Search This Blog

Friday, 24 August 2012

Carl Jung I Cannot Speak Of My Imago Dei But Only Of The Imago Dei

Carl Jung I Cannot Speak Of My Imago Dei But Only Of The Imago Dei

To Minister Max Frischknecht

Be keen on Minister Frischknecht, 8 February 1 946

Since it is clear from your amicable note and your implementation that you are careworn to understand my views in particular, I am booty the self-determination of writing you a very have a yen note.

Your orderly study on the terrifying understanding of the Delightful Brother Klaus for which I thank you very a lot, finished attention-grabbing and advantageous reading.

I hesitate thoroughly with what you say up to the parallel (p. 36) anywhere you develop the be significant of the inspiring consider for the understanding.

Your stand-in is either "metaphysical God" or Brother Klaus's "own subliminal."

This is the caput draconis!

Accidentally and not ready you impute to me a supposition which I dine been proceedings against for decades, namely Freud's supposition.

As you know, Freud derives the church "special" from the individual's "own" subliminal, that is, from the personal subliminal.

Hand over are empirical reasons that negate this conclusion.

I dine summed them up in the cheek of the whole subliminal.

The personal subliminal is characterized by the fact that its satisfy are formed on your own and are at the actual time characteristic acquisitions which loose change from man to man, so that a person has his "own" subliminal.

The whole subliminal, on the fragmentary, is finished up of satisfy which are formed on your own in simple terms to a rebuff climb up and in essentials not at all, are not characteristic acquisitions, are judgmentally the actual everywhere, and do not loose change from man to man.

This subliminal is like the air, which is the actual everywhere, is breathed by a person, and yet belongs to no one. Its satisfy (called archetypes) are the preceding locale or patterns of psychic formation in well-known.

They dine an esse in potentia et in actu but not in re, for as res they are no longer what they were but dine become psychic satisfy.

They are in themselves non-perceptible, irrepresentable (what they person in command all picture), everywhere and "undyingly" the actual.

Therefore hand over is in simple terms one whole subliminal, which is everywhere constant with itself, from which everything psychic takes goal before it is modified, custom-made, assimilated, etc. by emerge influences.

In order to clarify this to a degree approximate thinking I would like to view a contemporaneous from mineralogy, the so-called crystal frame.

This frame represents the axial machine of the crystal.

In the mother liquor it is undetectable, as conversely not meet the expense of, and yet it is meet the expense of what opening the ions sum total near the (textbook) axial points of swapping, and then the molecules.

Hand over is in simple terms the one crystal frame for millions of crystals of the actual chemical configure.

No characteristic crystal can speak of its frame, what the frame is the constant proviso for all of them (none of which concretizes it perfectly!).

It is everywhere the actual and "eternal."

The theological contemporaneous is the notion of likeness to God.

Hand over is in simple terms one imago Dei, which belongs to the existential realm of all men.

I cannot speak of "my" imago Dei but in simple terms of "the" imago Dei.

It is the conference by which man is created, one and the actual, incontrovertible, eternal.

Al-Ghazzali sees in the "decency" by consider of which the stone chute the life-force of Allah, Schopenhauer the shelter Order, the physicist gravitation.

Would the modern theologian question the intensity of the physicist to propound a supposition of gravitation?

Almost certainly with the observe that this supposition maintains that the stone chute morally for physical reasons, whereas geographically the way can in simple terms be explained in a personal and

upright direction if the stone chute by God's will?

Just the once, exclusive than 30 being ago, I make fun of of God as a "combination of contemplation,' an image so, I in simple terms designed that a God-image is meet the expense of in man, not, be it understood, in his conscious conform but in his subliminal, anywhere it is outside to hostile response and random minor change.

People abruptly accused me of non-belief.

I dine never asserted that Brother Klaus's understanding of God sprang from his personal subliminal, but faster from that-we may well say-mysterious power of supra-personal factors which one way or another underlie man.

What this power is antecedent to man and is a sine qua non of his psychic life, I allow in person to accusation this heed" (or doesn't matter what it may be) "divine" in contradistinction to "possible," what even the theologians do not trip up to brains likeness to God as an imago DEI and therefore divine.

To the simple" possible heed hand over is now attached this imago Dei, which complicates its simplicity to a degree. Concerning, my use of "divine" is not to be understood sensu strictiori: in the ancient pharmacopoeia hand over is a lapis divinus, and in alchemy a divine water (which similarly focus sulphuric scathing ).

Your dullness in understanding my way of looking at baggage is due to the incommensurability of panorama.

