Carl Jung's Secret Life: "The "Aryan Christ" - something rotten in Jungian psychology?

[Alejo]

Calling "libido" a "life force" or a "god" is true enough from a pragmatic perspective, IMO. Sex has been ruling plants, animals, and humans since the beginning of time, for the purposes of reproduction of corporeal life. I think this is what Mouravieff described as the Absolute III -- the 'god' of this world, unless and until individuals choose to align oneself with one step higher: the Absolute II.

Whenever we witness that the misuse of that kind of energy is not just detrimental, but in some cases catastrophic, we may conclude that it is a very, very powerful force, and that greatest care has to be exerted in dealing with it. A proper, truthful education about this force, early in life, would certainly help -- including the description of possible alternatives, which should be as fundamental and viable.

That's a very interesting way to think about it.. it reminded of the Truth perspective show from last week about free will, they were discussing that (more or less) there is freedom of will... but we're also beholden to certain rules that are unavoidable. And I never thought to conceptualize it as a god, namely that one of the most pervasive and universal impulses is a force that acts through us or rather, that it makes us act in a certain way.

When you observe yourself and others and realize how much the sexual aspect affects the way you perceive the world, what you perceive or pay attention to and how you behave.. it makes it obvious how much it runs the world. It reminded me of something Gurdjieff said once about people who go to Church for the same reason they'd go to a club... sex.

 

[Seamus]

Well Peterson is really basing a lot of his thinking on mythology and how the same basic stories with the same elements have been told over and over going way back. So I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Now, as with Peterson, Gurdjieff and all the others, we need to be careful not to put them in a pedestal where we believe that they have the whole banana.

FWIW that's along the lines of my thinking as well. I hope it was clear that I posed my question for the sake of discussion...

It's like everything, there is some good there because you have to wrap lies in truth to get others to swallow them.

That makes sense. Do you have a sense of the basic lie in the middle of his work? I'm racking my brain trying to understand how his work as a whole is good cover for 4D STS meddling and I don't think I grok it.

That's for sure. Getting the historical context put together as Noll does here is very helpful.

Sounds like you think Noll's historical research is legit... I took a look at his wikipedia page: Richard Noll - Wikipedia and it sounds like the only serious academic critique of his books was pretty weak.

Thanks for bringing this book to our attention Laura!

 

[Seamus]

I personally belive that researchers need to have a moral component to be good in their profession. Don't trust perves.

On that topic, I just stumbled on this. Looks like Jung hated the Catholic church so much that he wanted to destroy it by unleashing the power of "disordered sex".

I mean, one could say that Jung was an influential author, but he was an apparently reprehensible human being.

I mean this is plenty of reason to question his work and it is a pretty nasty kernel at the center of his work...

 

[Approaching Infinity]

That makes sense. Do you have a sense of the basic lie in the middle of his work? I'm racking my brain trying to understand how his work as a whole is good cover for 4D STS meddling and I don't think I grok it.

Speaking for myself here (also interested in hearing Laura's take!): ascribing certain influences to "archetypes of the collective unconscious" can be misleading if those influences - in whole or part - are in fact hyperdimensional (i.e. not just aspects of the mind). From just a few little tidbits I saw while searching yesterday, it sounds like Jung encountered some pretty freaky stuff in his "unconscious". So it's possibles there was more to those encounters than meets the eye.

If that's the case, maybe one could argue that Jung got closer to reality than someone like Freud, because at least he acknowledged there was something there - not just Oedipal fantasies. But he might have been too drawn to what he saw and couldn't separate in the inner wheat from chaff, with negative effects on his own psyche and his own responsibilities in the world. And in the end, his description of reality is left incomplete and misleading in nature.

I'm interested in reading more to see what was going on with him!

 

[Yas]

Speaking for myself here (also interested in hearing Laura's take!): ascribing certain influences to "archetypes of the collective unconscious" can be misleading if those influences - in whole or part - are in fact hyperdimensional (i.e. not just aspects of the mind). From just a few little tidbits I saw while searching yesterday, it sounds like Jung encountered some pretty freaky stuff in his "unconscious". So it's possibles there was more to those encounters than meets the eye.

I believe that's the case. I heard of many of his other books where he describes some of those encounters and the little I've seen was very freaky and I didn't want to read them because I didn't think they would bring something useful. Some of the things he describes in MDR are also kind of freaky already, but after reading Castaneda I think what that the experiences he described there were far more mundane. As with Castaneda, we just take all that stuff with a grain of salt, I guess.

