Jung, The Red Book

Discussion on literature other than by the Star of Azazel.
Locked
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Nefastos »

Scrutinies 4-6

Liber Novus itself has seemingly ended with “The Magician” chapter, in Jung's hesitant and struggling crucifixion/air-hanging experience, and was signed with FINIS at the end.

It seems that this was just a try to make and end for the process, however, for the scrutinies which begin immediately after this are not different in style from the actual chapters. Yet they seem to deteriorate. Scrutinies have not been made into beautiful calligraphy and illustrated, as is the main book. Still the separation of these two parts seems arbitrary. Or perhaps the reason was that Jung had already given splendid outer form to the Septem Sermones, if I recall his words from the autobiography correctly.

Two intervowen symbols seem to be in a process of developing at the turn from the Liber to its scrutinies. First, a ring. This ring is first mentioned to be iron, then of serpents, and after that it becomes the golden circle of the Sun. When this has been developed (in the process of several chapters), it – once again – brings about colour Red, about where the scrutinies start.

In scrutinies 4-6 this Red seems to become an overlaying symbol: it is the Red of dawn, of fire, of blood. These are parapersonal aspects; Jung once again mentions dates in the scrutinies text (page 468). So we are also dealing with the cultural events, not only the ones within the author himself. And isn't it obvious, that these two must always go together in one's process? How to cut oneself off from one's temporal & therefore astral surroundings? It is a futile attempt; one must either be crushed under those or serve their slow process of purification into better tampered shapes. The “I” of the writings faces this challenge in turns with tasteless masculine pride and a bit forced-seeming Protestant humility & scientific scepsis. That is, the equilibrium is sought from the polar opposites, but it seldom finds the exact middle. (It might be that they are these middle places – of pride & humility taken together without theatricals – where the author's torment ceases, and true revelations unveil themselves.)

In part 4, Jung is approached by three shades. One of these turns out to be a vampiress who seeks his vital blood. The latter is connected to the mystery of phallus, which Jung later rewrites as “HAP” (an Egyptian amulet with similar meaning) for obvious reasons. What I just mentioned about the cultural journey to better spiritual shapes gets a good depiction here:

”The Red Book” wrote:But she replied: “I want the church, it is necessary for you and for others. Otherwise what are you going to do with those whom I force to your feet? Thea beautiful and natural will nestle into the terrible and dark and will show the way. The church is something natural. The holy ceremony must be dissolved and become spirit. The bridge should lead out beyond humanity, inviolable, far, of the air. There is community of spirits founded on outer signs with a solid meaning.” (p. 492)

All this is quite familar to the SoA workers. Note the part about “forcing to your feet.” Jung's pride is constantly in the focus here, very much like in his great fascination the Nietzche's Zarathustra and another New Age prophet of about the Red Book's time, Crowley. Jung seems to have wrestled better with the deep problems of apparent freedom of will, however: “A man who goes astray becomes an animal, a lost soul becomes a devil.” (p.496)

The 5th scrutiny is made of quite unpleasant misogynistic ravings, where Jung scold “his soul” whom he sees as a woman who is a “whore“ and “a lecherous bitch.” One might note here once again the same curious projection which often becomes a part of the Red phase, “of scarlet woman,” which is at the same time apparently glorified, and yet most revoltingly enslaved. This “soul” is the same vampire shade to which Jung kept giving his blood in the previous chapter.

In the 6th scrutiny we come to the most famous part of the Liber Novus: the Septem sermones ad mortuos. This text had already been published as an appendix for Jung's autobiography before the Red Book was published quite recently. Here these sermons are not given by Basilides, but Jung's own Mercurial master Philemon. In the first sermon presented here Basilides/Philemon speaks about Pleroma. Jung's idea of Pleroma seems, once again, to be an amalgam of the deep spiritual (here Gnostic) metaphysics and a try to interpret it as the same as the lower astral realities. The latter already familiar problem is not apparent from the sermon itself, but from the added footnote 82. In it the editor mentions Jung's idea that pleroma (the Gnostic fullness of spiritual absolute as the treasurehouse of archetypal perfections) can be identified with the Tibetan Bardo. In the SoA system it is good to understand their difference: Pleroma can be see in the Black astral, where the idea of Bardo pertains to the Red astral. Of course, these overlap all the time; only their central focus is different.

