Thread: Carl Gustav Jung - Videos, Books, Ruminations

Completion turns out to be shadow work:

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I tend to follow my fascinations and plunge deep into them, and I have yet to regret it.

Oh, absolutely. They may not take you where you thought they were going, but it's always somewhere interesting. My problem is just that I can never be fascinated by only one thing at any given time

Originally Posted by LeaningKarst

...My problem is just that I can never be fascinated by only one thing at any given time

Same, but usually they're close enough that I can combine them in some way, such as recently weightlifting plus figure drawing and anatomy studies. Also, what I learn from the deep plunges, no matter how weird or esoteric they are, turns out to be helpful later in unexpected ways. I once read a saying - don't know where it originated from, "When you're deep enough into one thing, you're into all things", and I've found it to be true. At the root level they all seem to merge in weird unexpected ways. Studying story structure for instance, you're learning about psychology and human motivation and just about everything else that's important in life.

But yeah, the fascinations do seem to rotate suddenly don't they? I lose my intense desire to study or practice whatever it was and suddenly it's something else. But often I can get old fascinations fired up again after a soujourn into something else for a while, like the art one or the writing one. Especially if I find a new 'hook' each time, a different aspect of it come in from.

I had some half-finished notes I had meant to post earlier but may still be helpful/relevant – let’s see…

Originally Posted by slash112

Buddhism is very safe.

Weeeeell, I’ve got to say that Buddhism’s not completely safe—especially Vajrayana. It’s just safer than going it alone. Usually.

If there’s one thing I’d suggest to a non-Buddhist looking to incorporate Buddhist practices into their life it would be to recognize that every single lineage has a slightly different style, and all the practices of a lineage are going to reflect that style so that even something as basic as silent sitting meditation can have innumerable variations. This means that, for the practitioner, every practice reinforces other practices—at least, so long as you’re not trying to achieve two opposing goals simultaneously (which I couldn’t explain further without getting into yanas, which would be such a technical discussion that I’d be better off referring you to an expert than trying to explain it here). But I can see how it might be confusing, coming from outside of it, especially if you see people offering contradictory advice—which I can guarantee you will once you get away from general principles into specific recommendations. Actually, looking further up the thread, it sounds like you may have already experienced this!

So yeah - it’s important both to remember that the differences aren’t problematic and that they have the potential to be significant, depending on how they fit in with your overall life circumstances.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

"When you're deep enough into one thing, you're into all things"

For me, it’s more like being into everything is what makes it possible for me to understand any one thing deeply! My fascinations usually start with having whatever I’m focusing on constantly veer off into other things. I can’t actually see the thing in its own right until I start focusing on something else. Or until someone actually asks me to explain it, and I realize I can—whichever happens first. It actually seems to work out pretty well in the long run, although it’s definitely at odds with how the deadline-driven world thinks these things ought to work. That’s what Jung would have considered an extraverted approach, an extensive mode as opposed to yours, which sounds more intensive—although I never could get his typology to feel natural.

Well you nailed it - I'm definitely an introvert. Also, I'm with you on Jung's typology. Thinking and intuition make sense but I have trouble understanding the differences between sensation and emotion or whatever it is - can't even remember them all.

Well, I had a 50% chance of getting it right in any case. Although it gets more complicated if you also consider introversion in the more colloquial sense, or the Myers-Briggs approach, even though it’s got a Jungian foundation. I know I actually score as an introvert on that one because I had to take the official Myers-Briggs as part of a career test once. But while Jung’s system is difficult to get a grasp of, it’s more conceptually interesting than any of the other popular ones out there—at least, the ones I’ve encountered.

I guess a part of the problem with sensation and feeling is linguistic—we tend to use ‘feel’ and ‘sense’ as if they’re synonyms. I recall Jung actually complaining about this in Psychological Types—that would have been about German, but I think it’s at least as true of English. And the descriptions he gives also leave something to be desired. He seems to have been drawing heavily on analyses of famous cultural figures for the thinking and intuition sections and on generalizations based on recognizable types in everyday life for the others—most of which are no longer types anyone would recognize today.

