http://jungiancenter.org/blog/ This is a supplemental site to jungiancenter.org. If you have found this site through blogging, check out our Web site. Here you will find a full description of the Jungian Center, who we are, what we do and what we offer. en Copyright 2004-2005 jungian@jazvt.com jungian@jazvt.com Ublog Reload 1.0.5 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=50 Materialism, Scientism and Jung’s Empiricism

“What most people overlook or seem unable to understand is the fact that I regard the psyche as real…”
“The ‘reality of the psyche’ is my working hypothesis, and my principal activity consists in collecting factual material to describe and explain it. I have set up neither a system nor a general theory, but have merely formulated auxiliary concepts to serve me as tools, as is customary in every branch of science.”
“You seem to forget that I am first and foremost an empiricist,…”

Jung struggled throughout his life to be understood for what he was—a true scientist—and for what his empirical method told him was true—that the psyche is real. Why was this? Why such a struggle? And why is this? Why is it that many people (especially in academia and science) still regard Jung as a “mystic,” not a scientist? Why do so many still fail to understand Jung when he spoke of the psyche as real? Even at the Jungian Center, where one might expect to find people open to and interested in Jung’s ideas, I frequently find blank expressions on students’ faces when I speak about the reality of the psyche.
This blog essay considers Jung’s dilemma in trying to get people to understand how he worked and what he found in his explorations of the inner life. We will begin by examining the dominant philosophy of our culture (materialism) and the “knowledge base” of our society (scientism) and then we’ll consider Jung’s form of science (empiricism) and how it differs from scientism. Finally we will examine Jung’s concept of the psyche, its features and centrality to Jung’s psychology.

Materialism: Why Few People Regard the Psyche as Real

The etymology or origins of the word “materialism” go way back thousands of years to the Indo-European root ma. “Matter,” “material,” “money” and “mother” all come from this root, all of these words referring to that which has physical form or substance. We got our word “materialism” from Latin materia, the “-ism” coming along in the 18th century as part of the Enlightenment’s quest to escape the ideological clutches of the Church.
Dictionaries amplify the root meaning of “materialism,” defining it as:
“the belief that all action, thought and feeling can be explained by the movements and changes of matter;…”
“the tendency to care too much for the things of this world and neglect spiritual needs;…”
“the ethical doctrine that material self-interest should and does determine conduct.”
“the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications…”
“the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies…”
“a tendency to prefer material possessions and physical comfort to spiritual values; …”
“a way of life based on material interests.”
The astrophysicist Bernard Haisch defines “materialism” as “… the belief that reality consists solely of matter and energy, the things that can be measured in the laboratory or observed by a telescope. Everything else is illusion or imagination….” The underlying assumption here is that “… everything will eventually be explainable in terms of electrical currents, chemical reactions, or yet-to-be-discovered physical laws—mind and spirit are mere epiphenomena.”
I think the most overarching definition—the one most closely related to our purposes here—is the description of “materialism” as “the present-day physical model of reality that matter is all there is and all there can be.” Intangibles like ideas, love, beauty, spirit, aren’t real. This denigration of intangibles has some serious implications, which we will consider below. Before discussing them, let’s examine some of the components of materialism.
Two of the most important elements of materialism are reductionism and randomness. Reductionism is the belief that a complex system (like a living being) can be understood by reducing it to its constituent parts. You want to understand an ecosystem? Just identify all the various parts of it and study each one and presto! You’ll have it figured out. The idea that a living thing might actually be more than the sum of its parts—that it might have “emergent properties” —is never considered in the reductionist’s mind-set.
Randomness is the belief that “… natural processes follow the laws of chance.” The Universe and everything in it (including you and me!) are here because of random happenstance. There is no meaning, no purpose and no destiny in life. There is also no free will, since we all are mere creatures of chance. From this it logically follows that there is no god, no Divine intention or higher power working in the world. Materialism as our culture’s current paradigm is atheistic.
It is also committed to rationalism, putting a premium on logic, the use of reason, the dismissal of superstition, and the denigration of what cannot be proven through the use of left-brain, linear mental processes (e.g. religion). This vaunting of reason leads to concoctions that warm the hearts of economists, like Rational Economic Man. Rational Economic Man (this means you and me, in the materialists’ theory) lives by utilitarian values. That is, when you and I go to the store to buy something, or when we invest our money or decide how to spend our time, we do what works for us, we determine right from wrong based on whether the action will get us what we want. We do what is in our best self-interest. The result? An ethics of expediency (if something gets us what we want, or makes piles of money, it’s right) and the greed of consumerism.
These are some of the implications of materialism. Others include the repression of meaning and true satisfaction in life (because “He who dies with the most toys, wins!” is a spiritually deadening philosophy). By killing the spiritual side of our humanity materialism fosters a sense of meaninglessness, ...]]> Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:55:14 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=50 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=49 C.G. Jung, 1938
“For a long time I have advocated schools for the adult…”
C.G. Jung, 1960