My another criticism is much more important than this tiny semantic difference. Jung's idea about Love seems to require some challenges. He seems not to understand what is meant by it, and takes it either as too abstract a theological concept, or in a very low interpretation of the lowest representations between the sexual lovers (where "love" and "hate" are the same, since they are about the clingings of the poles to each other & rejecting otherness beyond their closed personal union).

Hopefully needless to say, the Red Book is yet a monumental achievement, truly a splendid an opus. No wonder the cult of Jung remains very vital to this day, and one can barely make a discussion with a fellow esoterically inclined person without Jung jumping into its middle after a few minutes.

EDIT: Some typo-weeding.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Nefastos »

Scrutinies 7-11

In these scrutinies we go through sermons 2-6 of Septem sermones ad mortuos (Seven Sermons for the Dead). They are most likely familiar for many of our Finnish readers, since they are published as an appendix for Jung's well-known autobiography. Sadly they seem to be lacking from the English version (“Memories, Dreams, Reflections”) – at least from my edition. These are good reading for an aspiring occultist, so I hope they are available elsewhere too, Red Book being quite expensive purchase even as a Reader's Edition.

Like I said the last time, in this Red Book version the interludes have been slightly altered by Jung, to write his Mercurial master Philemon inside the story, or to reveal his identity, however one likes to see it.

In scrutiny 7 that is practically sermon 2, Philemon teaches about the void that is devil, the devil that is always connected to God. He teaches about the absolute by the name of Abraxas and its own plane, Pleroma. “Everything we do not differentiate falls into the Pleroma and is cancelled out by its opposite.” (p.516) In footnote 93 which cites Jung's Visions Seminar he likens Abraxas to Demiurgos and Shiva. While we can see the thought-bridge Jung is treading, coming straight from Demiurge to Shiva is a bit problematic. Of course, even such a correspondence can be made, because in this intense wrestling of the Absolute god idols the opposites become each other every moment, which is the point. (See the brief forum discussion about Ophiomorpos.)

When in Buddhism and Zohar the “God” is likened with the concept of Void (the aspect of Kether is emptiness; reality is shunyata or void) Jung uses terminology in which God is fulness and Devil is void. In a bit confused way God is at the same time only a part of the more holistic Abraxas, and still Abraxas is less than God (as just said, Abraxas is likened to Demiurgos, which is a lesser god of material creation). In the beginning of page 518 the author once again takes distance to the esoteric, Platonic doctrine, and comes closer to the mundane idea of phantasmal astrals being everything in spirit, when he writes: “If the Pleroma had an essence, Abraxas would be its manifestation.” From an esoteric point of view, Pleroma itself is the essence, and that is its problem: it needs manifestation outside itself. Naturally, one can bend obscure ancient terminology according to need. But Jung's “Pleroma” is our astral, and not its highest form either, as I mentioned in the above post.

On the same page 518 Philemon mentions Annus Magnus and its months in a similar way than the idea is used in my Ages of Man (Ihmisen ikäkaudet). “And why did they have no other choice [but to reject God]? Because the world, without these men knowing it, entered into that month of the great year [= twelfth or about 2100 years of the Great Year cycle] where one should believe only what one knows [“the Age of Aquarius” or human-faced angel].”

The end of the next page 519 presents us once again some pretty Satanic thoughts. “Therefore I teach them the God who dissolves unity, who blasts everything human, who powerfully creates and mightily destroys. Those whom love does not unite, fear compels.” The last sentence comes back also to the idea of karma in the Satanic credo.

