to go back and reread it, again.) It seems to me the word spiritual could be substituted easily for alchemy, and I realize why those in the Middle Ages had to disguise their work. In fact of course, the steps are translatable into spiritual terms.

I had no business trying to understand myself and what I was deliberating on the list since people build up defenses as if I were saying what I experience must be the same for others. ( Betty that was not meant for you personally...I am speaking in general)

It is a matter discussed in most of my books and below by Jung, that discussion of the spiritual as personal never go smoothly...the inflation and the defensiveness are so apparent to those who do not agree with the writer. I guess it cannot be otherwise...as long as people compare themselves with others and judge.

My problem is, obvious. I don't listen when I am told not to witness or to share. Then when the boom is lowered I am surprised. I always promise myself never never to do it again...and yet I do. Dumb! Why don't I listen to what Jung said below? ( Often i think it is the sometime "prophet" in me...to tell forth, not to foretell.)And you know what happened to prophets of any kind.

"I can have a real communion only with those who have the same or similar religious experience...Nothing shields you better against the solitude and forelorness of the divine experience than community...." Jung; Psychology and religion #1637

much love, good to talk to you again. Missed you.

Toni

Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go back occassionally)

Dear Toni,

In Jung's "Psychology of the Transference" he discusses a spiritual dimension taking place in the unconscious, in terms of the alchemical coniunctio. This does, of course, by no means happen between all analysands and their analysts, but is a very real thing when it does. It cannot be forced and can only happen if both analyst and analysand are totally ready. The danger is that it can sometimes be mistaken for sexual feelings which then become acted out. The positive is that when it works, both are transformed, but each individual remains true to their own spiritual calling.

love, fa

[Guest guest]

Toni,

I still feel transference is not limited to analysis. I think transmission and transference are similar, maybe the same in my mind. Like you I could be wrong.

love,

Betty

[Guest guest]

>

> Toni,

> I still feel transference is not limited to analysis. I think

transmission and transference are similar, maybe the same in my mind.

Like you I could be wrong.

> love,

> Betty

>

hi Betty,

in my opinion, you are quite correct.

peace,

tracy

[Guest guest]

Thanks ,

How nice of you to tell me. I feel so out in left field.

Betty

Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go back occassionally)

>> Toni,> I still feel transference is not limited to analysis. I think transmission and transference are similar, maybe the same in my mind. Like you I could be wrong.> love,> Betty>hi Betty,in my opinion, you are quite correct.peace,tracy

[Guest guest]

Dear Betty,

To me transmission is done to me...I am the object.

Transference is something i do, I am the subject.

Now projection...that would work, that is also what I do as subject.

Words words, they make such a difference in our understanding and communicating, don't

they? And we all tend to put our interpretation on them which always leads to confusion.

Toni

Message -----

From: betty hill

To: JUNG-FIRE

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:48 PM

Subject: Re: Some Jung just discovered in my 2000 journal ( I go back occassionally)

Toni,

I still feel transference is not limited to analysis. I think transmission and transference are similar, maybe the same in my mind. Like you I could be wrong.

love,

Betty