A series of dreams in July 2005 led to the creation of the Jungian Center for the Spiritual Sciences. Dozens of dreams since then have supported it, added to its curriculum and widened its scope. I have always intuitively felt that Jung would approve of this endeavor but it is only recently, in reading Jung’s works to prepare a course on Jungian parenting that I came across his explicit statements—like those quoted above—in support of the Center’s type of educational organization.
In this essay we will consider Jung’s thoughts and preferences about how education should be conducted, and the distinction between “instruction” and “education.” Then we will examine what Jung regarded as the two halves of life and their different concerns, followed by discussions of the tasks, components and goals of adult education in a Jungian framework, and what the consequences or results of such an education might be. Lastly, we’ll discuss some of the ways the Jungian Center serves the adult learner and his/her needs.

“Instruction,” “Education” and Jung’s Thoughts on the Proper Form of Education

It is common in American society to use “instruction” and “education” interchangeably to refer to what goes on in those buildings we identify as “schools.” But in etymology, practice and their image of the learner, the two terms could not be more different. “Instruction” comes from the Latin verb instruere, meaning “to pile on.” When we “instruct” students we “pile on” them the facts, figures, techniques, and information that we feel they need to have to cope with the demands of modern life. This is essentially a one-way, teacher- or subject-centered process. It is, to some degree at least, unavoidable, since no one is born able to do sums, parse sentences, read, write, or find France on a map.
Jung recognized the necessity of instruction when he wrote that “youth… must find outside” those things it needs to acquire in order to function and flourish in contemporary society. While he admitted that modern life demanded some technical training (a trend that has intensified in a major way in the 50 years since his death), he preferred a school system oriented more to the historical and humanistic subjects, rather than the “scientific worldview, with its statistical truths….” In general, he was quite critical of most forms of education, because teachers lacked self-knowledge, the children sensed this and the result was that they came away from their studies lacking “a sense of authority, robbed of their individual nature and halted in the development of their personality.” So, while Jung knew instruction had its place, he also knew it must not be the sole form of learning, and this is especially true for the adult learner. For adults—persons at or after mid-life—a much more suitable form of learning is education.
Our English word “education” derives from the Latin exducere, meaning “to draw forth.” When we “educate” we draw out of the student what is within. This is a student-centered, dialectical process, requiring one-on-one dialog and interaction between student and teacher. It is student motivated and self-directed and reflects the shift in focus that Jung felt was a key feature of mid-life—a shift away from a preoccupation with outer reality toward a focus on one’s inner life. Jung described it in these words: “What youth found and must find outside, the man of life’s afternoon must find within himself.” As a process of recognizing and then drawing forth that which is within, education can do this; instruction cannot. So when we speak of “adult education” we are speaking about education, rather than instruction.

The Two Halves of Life and Their Different Concerns

As we noted above, Jung felt that people in the first half of life were concerned with externals: training for work and parenthood, making a living, raising a family, acquiring the material wherewithal that would support a decent life. Jung termed all these things of the “biological sphere.”
By contrast, Jung felt people in mid-life (c. age 40, usually timed when transiting Uranus comes to oppose one’s natal Uranus) and beyond were to shift their focus away from the biological to the “cultural sphere.” This shift came with a host of different concerns from earlier life: the biological instincts were subordinated to cultural goals; mental and emotional energies had to be expended to making a successful mid-life transition (a transition that is not always an easy passage); and the adult had to navigate a reorientation from regarding life as a series of ascents to recognizing the reality of descending and diminishing energies and capacities.
Jung recognized that a variety of questions commonly characterized the mid-life passage. These include such queries as:
“Where am I standing today?”
“Have my dreams come true?”
“Have I fulfilled my expectations of a happy and successful life as I imagined them 20 years ago?”
“Have I been … intelligent, reliable and enduring enough to seize my opportunities or to make the right choice at the crossroads and produce the proper answer to the problems which fate or fortune put before me?”
“What is the chance that I shall fail again in fulfilling that which I obviously have been unable to accomplish in the first 40 years?”
Some people who spend their first 4 decades striving for material success find mid-life full of confusion, disillusionment or loss of meaning. They wonder “Is this all there is?” “With all that I’ve got, why don’t ...]]> Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:06:38 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=49 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=48
Earlier essays on this blog site described some of the components of individuation and defined it as
… a developmental process which begins in the adult individual, usually after the age of thirty-five, and if successful leads to the discovery of the Self and its replacing of the ego as the personality center. Individuation is the discovery of and the extended dialogue with the objective psyche of which the Self is the comprehensive expression.
Perhaps because it seems similar to “individualism,” or perhaps because American society is so biased toward that philosophy of “each for himself,” many people assume that individuation implies a preoccupation with oneself, selfishness and social isolation. But this is not true at all. Far from fostering selfishness and self-absorption, individuation promotes a greater sense of social concern and responsibility in the person who has taken the spiritual journey. This essay seeks to clarify Jung’s attitudes in this regard, beginning with his warnings about the dangers of immersion in the “mass psychology” of groups.