In scrutiny 8 we hear Philemon's third sermon to the dead. It is once again about Abraxas, now in even clearer and at the same time more poetic language. This batrachian deity comes very close not only to Baphomet (whom he/it really depicts), but also the Lovecraftian horror gods. “The God of the frogs of toads, the brainless one, is the union of the Christian God with Satan” (footnote 100). From page 521 we also find the part that I took for the motto of the fifth chaper of the fifth book of Fosforos: “Everything that you request from the Sun God produces a deed from the devil. Everything that you create with the Sun God gives effective power to the devil.” “That is terrible Abraxas,” continues the text.

At the end of each of his sermons, Philemon makes a Smaragdine Tablet gesture (see the source of the eighth footnote) of sorts by touching the ground and vanishing (cf. article Fohat, where it is discussed in the light of Shiva Sutra how perfect being disappears into its own perfection).

The scrutiny part 9 presents the fourth sermon. In it Jung interestingly seems to swap the fundamental sex archetypes, by tracing everything back to “two devil Gods” who are the Burning One and the Growing One, and then saying that the first is Eros and female, while the latter is Tree of life and male. I have often presented my opinion that gender archetypes swap polarities at the times of innermost mystery, and this exactly seems to happen here. Like we know from e.g. the burning bush symbol (so beautifully discussed by sodalis obnoxion in one of his articles), the ultimate theophany is seen in these forms of flame and tree. But while they outwardly manifest phallic serpent and feminine tree, Jung has caught the more esoteric aspect where serpent actually is female (kundalinî) and the tree a male. He doesn't say so here, but this “devil God tree” is once again the cross of crucifixion.

In scrutiny 10 is given the fifth sermon to the dead. In this chapter Jung discusses these gender archetypes in a way that I cannot wholly agree with. Even though the basic idea is good, its implementation seems to be only on its way to actual attainment. For example: “Sexuality engenders and creates. It is manlike, and therefore we call it PHALLOS, the earthly father.” (p.528) I think the problem here is that Jung seeks to make diametrical dichotomy between the poles, of which he has already presented “Mater Coelestis” of creating feminine spirituality, and therefore he must counterweight it with masculine materiality. But this particular sermon is about “church and holy communion,” and in such a context physical phallus of earthly father should not play a part. Granted, it does so very much in a society that is still very Oedipal in a bad sense, but Philemon claims that he speaks with higher authority, of the things that are true and not just apparent.

Scrutiny part 11 gives the sermon number six. The sexual archetypes remain reversed, for Philemon speaks of serpent as a “whore,” with feminine pronoun, and of the dove as the soul of man, with a masculine pronoun. While the symbolism can at point be thusly arranged, this sermon seems to follow the former one's a bit twisted implementation, and gets this wrong. At the point where such a “sermon” is given, the serpent should either be a positive feminine or then a masculine. I think we can hear some orthodox Christian values behind these a bit weird presentations which seem to condemn the “serpent whore.” But, once again, we are in the same problem of the Ophiomorphos discussion: with these deep studies, context really is everything. Septem sermones is given for the Christian dead, in whom a new kind of god-thought is to be kindled. This is, as said, both an inner process and an outer cultural (even though astral) project. As such, it is not impossible to think that such a terminology has been valid. However, in my last month's commentary I mentioned how Red Book's best parts seem to flash into being when the calm between the opposites is found in balance, and the farther off the balance, the more obvious the struggle becomes, the more hostile the inner dialogue, and the more “astral” (as opposed to truthful) the inner teaching becomes. And indeed here too the ghosts start speaking in a crude manner: "But the dead were outraged and cried, “We are not miserable, we are clever; our thinking and feeling is as pure as clear water. We praise our reason. We mock superstition”" – and so on. Even Philemon admits: “I have fanned a glowing fire, I have given the murderer a knife, I have torn open healed-over wounds, I have quickened all movement, I have given the madman more intoxicating drink, I have made the cold colder, the heat hotter, falseness even falser, goodness even better, weakness even weaker.” (p.532) This is the familiar astral babble we know from so many "inspired" texts, actually rooted on obscured emotional obstructions, which burst out in one big blast. Fresh zealotry always fascinates people who have thought either too much or too little.