I also think that pretending that influences are just aspects of our minds is in fact misleading and maybe it could be one the main problems with Jung's work. This is something that bothered me in his ideas.

If that's the case, maybe one could argue that Jung got closer to reality than someone like Freud, because at least he acknowledged there was something there - not just Oedipal fantasies. But he might have been too drawn to what he saw and couldn't separate in the inner wheat from chaff, with negative effects on his own psyche and his own responsibilities in the world. And in the end, his description of reality is left incomplete and misleading in nature.

Yes, I think that might be the case too.

The story is not quite that simple re: Otto. You'll need to read this book to get the historical context.

I sure hope that all of you interested in the topic will read the book and give your take on it.

Best read this book; it contains stuff you won't find in any "Jung family approved" text.

Getting the historical context put together as Noll does here is very helpful.

I'm sold. I'll see if I can get the book, sounds like a very interesting read!

 

[Mikey]

And I never thought to conceptualize it as a god, namely that one of the most pervasive and universal impulses is a force that acts through us or rather, that it makes us act in a certain way.

Yes, and J. Peterson warns rather strongly about separating oneself from that pervasive and universal impulse (however, I don't know if the following is Jungian, or just his own 'traditionalist' view). Peterson said about marriage:

Our culture devalues marriage, and that's a very bad idea. Marriage is a third of your life, and maybe more. And kids are a third of your life. And your life outside of kids an marriage is a third of your life, approximately speaking. To miss any of that is a massive, massive mistake. Now, having said that, I will also say that for some people, missing one or more of those is necessary because they have a reason. Maybe the are brilliantly creative artists, and they need to devote themselves entirely to their career. Or they are outstanding in some way, and so they need/can justify the sacrifice one part of that triad of Being to another part. But generally speaking, it's a very dangerous thing and it shouldn't be done.

Clearly, he seems to suggest following that energy, but in a proper/humble way -- in a way that ensures the healthy continuation of individuals and society.

 

[fabric]

Whenever we witness that the misuse of that kind of energy is not just detrimental, but in some cases catastrophic, we may conclude that it is a very, very powerful force, and that greatest care has to be exerted in dealing with it. A proper, truthful education about this force, early in life, would certainly help -- including the description of possible alternatives, which should be as fundamental and viable.

Indeed. I would say in this case catastrophic. After having read through the paper AI posted here I have to say that it’s very revealing and I had no idea to the extent he was involved in setting the stage for some of the crazy gender nonsense going on today. He was ahead of his time in the sense that there was a very postmodernistic flavor to his thinking. A couple of bits that stood out:

In a comment reminiscent of our post-modern relativistic culture, Jung said of Hindu thought: “Good or evil are then regarded at most as my good or my evil, as whatever seems to me good or evil”.77“We must beware”, said Jung, “of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites...The criterion of ethical action can no longer consist in the simple view that good has the force of a categorical imperative, while so -called evil can resolutely be shunned. Recognition of the reality of evil necessarily relativizes the good, and the evil likewise, converting both into halves of a paradoxical whole.”

[...]

Part of the gender-bending and gender-blending of our post-modern culture is rooted in Jung’s androgynous teaching about the so-called anima and animus.98In the Jungian ‘Matter of the Heart’ video series, Dr Joseph (Jane) Wheelwright comments: “This is built into the heart of Jung’s whole psychology that one should develop one’s contrasexual components, as Margaret Mead so quaintly phrases it. Jung prefers to talk about the anima and the animus...All of us who are really committed and involved in the Jungian world are very busy trying to develop our animuses or our animas....This androgynous, or almost androgynous, state of being, is the way that one hopes to be before they throw the switch.”99

[...]

Jung’s sexual views were profoundly influenced by the German physician and psychoanalyst Otto Gross (1877-1920). Otto Gross advocated the "life-enhancing value of eroticism which is so great that it must remain free from extraneous considerations in laws, and above all, from any integration into everyday life.... Husbands and wives should not begrudge each other whatever erotic stimuli may present themselves. Jealousy is something mean. Just as one has several people for friends, one can also have sexual union with several people at any given period and be 'faithful' to each one.... Free love will save the world."102 As a child of the 1960’s and ‘70’s, I cannot read Otto Gross without thinking of Haight-Ashbury. Is it merely a co-incidence that Timothy Leary was psychoanalyzed by Joseph Henderson, a California Jungian analyst, before he birthed the hippie/drug movement?