The way I see it is, we have senses, feelings and thoughts. These three all happen in the mind, but they each have a different effect on us.

- You sense information.
- Those senses can trigger feelings.
- Feelings can direct our thoughts. And our thoughts can even direct our feelings.

Side-note: I think it would be fair to say that ego comes from the "thoughts" part. And most people are in a constant feedback-loop of thoughts and feelings, because ego perpetuates the cycle.
E.g:
*feels bad*
"Oh god I feel bad"
*feels even worse*
"Oh god I feel even worse"
... cycle repeats ...

** = feeling
"" = thought

If ego (judgmental thoughts?) would just shut up, the cycle would be stopped in its tracks. Then we would only be sensing and feeling, without the constant judgement about the senses and feelings.
If there's no judge to say a feeling is bad, can it even be bad? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that makes a shitty emotion shitty is the pesky things my ego says about it. Without ego, it is simply an emotion. An emotion telling me there's something to be done. I always say, feelings are like road signs.


Excuse my tangent. xD

It’s interesting, Slash, that Jung also seems to recognize thought as an especially problematic function. It’s not that thought is inherently bad, but it does seem to be inherent to it to want to be the one in charge—hence the problems Jung mentions and the problems you mention.

Indeed, thought isn't inherently bad. In fact, I view it as a very useful tool.
Even ego isn't inherently bad. Also a useful tool.

The real problem is the vicious cycles that ego puts itself under, without even realizing it.

I suppose, much like lucid dreaming, the trick is to become aware of it so that you can then control it.

I was driving the other day, and because I drive a junker car just to get to and from work, it only has a radio and CD player and I've been too lazy to make any CDs/ An advertisement came on wherein a Christian man was complaining that America needs God again. He finished with saying, "we need to get back to how things used to be; you know, Christ first, family second."

I'm pretty well studied when it comes to Christianity. Both my parents are protestant, and my mother is zealous enough to believe the Bible is the literal word of God, but strangely enough they only tried to read me the Bible or be religious at all when I was quite young but kind of just stopped altogether at a fairly young age. So, all of the times I've read the Bible and studied its history, philosophy, and symbolism, it's been entirely out of my own curiosity. Anyway, I digress.

The point is I'm well aware that this is a directive given by God--to love him, and more specifically, Jesus Christ, more than anybody or anything else. Jesus first, Family and other affairs in order of importance second and so on. I'd also had to go to a Church funeral service for a well respected doctor that died that we were friends with and had prayers and other reading material that brought up the same basic realization as I had from this commerical. UTilizing Jung's theories and understanding the structure and function of myths allows you to read the scriptures, pslams, and prayers in a context where what they roughly translate to makes perfect logical sense and is easily understood as being the product of thousands of years wisdom and experience as cognizant, sapient beings capable of pondering our own ezistences and deaths.
'
I have serious doubts as to the depth of the understanding the man saying this on the radio had of what he was actually telling people to do, but when you understand that Christ embodies the Logos and is the Word, God bound in flesh. I believe it's John the Baptist who states that in the beginning there was only the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God as it were separate from Him yet is, indeed, still Him. The Logos symbolizing reason, logic, one's thought process, the argument one makes in debate or otherwise during social discourse, etc. Although, in Christianity (and if I remember correctly, Catholicism in particular) it more often refers to transcendental truth. Jesus reconciles Man with God by accepting the suffering of his life, all the while seeking to prevent or decrease the suffering he encounters in the world. This becomes his ultimate act for humanity, accepting a tortorous death for the sake of Man's salvation and reconciliation with God becomes possible through one's own acceptance of life's hardships and yet not only endures and persists everyday, but all the while not letting your negative experiences (especially with people) destroy your faith in others and society on a whole...to continue to be a good person and help others despite the fact and even though you'll surely be hurt and taken advantage of in the future just as you have before in the past. The sins of others do not wind up dissappointing you enough to just not care and be a sinner yourself.