Jung on the Dangers of Groups

In the essay “Jung’s Timeliness and Thoughts on Our Current Reality,” we noted Jung’s concern about how easily individuals could become identified with groups and thus loose their individuality, as well as their personal moral stance. Over and over Jung decried the tendency for the psyche of the group—the collective psyche—to overwhelm or submerge the individual’s psyche, especially if the group is large. Jung felt that the larger the group, the more readily the individual would get lost in it, and the lower the level of morality that would manifest. So Jung concluded that
…every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when acting alone; for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility.
Jung felt that, even when a large group was composed of “wholly admirable persons,” it would still have the “morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal.” Clearly, Jung had little use for large groups!
Not just large groups were at issue: Jung also recognized that the person undertaking the path of individuation would have to “differentiate” him/herself from smaller groups—the family, circles of friends, ethnic and other collectives. This is because individuation requires giving up persona stuff—the host of social expectations and inauthentic roles that the individual has acquired unconsciously over time.
Does this mean that Jung expected individuated people to live in some sort of social isolation? Not at all.

Jung on the Consequences of Individuation

Jung recognized that human beings are social creatures and society is a “necessary condition” for us. Each of us is part of the whole web of life and the process of individuating makes one aware of this wholeness and the unity of all. The process also makes us aware of the unconscious, which—in Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious”—is common to all humankind. The individuated person is “at-one-ment” with him/herself and also with humanity. Working toward individuation leads us to a deeper sense of connection with others and fosters a desire to serve others.
But because the process of individuating entails being “born out” of identity with family, tribe, ethnic group etc., the individuated person does not fall back into his or her original social network. Time and again as I work with students at the Jungian Center I hear them note how they have found themselves creating new friendships and new social networks. Their old friends seem not to have similar interests or outlook. “As within, so without:” having changed inwardly, individuating people discover that outer life also changes, including their social contacts and friendships.

The “Leading Minority” and the Need for Community

“Leading minority” was Jung’s term for those awake, those persons who had undertaken to look within and become conscious of the unconscious. Both then and now, there aren’t a lot of people who have done this. Western society, and especially American society with its strong ESTJ bias, is not inclined toward introspection or introversion. People stepping out of the mainstream to discover the unconscious and develop their individual uniqueness are few and far between, and they often wind up feeling “different” or isolated, until they link up with like-minded individuals.
Toni Wolff, Jung’s “friend and collaborator” saw this need to link up with other individuating people and got Jung to agree to the formation of the Psychology Club of Zurich. Funded with a gift of 360,000 Swiss francs from Edith Rockefeller McCormack in 1916, the Club provided Jung with the opportunity to do a “silent experiment” in group psychology. Jung also saw it as the antidote to the “onesidedness” of the analytic process.
Jung noted that “Human personality is certainly not individual only, it is also collective,…” and we need contact with others. Years later, as Jung Institutes were created in various cities around the world, there has been the “spontaneous phenomenon” of similar clubs being formed by analysands and others interested in Jung and his ideas.
One such club recently formed at The Jungian Center for the Spiritual Sciences. The shared experience of Jung and his deep effect on individuals committed to their growth has brought people together to share fun, fellowship (and food!), as well as stimulating intellectual exchange of Jung-related ideas. Such clubs become for their members what Edward Edinger called an ecclesia spiritualis, a spiritual gathering of those “called out” from the crowd.
If you are reading this essay in some place far from Vermont, and you need the fellowship of others on the path of individuation, here are some ways you might go about finding others who share your interests:
1. Google “Jung Institutes” and you will bring up over 1 million ...]]> Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:20:39 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=48 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=47 A Jungian Approach to Choosing

Those readers of this blog who are on the mailing list of The Jungian Center were informed of the voiceover dream I had on September 22, 2009. The voice said:
October 2010 will be an especially important month, when key choices are made that lay down energy patterns the consequences of which we will reap in the next 2 years.
Given my 26+ year track record with such dreams, I always take them seriously. So very shortly I found myself researching what Jung might have said about choice and choosing. Did he leave us any advice about how to make good choices? And what might constitute a “good” choice, to Jung?
My research revealed that Jung never wrote an essay directly on this topic. There are only references scattered throughout his voluminous writing on the subject. But these references allow us to answer the questions above. Before doing so, let’s address the title: What was “Buridan’s ass” and how does it relate to choosing?