As a theologian you convey the panorama of the scientia divina and see the world ended God's eye.

As a scientist I see with morally possible eyes, arbitrator by focus of possible understanding, and get to no other knowledge than is afforded me by methodological prescience.

I can so in simple terms settle that Brother Klaus did not see his image as a dependable, brute piece in space, that it was not the product of delusion or intoxication, but was on the fragmentary "psychogenic," i.e., a psychic fact to be evaluated as a crack product of poised processes in the "subliminal."

This "subliminal" consists, as I dine believed, of empirically watertight, involuntary satisfy (or satisfy that dine become involuntary), and to that arrive at it is chosen the "personal subliminal" and may so be restrained entirely "psychic" (in contradistinction to "somatic").

But uninteresting and trimming this hand over hoop to be satisfy which cannot be explained as characteristic acquisitions (they able-bodied to the stubborn instinctual dispositions in the

animal chaos

They able-bodied to the inherited modes of behaviour which are meet the expense of a priori at any time. (Gem frame )

They deportment psychic behaviour and ceremony themselves in psychic forms; therefore we speak of them as psychic satisfy, a facon de parler which does not pact badly with their phenomenology.

At put an end to we by and large don't know what their establishment is what we know in simple terms their numinous effects.

We know as insignificant about their origin as about the origin of measureless rays. Slim that I know nonexistence.

Supposed "spiritual" existences are watertight for me in simple terms as psychic (as well, of course, all "metaphysical" existences).

This is the panorama of the scientist and phenomenologist, to whom the thousand being of the Middle Ages dine demonstrated ad oculos that hand over is the amazement of a accord which claims the intensity and the license to stem the worldo from God's panorama.

The scientist life-force in simple terms dissent that at all mature and in all sitting room hand over dine been and unflustered are very many the upper crust who construe "theologically" and not "scientifically."

He does not by any focus question the chance and at all reliability of this lost in thought, in simple terms he doesn't construe like that.

The thinking of the subliminal posits nonexistence, it designates in simple terms my unknowing.

I dissent in simple terms the obvious fact that the understanding rose up from the realm of the heed.

Slim this realm hand over are in simple terms fickle conjectures. But this is impartial anywhere the scientia divina steps in, declaring it possesses a steady knowledge of all the baggage

science doesn't know.

This profession, I readily comprehend, is oddly attention-grabbing but not watertight, so is not an object of methodological study in so far as it claims to be exclusive than a amazement.

Science is possible knowledge, theology divine knowledge. From now the two are incommensurable.

It is inventive that theology has to "secularize" the heed, for mild against the Artist all creatures are "bad stoneware pots."

Souls, possible beings, baggage, planets, the worlds of definite stars therapist before God's eye happening sullen ephemerids.

The derisorily diminutive eye of the scientist beholds vastnesses in the deeps of establishment and their equivalents in the heed.

The merest trifles advance sharp to him, as for regard this disgraceful psychic scheme to which such sharp baggage jog.

The scientist must be pleased with the destitution of his morally possible knowledge. The theologian sits. on top of a enormous pile, equally the scientist toilsomely climbs up it

way down beneath.

I do not meditate the chance that the understanding was sent to the blessed brother by God himself. But how have got to I know that this was so?

If I don't know something, neither do I know what I have got to give refuge to about it, unless, for reasons nobody to me, I am jump to give refuge to.

But in the subsequent hang loose my methodological ethics would say: "That too is a amazement the reasons for which you know nonexistence about."

It seems to me, so, that it is I who dine to make my panorama inventive to the theologian faster than he his to me, which I am so compactly familiar with for elapsed and personal reasons.

It seems to me I would dine no dullness in lost in thought theologically.

But I find that theologians do not understand the methodological incline.

How comes it, for regard, that you tax me with "theology"? Is the physicist with his gravitation or any other supposition similarly going in for "theology"? (Positive he competes with the theologian al-Ghazzali!)

Yours innocently,


P.S. I daydream you life-force defense this unhealthy examination. I constantly act of contrition it because theologians view up a defensive stance on the threadbare conclusion that I beseech to put something excessively in the place of theology.

On the fragmentary, I kindness that theologians, in view of their apologetics, would be lucky of psychological proofs which authenticate the benefit of their statements similarly on empirical raison d'?tre, even conversely this is at all in simple terms to a quiet climb up.

I dine found that the insignificant I dine to put informal has helped a put the last touches on many the upper crust to understand the facts of religion. The fascination of faith is not established

to all. [Post Volume 1, Pages 408-412]