But once again, the chaos gives birth to serenity. It seems that the epilogue to the sixth sermon is a later addition (“This section does not occur in Black Book 6”), but it is definitely an improvement. In this interesting part on page 533 Philemon has “stepped out of the whirling circle” and thus becomes a true magician. This comes back to the possibility of distancing oneself from the tumult of Fohatic vortex: the Mefistofeles libretto in my signature motto deals with the same idea. But since this apotheosis is the one of the author's (idea of his) unseen master, he himself is left alone and confused in the darkness, after the disappearance of Philemon.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Wyrmfang
Posts: 775
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Espoo

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Wyrmfang »

In scrutiny 12 the dead return with "pitiful gestures" and say they forgot to teach about men. The daimon begins to speak and teaches that man is the gateway through the outer world of "Gods, daimons, and souls" into the inner world. When the daimon ends, the dead ascend like smoke and the author is left alone with the daemon. The teaching becomes even more obscure, and I have to admit I´m not able summarize the idea here. It is not even clear to what entity (God, the dead, man in general etc.) pronouns such as "he" refer here.

In scrutiny 13 a dark form with golden eyes appears from the shadows and the author is startled. This entity, which is referred to as masculine, says he brings abstinence from joy and suffering. Such abstinence from anything human is the theme of this scrutiny. The daimon argues that the author must go through a dismembering after which there is left: "Nothing but your shadow. You will be a river that pours forth over the lands. It seeks every valley and streams toward the depths." At the end the daimon vanishes and the author firmly decides to take whatever comes but "alone and afraid".

Scrutiny 14 begins by the author listening to a debate between Elijah and Salome. The former defends unity and the conception of one God while the latter prefers multiplicity. The author acts as middleman between the two. After this the author discusses with his soul, and the soul encourages him to act as a mediator between gods, even though he hesitates. However, the soul is outraged because the author does no longer want to serve gods. The soul splits itself into two and visits both the gods in depths & heigths and mediates a message that gods do not tolerate such, but the author does not care. Next his soul shows his reflection as the Devil, and the author conceives this as a trick, but it appears that it is rather an acknowledgement; the Devil is the only being who can "legitimately" defy God.

The last scrutiny I is a discussion between the daemon and a "blue shade" in the garden of the author. The discussion concerns the relationships of them, the garden, and man (worm). The conclusion is that the human being was dismissed and should be taken more seriously. At this point the daemon appears as the most central entity; the passage ends in the daemon asking what kind of gift the shade brings to him (the worm had given only lamentation), and this gift is the beauty of suffering.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Nefastos »

In these last scrutinies there are many interesting points regarding the Star of Azazel philosophy.
The Red Book wrote:Man is a gateway (...)
At immeasurable distance a lonely star stands in the zenith. (...)
man is Abraxas (...)
Prayer increases the light of the star,
it throws a bridge across death. (p.534)
The Red Book wrote:Compassion leads to alienation.(p.537)

This is the mystery of the scapegoat Azazel, who was sent to desert to die.
The Red Book wrote:When the greater worlds turns cold, the star shines. (p.535)

Concerning this, there is great teaching that touches arcana XVII in footnote 125. The same important symbolism continues throughout this scrutiny. It is the manasic portion of shakti, the apparently absent Goddess, who paradoxically is the factual presence of the master: Vâc, the one consisting solely of mystic sound, without substance:
The Red Book wrote:A voice came from afar and was like a falling star. (p.539)

And even though this means that the innermost soul is Lucifer, it is also Christ, for:
The Red Book wrote:He who wants to remain true to love must also overcome sin. (p.541)

And because "fish, sin and soma" belong together, the fish is next mentioned in the text (p.541). This fish is vesica piscis, which is the before mentioned gate precisely. Two circles intersect and create a personality. It is a union of the Dioscures, manas and kâma manas, and not a thing by itself. This is why one loses memory in reincarnation.