Most importantly, Jesus here both is and represents (perhaps even necessary) sacrifice. God's plan for reconciling Man with himseelf with Himself, if we view God in a more traditional way, was to do for huamnity what Abel did for God that earned him God's favor. Jesus was the Lamb, or thing of value in general, that God provided as a sacrifice for Mankind, just like Abel and others in that society. Personally I think the Godhood attributed to Jesus is in reality more a case of that the path he walked and the things he did and set out to do everyday were acutally being viewed as those of which that make the transcendence of mundane, earthly suffering possible--which in a way makes one, in essence, more like God,

So, putting Jesus, the goal of transcending your pain and suffering and striving to be a better person, first would make sense when stacked up to something like your family. When it comes to the psalms and scripture, the same process of analyzing what's being said provides similar reaults.

Well said snoop!

However, I was speaking to a Christian who says that Christianity is opposed to enlightenment. In my view, what he meant was the idea of simply being a child of God, rather than becoming God.

But I believe Jesus (or as I call him, Yeshua) was trying to show people the way of transcendence. And Christianity has caused misunderstandings from what he actually wanted.

It's just weird. I don't oppose to the idea of simply being a child of God. In fact, I switch between Godliness and child-of-Godliness at will, and both ways are awesome and have their own merits.
But in this day and age, I feel it's perhaps time for us all to become like God. But many Christians are stuck in the old ways. They're stuck because, well, they enjoy it. Why let go of something so amazing? Which is ironic, because that amazing thing is also a cause for suffering. Suffering can only come by thinking you are the body/mind.

Christianity is full of wisdoms which can lead a person to enlightenment. But it is NOT taught in that way, as far as I can tell.

I posted about this before, but I'll do a quick recap with an expansion of the motives behind the anti-enlightenment of christianity..


Christ was not The Son Of God, nor did he claim to be. He was a son of god. And he wanted others to realize the same. It seems there is and has been, for the stability of society, performed a well intended effort to avoid the enlightenment of the masses by enlightened people in power. Enlightenment is spontaneous and of course has always been present through history, also in the west..
The Bodhisattvas have good reasons for wanting to enlighten the world. But the anti-enlightenment holds strong ground and up till the point of the information age their task has been much easier than that of the bodhisattvas..

Can you imagine the amount of mayhem some people could possibly produce if the notion that they were god was popularized and misunderstood in a culture where the idea of God was like the God of christians, muslims and jews? Further more, look at the sustainability of the hippie revolution. And remember then that that took place in a modern first world country. The history of human kind is a history of rampant poverty. How does a poor suffering, dissenfranchised GOD respond to his situation? And so there has been a fear that any society in which mass enlightenment is attempted would tear itself apart after the very first step, which is to popularize the ideas of self.

There are also other reasons for opposing the boddhisattva's mission to enlighten the world. Largely this breaks down to not giving away the show, undermining the storyline. Thereby ruining the fun and diversity taking place on the stage... At the same time this view when held by an enlightened individual could possibly serve as an antidote to a certain form of spiritual pride which is one of the more insidious and powerful ego traps.

In short the idea is that the people who are really deep into the game and lost in the ego should not be disturbed. The square person is not to be seen as a someone in need of help, but rather as an amazing performance where the performer is under the pressure of a massive perceived risk. Like a balancing act. They are to be admired and viewed in awe. They are pushing the limits of their performance to the point where they don't even know that they're doing it for fun, nor who they are and where they started, and best of all they don't even care. The dance is everything and they don't question it. Complete immersion, absolute dedication. Look at them and rejoice. The best actors on this stage aren't acting at all. Now you could say: Should we let them continue to suffer just because it's really cool? It's a fair point. But the anti-enlightenment would say hopelessly idealistic at this time.

Jesus was killed to avoid the enlightenment. Subsequently his words were twisted to The Son of God. This brilliantly made the appropriation godly significance to yourself the greatest spritual taboo, an idea so crazy it is not even to be considered. Which it still largely is. Very effective.

Next is something I hadn't thought about before now, but this might be tied into jungs shadow work in individuation. It would be easier for someone, form a christian culture to sit down and seriously consider being God, if they weren't afraid of being crazy.. For the one on the path of integrating his shadow, that would be a lot easier as he already knows himself to be an irredemable fiend and a devil.