Buridan’s Ass

Jung was very learned and well-read and, as such, was familiar with the paradox in philosophy that goes back well into antiquity, to the time of Aristotle, which was discussed centuries later by the 14th century French philosopher, Jean Buridan. Buridan satirized this paradox, in which a man (in Aristotle) or an ass (in later versions) is positioned exactly between two necessities, food and drink (in Aristotle), two bales of hay (in later versions). Buridan felt that if one got stuck pondering the possible outcomes, one could starve. That is, one’s will could so delay making a choice that, in the extreme, one could die before the choice was made. Jung mentions Buridan’s ass three times in his writings, in contexts that give us insights into his views on choosing.

Jung on Choosing

As Jung saw the paradox of Buridan’s ass, the problem was due either to the ass not being hungry so he didn’t take the problem seriously, or to the creature’s externalizing the task. When we externalize a decision we look to the object to make the choice. Jung recognized that good choices—choices that are aligned with our true being—require us to look within, to the depths of our nature and then, to ask ourselves what we feel drawn toward. We must ask ourselves “What is the natural urge of life, at this moment, for me?”
While for most of us the situation of Buridan’s ass may seem extreme, Jung’s identification of the core issue is right on the mark: When people (especially those who are strong Perceivers) have trouble coming to closure, they do just what Jung described. They look to others or turn over the decision-making to others. Or they leave the decision up to life, Fate, Destiny. Jung regarded this tactic as abdicating responsibility for one’s own life and forfeit the opportunity to learn, grow and live more authentically. So one key component of good choices, for Jung, is looking within and being aware of what we are naturally drawn toward.
Jung also recognized that our sense of “free will”—being able to choose freely—is, to a degree, an illusion. The possible range of choices we face when making a decision is dependent upon (and limited by) the amount of libido (psychic energy) disposable by the ego. The Self is really in charge of our lives, a fact most of us usually forget or prefer to ignore. The ego does not like to face its inferiority. It wants to think it is running the show.
The reality of the ego’s dependence on the Self is usually brought home to us only after years of inner work in which the ego experiences the “defeat” that comes with its experience of the Self. This repeated fixatio experience is never pleasant, but eventually it fosters the ego relinquishing its desire for control.
Free choice Jung defined as a “subjective feeling of freedom,” which is not totally free. Our will comes up constantly against the limits of the outside world and also comes into “conflict with the facts of the self.” As the Self acts on the ego it circumscribes our will.
Then there are the inevitable times in life when we experience what Jung calls “conflicts of duty.” These are those situations where we face a choice between two evils or two unpalatable options. In such times Jung saw 3 possible courses of action:
We might look to some outside authority, thus externalizing our locus of authority, something Jung never encouraged.
We might look to an “act of God,” in the form of a fait accompli, which Jung felt most people regard as the will of God. An example here is that of a woman unable to decide whether to have a child, so she stops using birth control, thinking that if she gets pregnant it will be the will of God.
Neither of these did Jung see as desirable. Rather he suggested that we view such situations as opportunities to discover the power inherent in “holding the tension of opposites” and wait for the resolution of the conflict in the form of the emergence of the “transcendent function.” This is not something the ego figures out; it is done by the Self. So this waiting and holding at various (difficult) times of life provide us with opportunities to experience the Self.
Such times also provide the opportunity for us to recognize our “two-ness,” i.e. how we contain both good and evil, different, often opposite impulses or inclinations, as Saint Paul lamented in his letter to the church in Rome. If we can hold the tension of the “two-ness” Jung felt we would achieve a new attitude.
Jung reminds us that the major problems in life—those times when we face major decisions—are never things ...]]> Fri, 28 May 2010 09:47:10 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=47 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=46 An Examination of America’s Potential Future in Light of Its Astrological Chart