After considering the Nietzschean death of God Jung and his mentors Elijah and Salome come to conclusion:
The Red Book wrote:Old Gods have become new. The one God is dead – yes, truly, he died. He disintegrated into many, and thus the world became rich overnight.

But this is more Chenrezig than Buffy the Vampire Slayer kind of fertile disintegration of an earlier tradition. In SoA we therefore have the apparent plurality of truths, but yet they make up a single credo. This would be ideal for the new age. The last words of Salome in the Red Book are: "Being and multiplicity appeal to me, even if it is not new and not eternally true." (p.548) This fits exceedingly well with our lodge Salome's idea, which seeks to serve exactly with this in mind.

The book ends with idea of "beauty of suffering," got from the divine part of the devil (p.551, 553). So it turns out that this "Red" that goes throughout Jung's book is the same Redness that our aspect of Azazel, the martyr of the new age: a martyr very unlike the Christian one, yet not unlike the gnostic Christ.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Astraya
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:59 pm

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Astraya »

Epilogue and appendix A

Jung speaks about madness which would have been a threat if he hadn't used the alchemy. Alchemy means different matters in this context, to recognise such sights, experience them and to build a book with with careful effort. Such patience is crucial in occult Work. Working with these kind of forces, what are presented in the Red Book, (presented in a lyrical way) the results can be dangerous if the methods are lacking consistency and enthusiasm. Absorbing the power, as he says, has a beautiful connection to the mandalas he drew. Making one thing in to another. Thoughts and visions are made in to a book form, as the mandala form is destroyed for a sing of the change. Alchemy is changing and developing things.




IMG_20211126_190417__01__01.jpg
IMG_20211126_190417__01__01.jpg (2.01 MiB) Viewed 11199 times
“There can be no transforming of darkness into light and of apathy into movement without emotion”
― Carl Gustav Jung
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Nefastos »

Once again, in this very end, many Star of Azazel archetypes and approaches raise their heads. Phanes members might notice their lodge been mentioned in appendix A first mandala picture, the first one created by Jung in August 2, 1917. Phanes seems to be a kind like a world egg itself, holding in it the energy of the process that will follow.
The Red Book wrote:[T]he figure of the young boy in the winged egg, called Erikapaios or Phanes and thus reminiscent as a spiritual figure of the Orphic Gods. His dark entithesis in the depths is here designated as Abraxas. (p.560)

When the process Phanes was being founded, the founders thought about the name, and my own suggestion was Abraxas. Only a little bit later, that suggestion was instead adopted for a Finnish lodge that became, sadly, quite short-living. Yet I think if the same kind of idea could be resurrected: lodge Abraxas' idea was to study Solomonic magic & spirit working, and that's an aspect that would have a demand of more emphasis in the lodges still. It is used by many, but is not in the primary focus of any.

The Red Book wrote:[W]hile the lower world of Abraxas is characterized by five, the number of natural man (the twice-five rays of his star). (p.560)

= the Star of Azazel. (Underlining mine.)

The Red Book wrote:The serpent is dark and slight, signifying the dark realm of the earth, the moon, and the void (therefore called Satanas). (p.561)

See Astraya's inserted picture above, left. Also here, like in the SoA philosophy, the twofold Satan ("Satanas," "Diabolos") is united and accompanied by Magna Mater ("Mater Natura s. Terra").

Only one more part to go, appendices B & C by Insanus.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Insanus
Posts: 835
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Insanus »

Appendix B offers Jung's explanations to Mysterium Encounter and Resolutions, chapters covered here three years ago.

Jung calls the visions "allegorical experiences" and "portrayals of personified unconscious thoughts" that "are accessible to thinking and intellectual understanding".
Sinking into dark depths means shifting focus from normal consciousness to inner depths and because this happens without conscious expectation" the inanimate psychic background has the opportunity to let its contents appear." This is the jungian exercise of active imagination.