To round things off I think the Children of god thing makes much better sense than claiming to be God. If the thing in all that is God can not be pointed to, then how does it make sense for me to say I am god? You can point at to me can't you? Where as the Child of God would be like saying you are a wave or a swirl in the ocean. Wasn't it the kybalion that said to claim to be god was like a cell claiming to be the body?

Good post, Vader.


I just wanted to comment on this bit:

Originally Posted by LighrkVader

To round things off I think the Children of god thing makes much better sense than claiming to be God. If the thing in all that is God can not be pointed to, then how does it make sense for me to say I am god? You can point at to me can't you? Where as the Child of God would be like saying you are a wave or a swirl in the ocean. Wasn't it the kybalion that said to claim to be god was like a cell claiming to be the body?

Indeed when we say "becoming God", we are still just a small piece of God.

But with enlightenment, one can come to realize the full scale of what I call "the mother" or "the eye of God". AND realize it to be their "true self". The eye of God is before everything. And it is infinite. And it is part of all of us.
As I type this, I'm pulling myself back into that infinite space. Right now I am literally connected to everything in existence.
Of course, we are always connected to everything in existence in this way, as that infinite space is always with us and it is always where we are looking from. The difference is, I am aware of it and I can feel it.

In a way, this makes me omni-present.
I suppose it's still better to say "like God". But I think it's still completely fair to talk in terms of ascending to Godliness.


EDIT: Note that "infinite space" kinda gives the wrong impression. A better word would be "undefined space". Because there is actually no distance involved in that space whatsoever. But it is an omni-present space.

I like that and I agree because I understand what you are saying. But I suspect that if I wasn't able to know what you are talking about, the use of that word.. "God".. might only lead to misunderstandings that could be discrediting.

"God" is so loaded you know, so the statement is impractical and does the purpose of communication a disservice most of the time. Then again, I'm not even sure there is a word that is better, or that would remain better for long after people started to use it. How about The Great Prinklybinky of Klankytonk.....? It rolls of the tongue nicely at least

Edit: so I'm not saying it isn't so. Nor saying not to say it... I'm just saying it's an impractical thing to say and I fear that might be true nomatter how you put it haha...

You're absolutely right, and in most cases, I avoid saying pretty much everything I just said there.

I usually simply refer to it as "pure awareness".

To be honest, any word with existing connotations, will cause misunderstandings. So indeed "The Great Prinklybinky of Klankytonk" would be better than all of em.

Haha. just make up a new name every day I guess.... Tomorrow it will be Rangbrandt Crundel First of His Name Play those trumpets!

Did someone mention pure awareness?lol Now I'm curious enough to read what the discussion is about.

Originally Posted by LighrkVader

"God" is so loaded you know, so the statement is impractical and does the purpose of communication a disservice most of the time.

I know this was directed more towards slash112, but I wanted to acknowledge the truth in your statement. The concept of God is probably one of the most indefinite, psychologically, spiritually, religiously, and emotionally loaded out of any one could think of. At least when it comes to my last post and how I was choosing to interpret parts of the Bible, I was my chosen meaning for God was meant to reflect the concept as it more relates to Jungian Psychology and Philosophy.

Originally Posted by slash112

But with enlightenment, one can come to realize the full scale of what I call "the mother" or "the eye of God". AND realize it to be their "true self". The eye of God is before everything. And it is infinite. And it is part of all of us.
As I type this, I'm pulling myself back into that infinite space. Right now I am literally connected to everything in existence.
Of course, we are always connected to everything in existence in this way, as that infinite space is always with us and it is always where we are looking from. The difference is, I am aware of it and I can feel it.

In a way, this makes me omni-present.
I suppose it's still better to say "like God". But I think it's still completely fair to talk in terms of ascending to Godliness.

Your "true self"/"the mother"/"the eye of God"/pure awareness is what I believe is all that remains of consciousness when experiencing Ego Death. All other aspects of the self and consciousness dissolve entirely, and what remains is "you" in the process of raw experience. The omni-presence you mention is what comes from there being no distinction between the self and one's surrounding existence.