In previous essays I have made references to possible forms of the future for America and American society. Those essays make it clear that I am not a fan of our current culture, government or society, nor am I very optimistic about the future. In part, this stems from a series of dreams I had back in 2007 and 2008 which suggest some of the challenges we are likely to face in the coming years. In part, my attitude stems from my reading of Native American sources about the actions of the United States government over the last 400 years, and Native predictions about the karmic consequences of those actions. And in part, my attitude stems from my reading of Jung, and his conviction that our collective future will see some sort of “impending world catastrophe.” As people have read the previous essays posted to The Jungian Center’s blog, they have asked me for specifics: what’s coming down? What are we, as a society, looking at in the next few years? And when might we expect the challenging times to arrive?
There are several ways one might address these questions: One way is with the use of Intuitive Imagery, which I have used with several friends who are adept in it. Another way is by consulting the variety of mantic arts, the results of which, on the collective level, often are hard to decipher or interpret. A third way is by watching one’s dream guidance, and beyond just watching, actively seeking the guidance of the psyche through an interactive dream practice. I have done all of these. There is also another source of information, which Jung used on occasion to better understand his patients, and also to study the relationship of married couples. This source is astrology.
Many Americans, nearly all academics, and some of you readers of this blog might at this point start rolling your eyes. Astrology? Astrology!***??? Yes, I know. Years ago I too had a very low opinion of this ancient branch of knowledge—until I was forcibly, shockingly disabused of my prejudice in this regard. It happened like this:
I was a very logical, rational Cartesian college professor, locked into the world of theory and abstraction like only an Eastern Ivy League intellectual can be, when, in November 1983, my world began to come unraveled. It began with the first of what I have come to call my “voice-over dreams.” No action, no figures, just a voice that said: “Friends will die. Relatives will die. You will give up everything and your life will be transformed.” I was married at the time and I woke up and told my husband, thinking that he must have heard this loud voice. But no, he had heard nothing. I then dismissed the whole experience, given my academic prejudices, but my husband remembered what I had told him. Five days later I learned that my friend Hazel Crafts had dropped dead. When I told Ed, he reminded me of the words I had heard. But I dismissed it as “just a coincidence.” Over the next six months, however, I lost another friend, two aunts and an uncle and everything in my life began to fall away. I came to feel like I was losing my toehold on reality and various friends tried to help, some sending me to ministers, others to counselors, others to psychiatrists and psychologists. So it was, in the Spring of 1984, that I thought my student Miranda was taking me to another therapist of some kind when I went with her to a home in downtown Bar Harbor. It was only on the sidewalk going into the house, just minutes before my appointment, that she told me the person I was about to meet was not a therapist but an astrologer. I recall freezing on the spot, turning to Miranda in shocked disbelief, and yelling at her that that sort of stuff was bunk, nonsense, that she should know better, that astrologers were full of—Well, you get the idea: I was not open to astrology at all! Miranda then said that if I didn’t go in she was still going to have to pay for the session and all the work the astrologer had done to prepare for it. That made me feel guilty: here was one of my students being willing to ante up her own limited funds to help me out. So I hung my head and went into the house. The session lasted the better part of 5 hours—5 hours during which I was transformed. First I sat there, arms folded across my chest in stern disbelief and disdain. Then I began to hear things that rang true—about my nature, my personality, and, even more intriguing, about what I was experiencing at the time. But it was when the astrologer began to tell me when all of it would be over, when life would get better, that I really sat up, took notice and then, lacking any other inner resources with which to explain what I had just experienced, I accused the woman of being a psychic. “No,” she replied, “anyone could do this, if he or she were prepared to study and learn how to interpret the symbols.” Astrology was just a powerful symbol system, open to anyone willing to invest the time and energy to learn. I could do just what she did. Presented with such an intellectual challenge, some part of me took the bait, and I became a student of Frances Sakoian on the spot. Over time, as I faced similar experiences, I came to realize that the Universe was taking each of my prejudices, each of my paradigms about how reality is, and “popping” ...]]> Sat, 01 May 2010 01:32:45 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=46 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=45
In the previous essay I noted how Jung anticipated a new development in the evolution of religion. Some of his followers call this the “new dispensation.” Just what this means, and the role the individual will play in it, is the subject of this essay.
We must begin with some definitions, since “dispensation” is not a household word for most readers of this blog. Nor would Jung’s definitions of “God” be familiar to most readers. After defining terms, we will consider the role of the individual in the emerging spiritual landscape, and we’ll conclude by setting the subject in the broader context of the evolution of Western civilization.