The old prophet is Logos, the maiden is Eros and Jung considers their impersonal (archetypal) essence to be shared by all people. "A string sounds whose vibration reverberates in every man's breast; these primordial images dwell in everyone as they are the property of all mankind." This kind of images have a magical power that gets hold of man where he is utterly human and the dangers of this seductiveness are made clear in the serpent that" signifies everything bad, dangerous, nocturnal and uncanny. "
"The house represents a fixed abode which indicates that Logos an Eros have permanent residence in us"
Salome being the daughter of Elijah indicates subordination of Eros to Logos and this with the fact that she is blind means she is incorrect allegory to Eros, lacking an essential quality. The subjugation of Eros through Logos explains this and is the theme of the chapter: Eros needs help. "Salome denotes bad qualities. She brings to mind not only the murder of the holy one but also the incestuous pleasure of the father."
Key point follows: "A principle always has the dignity of independence. But if this dignity is taken from it, it is debased and then assumes a bad form".
"Only disobedience against the ruling principle leads out of this condition of undeveloped persistence" & "Adam should be led into temptation."

Jung starts talking about the second vision by mentioning that this depth is not inactive but violently discharges all kinds of matter. Our black & red meditations come to mind.
Salome's movement to left means Eros moves towards the heart, less subject to conscious will. Serpent, representing magical power, also moves left. Logos asserts it's power over Eros by calling Salome back and the serpent also obeys.
From the point of view of Logos, blind movement is a sin and the intention needs to be clarified first and Elijah asks it from the I who must admit his blindness.
Because no answer is in view the I trusts Elijah's guidance and deeper depths need to opened. The crystal symbolizes concentration and in it is seen an image of mother of God with child. Mary is the spiritual side of Eros like Eve was the carnal side.

The rest of the explanation is somehow too difficult for me to follow even though I read through it multiple times: there is something about confusing spiritual direction of love with power-drive wanting to control, about Buddha being higher than Christ because he went beyond pleasure and suffering and about christian world view that seems interesting but I can't quite put these together, perhaps simply because my english skills are lacking. The main idea I got out of this is that subordination of Eros to Logos is corrupting Eros and the healing starts from becoming conscious of the independent intentionality of Eros.

The Appendix doesn't say much about Resolutions: light means good and darkness means evil and both might have dangerous powers. When the I is transfixed inbetween, it's a victory for evil, but he doesn't partake of evil and that's a victory for good, therefore black serpent attacks and grows a white head. Serpent disappears and that signifies the concepts of good and evil are insignificant for the time being and the middle ground is somewhat freed.

Appendix C is an entry from Black Book 5 about Abraxas. It's said that if he's not conjoined by uniting Above and Below, he splits in three parts: the serpent, the human soul and the celestial soul. Man becomes through the principium individuationis through which he ever increasingly concentrates the absolute dissolution of Pleroma. "The more concentrated the Pleroma becomes, the stronger the star of the individual becomes." I wonder if this this suggests that individuation is in some sense incarnating Pleroma? One interpretation is perhaps to think this concentration as a positive formulation of ego-death and the following rebirth.
The dead (I assume these mean the dead in Red Book) are explained to be souls who have not fulfilled the principium individuationis, and this probably relates closely to the independence of principles in Appendix B. Our relationship with the dead could likely be understood similarly corrupting as the subordination of Eros to Logos. In Appendix C, Abraxas is said to be like Eros, but God whereas Eros is mere daimon.
It seems that whoever completes the process of individuation becomes/is the God-Satan Abraxas." As a God you are the great Abraxas in your world. But as a man, you are the heart of the one God who appears to his world as the great Abraxas..."
In appendix B the serpent moved to the left towards the heart with Salome, and here serpent and human soul are the two out of three parts of Abraxas.

