Carl Jung: The uses and limitations of dogma/symbols

[lmfao]

Just thought I'd make a small post about some of what I've thought about from reading Jung again, very brief points hopefully. I'm testing myself here to see how well I can present the ideas I have by posting. ( I need to do an activity to distract myself from this throbbing acute back pain injury)

Am reading "The archetypes and the collective unconscious". To bring this down to earth, the  "collective unconscious" are patterns of survival that are "more or less" the same in humans. They aren't of personal acquisition, they are inborn. Whilst the literal meaning behind how Leo/(Peter Ralston) use the word survival and Jung uses the words are likely similar, Jung is often talking about the transcendental/non-dual/god-like "true nature" of things which is behind survival, different from the implications of explaining what survival practically means about you being a devil. Both ways of talking about survival are simultaneously true. 

The contents of the collective unconscious are referred to "archetypes". An equally valid yet more intuitive name is "primordial types". All these concepts about archetypes are still in the domain of the relative on the surface, it's survival. Yet they are sources of the divine, because the duality of survival+ego vs god is false like any other duality, so pardon if I don't make sense.

Now to talk about man, dogma, symbols and spirituality. We have actuality, divine experiences man encounters. But these get subject to conscious elaboration and beliefs. It gets corrupted . Consider "archetype" as a dummy word for actuality/(direct experience) for some cases in the following quote if you wish.
 

Quote

Primitive tribal lore is concerned with archetypes that have been modified in a special way. They are no longer contents of the unconscious, but have already been changed into conscious formulae taught according to tradition, generally in the form of esoteric teaching. This last is a typical means of expression for the transmission of collective contents originally derived from the unconscious

Another well-known expression of the archetypes is myth and fairytale. But here too we are dealing with forms that have received a specific stamp and have been handed down through long periods of time. The term "archetype" thus applies only indirectly to the "reprisentations collectives," since it designates only those psychic contents which have not yet been submitted to conscious elaboration and are therefore an immediate datum of psychic experience.


In this sense there is a considerable dif­ference between the archetype and the historical formula that has evolved. Especially on the higher levels of esoteric teaching the archetypes appear in a form that reveals quite unmistakably the critical and evaluating influence of conscious elaboration. Their immediate manifestation, as we encounter it in dreams and visions, is much more individual, less understandable, and more naive than in myths, for example. The archetype is essen­tially an unconscious content that is altered by becoming con­scious and by being perceived, and it takes its colour from the individual consciousness in which it happens to appear.

Quote

 All esoteric teach­ings seek to apprehend the unseen happenings in the psyche, and all claim supreme authority for themselves.

 

Quote

Why is psychology the youngest of the empirical sciences? Why have we not long since discovered the unconscious and raised up its treasure-house of eternal images? Simply because we had a religious formula for everything psychic—and one that is far more beautiful and comprehensive than immediate expe­rience.

Essentially, dogma, belief systems, religion, symbols, concepts, are mans first reaction to encountering the divine. We go from image to image, belief system to belief system, unwilling to enter the realm of actuality and let go of certainty. 
---
Carl Jung then gives a very good challenge to all of us guys in the west. Why are we so obsessed with eastern religions, whilst deeming christianity as inferior?

Quote

Though the Christian view of the world has paled for many people, the symbolic treasure-rooms of the East are still full of marvels that can nourish for a long time to come the pas­sion for show and new clothes.

Consider the perspective that this is more clinging to symbols and dogmas after one dogma has failed you. (Yes I know, you can argue about the relative effective of different systems in raising consciousness, how east encourages transcending dualities, that's not the point).
-----

Quote

Naturally, the more familiar we are with them the more does constant usage polish them smooth, so that what remains is only banal superficiality and meaningless paradox. The mystery of the Virgin Birth, or the homoousia of the Son with the Father, or the Trinity which is nevertheless not a triad—these no longer lend wings to any philosophical fancy.

These symbols become uncritically believed. The drone-like acceptance of empty and unanimated truisms. A concept is animated when the person using it is connected to actuality and doesn't conflate map with territory.
---
These symbols, these dogmas, they are for the masses. They are for you if you wish to remain in the land of mediocrity.

Quote

That people should suc­cumb to these eternal images is entirely normal, in fact it is what these images are for. They are meant to attract, to con­vince, to fascinate, and to overpower. They are created out of the primal stuff of revelation and reflect the ever-unique expe­rience of divinity.

That is why they always give man a premoni­tion of the divine while at the same time safeguarding him from immediate experience of it.

Dogma, symbols, concepts, they wish to appease your superficial spiritual concerns without hurting you or dismantling you. So ask you, do you want mediocrity or do you want to explore uncharted territory? 

Jung gives a story of a man called "Brother Nicholas of Flue" , a christian mystic of some sort, who whilst praying had a vision of the divine that terrified him. And to find peace of mind, he made sense of it under his christian framework.

----
An interesting tangent though to all this. I find superstition so interesting. These symbols, dogmas, they are like "charms" and "lucky amulets" you take into battle. And I find them so interesting. I imagine myself joining an African tribe and doing rain dances with them and whatever other funky rituals. Lucky charms, superstitious thinking, I love it. 

I failed to keep this post linear and steady. Oh well.


 

Edited July 27, 2020 by lmfao