All of the terms you gave this are one's I find quite appropriate for it. "The mother" works well when coming from a perspective of Christian Gnosticism and the concept of the Sophia. True self is a bit iffy for me, but it's a very simple and intuitive way of naming it, so I don't really know what my hang up is there. "The Eye of God" is one of the most appropriate in my opinion because it is a concept that can really be found all over the place and relates to Jungian Psychology and the understanding of symbolism a lot. Just look at the back of the American dollar and the Eye at the top of the pyramid, or the Eye of Horus, or the idea that all authorities at the "top" of a given hierarchy answer to and are inherently flawed and beneath a perfect, transcendant entity that simply observes all that takes place. Lastly, pure awareness is about the simplest and most accurate way of stating what it is.

In many cultures, of course, that perfect entity that observes and judges all, and that even kings are flawed when held up against it is a monotheistic god. Some people might see it more as our collective perfect ideal for a given thing. I think in the most concrete sense, it's the latter, but what the Eye of God that silently observes and judges actually is, is ourselves (or using your term, slash112, the "true self"). We all know and see what we do, and we all know what it is that we should be doing... or perhaps, rather, what we should not be doing. When we act, the very existence of these ideals of things and the fact we are aware of ourselves and theses ideals means we automatically compare ourselves to them and judge ourselves accordingly.

Sorry for the random tangent at the end, lol.

Nice response, snoop! Couldn't agree more!

Another good video out by this fellow here. I think Jung's words here do a better job of explaining the reconciliation of opposites and how that God is found in that reconciliation, although it's pretty much the same simple concept at the core of everything in Jung's work, really. It just seems to be the case that this is only one manner of fleshing out and understanding that concept--the concept being that the process of becoming unified and whole requires the integration of all the existing aspects of one's nature, both good and bad, as well as all things in between and any other way one is capable of being.

So I figured my understanding of the third aspect of God in the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, was too vague for my liking and decided to look up some online Biblical sources about it. The explanation for what exactly is helps clear things up a bit and, naturally, just seems to be more confirmation of Jung's own understanding and conception of God and its relationship with the unconscious.

God the Holy Spirit is said to be what resides in the true followers of Jesus Christ. Those who are reborn by their acceptance and belief in God's manifestation in Christ and that Christ represents the one true Salvation for humanity and receive Him wind up having God reside within them in the form of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals to a Christian God's will and God's truth, and mainly does so by, as it is put, bearing witness of Jesus Christ. In other words, or at least to me, it comes to reside within a person knowing and accepting what Jesus Christ represents and its truthful and factual nature regarding it being mankind's one path to transcendence of the flesh and mortal, earthly suffering and entering the kingdom of Heaven (which we could view more as a state of mind and being that is healthy and filled with meaning, value, virtue, good will, etc.).

Part of how God, the Holy Spirit does this is by building into a Christian's life the character of God (all the good stuff, basically), and by stating that they do it through the Holy Spirit itself rather than themselves as people. The reason here being that human beings on their own are not capable of overcoming their own sinful nature, but through the power of God in the form of the Holy Trinity that resides in them through their acceptance of Christ, they are able to overcome themselves. That is to say, by letting the Holy Spirit act through them, rather than acting of their own accord. This pattern of behavior is one that already had existed and seemed to work in the past via Hero myths and people imitating and trying to embody the characteristics of the Hero in order to at least act like a hero themselves.

Considering we know ourselves to be capable of both great good and evil, it makes sense we would have to be attempting to embody something of a more perfect and good nature to successfully overcome that. It isn't possible to believe in a real man who is all good, and therefore, neither is it to embody someone like that, but it is certainly possible to believe in a real God whose nature is like that.

I agree, snoop. The way I see it is, the Holy Spirit is simply the "I Am" presence. Otherwise known as "Christ consciousness". Or sometimes I refer to it as the "pure, unconditional, eternal love of God". Or of course, simply, "pure awareness".

What you said 100% fits my way of looking at it.

I know I’m jumping in again but I’d like to know why you call it “Christ consciousness”. Perhaps it is because some believe the Holy Spirit, jesus and God are one person? Hence the Omni presence part. I don’t get why you guys see yourself as Omni present either.:3 If it’s okay could you explain your perspective to me slash.