It's said that death of Christ taught us that it pleases the one God if one lives his life against the power of Abraxas. Thus the one God delivers himself from the suffering of the earth." Do not flee from Abraxas, do not seek him." This kind of "staying in the middle" was also mentioned in Appendix B.
" In one sense I say to you: do not fear him, do not love him. In another sense I say: fear him, love him. He is the life of the earth, that says enough".
"You should recognize the multiplicity of Gods. You cannot unite all into one being. As little as you are one with the multiplicity of men, just as little is the one god among the multiplicity of the gods."
Soul says:
"You should call me if you want to live with men, but the one God if you want to rise above the human world to the divine and eternal solitude of the star." Not sure if this is the human soul or the celestial soul. Very left-handed from Jung again, which surprised me earlier in the Red Book as well. In my opinion the key point here was purification of principles via disobedience in order to achieve independence.
Jumalan synnit ovat kourallinen hiekkaa ihmisen valtameressä
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Smaragd »

Insanus wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:47 am The main idea I got out of this is that subordination of Eros to Logos is corrupting Eros and the healing starts from becoming conscious of the independent intentionality of Eros.
On its own, this idea seems really problematic in the sense that Logos could be seen to symbolize the whole, and finding Eros' connection to the whole is crucial for the healing process. But in Jung's vision and interpretation this "Logos" is rather a symbol for atmic qualities, which means it is atma detached from the whole in order to be able to operate witihin the vision in a dynamic fashion. When we are at the challenge of finding proper relation to Eros, it might be these detached qualities of atma that creates the problem of not letting Eros work from the unconscious, lifting in to view the things we need to see. Thus, the sentence is no more problematic as the context is taken in to consideration. The detached atma's problematic stance shows here:
Insanus wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:47 amLogos asserts it's power over Eros by calling Salome back and the serpent also obeys.
From the point of view of Logos, blind movement is a sin and the intention needs to be clarified first
Some sort of blind movement is always reguired in the human realm and if there is no room for it, it might be a symptom of problematic relationship to atma. But the nuances start revealing themselves within the question of how far one has to take that movement? How large a step one has to take in the dark to allow unconscious elements to reveal themselves? Not that far if we are mindful, emphatetic to our surroundings, and observe the consequences in all honesty. Sin and unnecessary suffering is within these blind steps taken unnecessarily far i.e. lacking the caring attention and pursuit.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Jung, The Red Book

Post by Nefastos »

Thank you Insanus! With the Red Book and its appendices now handled, our 3½ years' reading circle is at its end. Naturally all comments will be welcome also afterwards, and there is a lot of room for interpretations which we have not discussed, or have discussed only in passing.

Personally I found the appendix commentaries a bit afterthought-like and unnecessary, although the way how Jung underlines his ideas about Abraxas (present also in the text but now even more stressed) are a good read for a LHP/SoA student.

Smaragd wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:55 pmSome sort of blind movement is always reguired in the human realm

And even more so elsewhere. We human beings are so tremendously complicated ("microcosmos" state of reflecting everything in the world at once) that the result is the resemblance of free will. But for all the other denizens of the lower threefold world, the freedom is in no-choosing. For example, a demonic being has already made its choice, and has become an elementary spirit as a result: there is no longer anything to choose, but to wait the impulse to go through its cycle. And an elemental spirit does not even understand the idea of choice: like the element it habits, it will always choose the paths of least resistance, unless instructed otherwise by an overdriving will of another agent.

But this is, a bit funnily, one of the taboos of our culture. Human FREEDOM is something which must almost be capitalized, at the same time when people clearly show at every moment how incapable we actually are to be free. But that's how it always goes: the ideals that we speak of – instead of following the winding way to their actual core, where there are rarely easy, formal answers – are the cultural crust of that time. Thet crust becomes flags and idols, henceforth losing the factual spiritual vigor.

Only the one who knows the obedience can become free – although I wouldn't recommend the way how the cenobite fathers of the Church have tried to put that lesson into practice. In those schools, one learns obedience by complete mortification of one's own independence, and will do whatever one's spiritual teacher puts them through. It can mean that in order to kill out one's "pride" the teacher makes the particularly great painter to put aside the brushes and instead focus on manual work for years, and so on. Most people can see at least some of the great amount of different big problems this can and will bring. Rather, the answer is once again in the middle.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Locked