Some Definitions
Dispensation
“Dispensation” comes from the Latin verb dispensare, “to manage, distribute, allot, arrange, dispense.” Given our materialistic ethos most Americans would immediately think of the dispensing of resources, stuff, food or money. But our focus here is more on intangibles. What intangible is being dispensed? Jungians would say the stuff of the psyche. “Dispensation” defined in psychic terms is “the specific arrangement or system by which our perception of the world is ordered.”
This system is not something a group of people decide to create: It is the work of the objective psyche or Collective Unconscious, and it evolves over time. Thousands of years ago the psyches of the ancestors of Western people operated within a participation mystique with Nature. In time, this changed, as the ancient Hebrews took up monotheism, and their perception became ordered around the worship of Jahweh, the God of the Torah. The fact that we now speak of an “Old Testament” and a New bespeaks the later evolution of another form of ordering, what Jung’s followers call the “Christian dispensation,” centered around the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Jung felt that the key difference between the Judaic and Christian religions was the “transformation of the God-image” that occurred over hundreds of years from the time of Job (c. 600-400 B.C.) to the time of Christ. As he anticipated the shift from the Age of the Fishes (Pisces) to the Age of the Water-Bearer (Aquarius), Jung recognized the outlines of a new form of religious expression.
Jung’s follower, analyst Lawrence Jaffe, coined a term for this new form: the “psychological dispensation.” The first dispensation was the Judaic, the second, the Christian. What Jaffe and other Jungians now see is the emergence of a new religion of consciousness, a “religion of experience” that will reconcile the first and second dispensations.
This “psychological dispensation” is a form of religious expression in which
experience supplants faith: Jung articulated this key feature of the new dispensation in the interview he had with John Freeman of the BBC late in his life. Freeman asked Jung if he believed in God. Jung paused and then said, “… I know. I don’t need to believe, I know.” This was not the only time Jung spoke about his knowing the Divine. In an earlier interview Jung said “I only believe in what I know. And that eliminates believing. Therefore I do not take his existence on belief—I know that he exists.”
In the psychological dispensation, the role of the individual becomes central, as Jungian analyst Edward Edinger noted, when he said that by becoming “…aware of the transpersonal center of the psyche, the Self,” and by living “… out of that awareness, [the individual] can be said to be the incarnation of the God-image.” This quote begs further definition. What is meant by “God”? by “God-image”? by “Self”?
Jung’s Definitions of God
Since “God” is a word most Western people have heard often, the reader of this blog essay is likely to assume he/she knows what Jung meant. Not so! First, note the plural in the sub-heading: Jung used many terms to define the Divine in his voluminous writings.
Second, ever the empiricist, Jung was not about to indulge in vagueness with his terms. He recognized that “god,” as a concept, is unknowable, “because no one can get outside his/her own psyche.” Jung reminds us that “… everything men assert about God is twaddle, for no man can know God.” Jung makes a distinction, therefore, between “God,” the unknowable, and the “God-image,” that sense or image we have in our minds. Jung said: “… I speak of the God-image and not of God because it is quite beyond me to say anything about God at all.” And Jung was quite critical of theologians who did claim to speak of God and describe God, without making any distinction between the unknowable and the mental image.
Third, Jung’s “God” was not absolute, but “relative to man.” Regarding the Divine as absolute would place God “outside all connection to mankind.” Jung recognized that “Such a God would be of no consequence at all.” And God was of great consequence in Jung’s psychology, as seen in the 498+ citations listed in the Index to his Collected Works alone (not considering his Letters, or the other books, essays and articles he wrote).
Jung spoke much of God, but his uses of the term vary greatly. Here are some statements likely to resonate:
“God is Reality itself.”
God is “… a factor unknown in itself.”
God is “… an inner experience, not discussable as such but impressive.”
“God is a universal experience which is obfuscated only by silly rationalism and an equally silly theology.”
“… God is ev to pan.” (in all things)
“God is an immediate experience of a very primordial nature, one of the most natural products of our mental life,…”
“… I do know of a power of a very personal nature and an irresistible influence. I call it ‘God’.”
“I only know Him as a personal, ...]]> Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:36:06 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=45 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=44
“Phoberon to empesein eis cheiras theou zontos.”
“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Hebrews 10:31
“… the experience of the self is always a defeat for the ego.”
[italics in the original] Jung, Collected Works, 14, ¶778


The first of the above quotes was cited in the previous blog essay and in a note in that essay I indicated that the following essay would provide further discussion of the “Hebrews” quote. In that essay I noted how fear can be used to keep people under control and how those in power would have us believe that internalizing a locus of security through personal experience of the Divine is something to be feared.
Jung had much to say on this point. Most explicitly he made it clear in his statement quoted above that confronting the Divine is never a pleasant experience for the ego. This is because of pride: the ego “does not like to think consciousness might lose its ascendancy.” The ego fancies it is in control and is forced to face its smallness and limitations when the Self appears.
More broadly, Jung addressed this issue in his discussions of the numen, the numinous, the numinosum and numinosity. In this essay we will define these terms, provide some features and qualities of the numinous, then consider the experience of the numinous and how it has been experienced by some noteworthy historical figures. We will then examine Jung’s experience of it, and Jung’s assessment of our current predicament, now that Western civilization has lost many of its numinosities.

Some Definitions

Numen is a Latin word, deriving from the verb nuere, meaning “to nod.” Its original meaning was “a nod.” You might well wonder how it comes to have anything to do with the Divine, the Self and Jung’s concerns. It came to mean “divine will or divine power of the gods” from the Greek and Roman practice of going to a temple to consult the will of the gods, at times when a person confronted a serious decision. In the temple the supplicant would stand before a statue of the god, state his problem, ask the god for guidance and then watch the statue. If it seemed to nod, the person knew the god approved the tack he planned to take. Over time numen came to be synonymous with “deity,” “Godhead,” divinity or “divine majesty.”
The other 3 words mentioned above—numinous, numinosum and numinosity—Jung used frequently and all of them derive from numen. “Numinous” was an invented word, coined in 1917 by a German professor of theology, Rudolf Otto, in his book Das Heilige (translated in 1923 as The Idea of the Holy). Why the invention? Otto felt the need for a specialized word to describe the concept of “holy” without the “moral factor” or rationality that we usually attach to “holy.” He sought to describe “… this ‘extra’ in the meaning of ‘holy’ above and beyond the meaning of goodness.” To create his neologism Otto started with numen and then looked for analogies. He found one in “omen,” the adjectival form of which is “ominous.” The adjective form of numen thus would be “numinous.” Otto used “numinous” to describe categories of value within the sense of “holy,” and also to refer to a state of mind.
Modern English dictionaries define “numinous” several ways. It can mean “spiritual, holy, divine” and also “ethereal, nebulous, intangible.” In Otto’s and Jung’s usage, “spiritual,” “holy,” “divine” and “intangible” capture most accurately the qualities they mean.
Numinosum is a word Jung used repeatedly. He may have borrowed it from Otto; perhaps the original German text had this Latinized version of “numinous.” I have not found it in the English translation. In his essay “Psychology and Religion” Jung provides a definition of numinosum:
“… a dynamic agency or effect not caused by an arbitrary act of will…. The numinosum—whatever its cause may be—is an experience of the subject independent of his will…. The numinosum is either a quality belonging to a visible object or the influence of an invisible presence that causes a peculiar alteration of consciousness….”
In Jung’s thinking the numinosum is both a quality inherent to an object or an experience that comes over a person, often inadvertently.

Qualities and Features of the Numinous

Otto and Jung provide a wealth of explicit qualities people are likely to feel when in the presence of the holy. First, it must be noted that the numinosum is a paradox, containing both positive and negative, both of which we may experience simultaneously in any encounter with the Divine.
Some of the positive qualities of the numinosum include: sublimity, awe, excitement, bliss, rapture, exaltation, entrancement, fascination, attraction, allure and what Otto called an “impelling motive power.” Not so pleasant are other qualities like: overwhelment, fear, trembling, weirdness, eeriness, humility (an acute sense of unworthiness), urgency, stupor (blank wonder), bewilderment, horror, mental agitation, repulsion, and haunting, daunting, monstrous feelings that “overbrim the heart.” Otto speaks at length of the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the fascinating mystery that makes us tremble (in awe). Because it “grips or stirs the mind,” such an experience is not one we forget.
But, while it is memorable, the numinous is not easily put into words. “Ineffable” is another of its features. The numinous “eludes apprehension in terms of concepts.” Being bigger and beyond oneself, it induces speechlessness. Being a mystery, it bewilders the rational mind. Being divine, it links us to the “ground of the soul.” Being “unevolvable,” it is not to be derived from any other feeling.
More frequently found in Jung’s works is “numinosity.” He used this term to refer to a ...]]> Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:26:41 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=44 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=43
A one-day experiential workshop that helps students identify those items, ideas and pieces of information that can support them in times of emotional and spiritual crisis. An invaluable adjunct to the spiritual journey and helpful for anyone who works with the unconscious or is in analysis. Led by Sue Mehrtens

The New Dispensation. March 25,April 1, 8 and 15, 2-4PM; $60; 55 Clover Lane, Waterbury.

Carl Jung recognized that a new form of spiritual expression was arising in anticipation of the Age of Aquarius—a form rooted in the psychologically conscious individual. Jung felt that such new spiritual developments grew out of older religions (the old “dispensations”), and this course draws on the wisdom contained in the New Testament and the life of Jesus to describe the form of this “new dispensation.” Led by Sue Mehrtens

Visioneering. March 21, April 11, May 2 and 23; 2-5PM; $75; 55 Clover Lane, Waterbury.

This workshop applies Bernoulli’s principle (the basis for all forms of aerodynamics) to the realm of personal life, to jump-start dreams and hopes we have for the future. Participants learn what vision is, the power it has, and how to use it in very practical, grounded ways, to bring about changes in their own lives. With over 30 exercises, and a modicum of readings, this 12-hour workshop runs over 3 months, to allow members the time to develop a vision, apply the principles and use the exercises to realize a dream. Led by Sue Mehrtens

Making Good Choices Workshop. April 7,14,21,28; 7-9PM; $60; 55 Clover Lane, Waterbury.

We are living in a time when the choices we make will have far more crucial and long-term consequences than at any time in the past. This course explores a variety of questions related to making good choices, e.g. “What does it mean to “choose”?” “What goes into making good choices?” “What assumptions underlie the choices we make?” and “What is going on now, in the larger context of our lives, that might impact our choosing?” Led by Sue Mehrtens

Creation of Consciousness. April 22, 29, May 6 and 13; 7-9PM; $60; 55 Clover Lane, Waterbury.

This advanced course offers an in-depth examination of 4 key documents that explore the basis of what Jung called the “new dispensation”--the Biblical book of Job, Jung’s “Answer to Job,” William Blake’s illustrations of the book of Job, and Edward Edinger’s The Creation of Consciousness—toward explicating Jung’s image of God and fostering an understanding of how we, as individuals, are meant to be carriers of the numinosum and co-creators with the Divine. Ideally students will have taken the Introduction to Jung and Esoteric Christianity courses prior to taking this course, but this is not required. Led by Sue Mehrtens.

The Divine Feminine. April 24; 12-5PM; $30; Best Western Motel, Waterbury.

How can we imagine Wisdom? Learn how to embody in the manifest world the inspirations that come from this exciting experiential workshop that opens your spiritual senses . Led by Kathy Warner, teacher and author; for further information, call Kathy at (802) 426-3987.


Micheline Bogey, a California-based Qigong teacher and Shamanic healer, will be visiting Vermont in May and will offer a two-day weekend workshop called MEDICAL QIGONG, May 1-2, 9AM-5PM, at 55 Clover Lane, Waterbury VT; $75/day; $140, 2 days. Info, call Margery (802) 633-4368.

Learn how to deal mindfully with stress, keep the body relaxed and the internal energy strong with the practice of ³Five Elements Medical Qigong.² Medical Qigong is a holistic system of self-healing exercises and meditation that includes meditation, breathing techniques, self-massage and gentle movements. In this workshop we will learn breathing techniques to stimulate the Qi in different parts of the body. We will practice the Inner Nourishing Qigong, Brain Cleansing Qigong and the 6 healing sounds to strengthen our body and mind. We will circulate the microcosmic orbit and its flow in the Qi channels. We will then learn and practice the ³Five Elements Qigong form,² which is a specific form working with the acupuncture meridians and the 5 elements in Traditional Chinese Medicine. We will also attend to specific healing needs of the students. At the end of each day the students will participate in a group healing.

Micheline has over 25 years of experience in teaching Qigong and healing arts. This is a workshop you won¹t want to miss!


Art & Soul Workshop. Saturday, May 1; 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. $55 includes lunch; Morrisville Studio.

Inside the psyche of each and every person is an ember of creativity. Using movement and various creative techniques, we will help you to fan that ember into a flame of creative expression. Learn to nurture your soul through the expression of joy, creativity, self-love and acceptance. Facilitated by Lisa Buell, business/life coach and JourneyDance ™ Facilitator, and Sara Waskuch, teacher, writer and creative coach. Call Sara 888-3802 to register and for directions.
The Life Mission Institute Open House. April 25th; 1-5PM; free; Best Western Motel, Waterbury. We’ll be introducing the work of the Life Mission Institute and the LMI team in this afternoon opportunity where you can meet exciting people, enjoy refreshments and have a chance to socialize with like-minded people.

Finding Your Mission in Life. May 5,12,19,26; 7-9PM; $120; 55 Clover Lane, Waterbury.

Every person alive has a unique soul mission, a special way he or she is meant to make a difference in the world. When we discover our purpose we open our lives to greater joy, meaning and wonder. Melding the work of Carl Jung and Edgar Cayce, students participant in a variety of exercises and processes to help them identify their purposes for living. They also meet the Life Mission Institute team and choose one member of the team from ...]]> Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:14:09 -0500 http://jungiancenter.org/blog/blog_comment.asp?bi=43