Although it might not have been a conscious intention, his meeting with Gross (interesting the name) seems like the catalyst that set forth what was to come. It was a total corruption of the sexual center, so to say, and the timing of it with Freud’s ideas and the stuff leading up to the sexual revolution seem like the type of thing that would be a result of 4D STS meddling. So while it is commonly thought that it was a “Freud vs Jung” perhaps it was more of a “Freud + Jung”. Let's hit 'em with both. The 2 biggest names in psychology from which many ideas about sex are based on. You were either ‘repressed’ or ‘free with love’. Submit to the analysis or forever be 'incomplete'.

If that's the case, maybe one could argue that Jung got closer to reality than someone like Freud, because at least he acknowledged there was something there - not just Oedipal fantasies. But he might have been too drawn to what he saw and couldn't separate in the inner wheat from chaff, with negative effects on his own psyche and his own responsibilities in the world. And in the end, his description of reality is left incomplete and misleading in nature.

I would say so mainly because he entertained the idea of mediumship where Freud was much more materialistic. In MDR he gives an account of some strange thing that happened and Freud asked him to not talk about it again (something like that can’t remember exactly). However, I can’t help wonder if part of his adventures into the unconscious weren’t heavily influenced by the either attachments or other unknown entities considering his involvement with mediumship and Ouija. Hence the heavy distortion.

 

[Seamus]

Speaking for myself here (also interested in hearing Laura's take!): ascribing certain influences to "archetypes of the collective unconscious" can be misleading if those influences - in whole or part - are in fact hyperdimensional (i.e. not just aspects of the mind). From just a few little tidbits I saw while searching yesterday, it sounds like Jung encountered some pretty freaky stuff in his "unconscious". So it's possibles there was more to those encounters than meets the eye.

If that's the case, maybe one could argue that Jung got closer to reality than someone like Freud, because at least he acknowledged there was something there - not just Oedipal fantasies. But he might have been too drawn to what he saw and couldn't separate in the inner wheat from chaff, with negative effects on his own psyche and his own responsibilities in the world. And in the end, his description of reality is left incomplete and misleading in nature.

I'm interested in reading more to see what was going on with him!

Okay that's along the lines of what I was thinking

 

[Mikey]

Here is the excerpt of Mouravieff's Gnosis II that best describes the Absolute III, or 'libido' for that matter:

This secret [about the Absolute III] is of the first importance. Some aspects of it are at the same time amazingly upsetting, so much so that they had never been divulged. The system by which the Universe works has never been the object of a complete teaching; it has been given in symbolic form, but now it is brought out into the open.

The Absolute III is the absolute of the conception of corporeal life. His action is exercised only on the elements of organic life. ... He is the Absolute for everything that governs the creation of conditions necessary to ensure the reproduction of corporeal life: those that allow the conception and then the birth ... Becoming autonomous from birth until death, these organisms enter the first lateral octave as an integral part of it, and they remain under the authority of the laws which rule it. ... [T]his authority, while concrete and great, is not after all absolute. In principle, exterior man is offered a choice. If he crosses the first Threshold by devoting himself to esoteric work, he can progressively escape the hold of the Absolute III.

The direct intervention of Absolute III in human life generally occurs at the time of puberty; he perturbs the organism by various manifestations, from sexual attraction to a vivid upsurge of imagination which is the source of all sorts of romantic and other illusions.

The hold of the Absolute III over man and woman ends progressively from the menopause in women, and from the time of analogous troubles in men. Normally, the surplus of sexual energy in excess of that needed for reproduction in humans is provided not simply for the pleasures of carnal love—wasting it for nothing—but to give these sad beings (malheureux) the chance to escape from their otherwise inescapable condition. This surplus of energy, once mastered and utilized in an appropriate way, can assist in the growth and development of the Personality. It is in this that man has a choice: by beginning to climb the Staircase he places himself progressively under the authority of the Absolute II, to whom he will finally become subject after the second Birth.

Sexual attraction and the pleasure of carnal love continue to exert a decisive influence over those who still remain on the wrong side of the first Threshold. They actually seek this attraction, and it takes many forms because of the unlimited possibilities of the imagination.

1. Creative imagination, coming from the Absolute II, is awake and constructive. It is this divine force which distinguishes men from beasts: it is an active force.
2. Dreamlike imagination comes from the Absolute III, and is also found to a certain degree in animals: it is a passive force.

The latter form of imagination, the 'dream of the sleeping serpent', produces a hypnotic effect on man, keeping him in the state in which the vast majority of humans pass their lives.

 

[Alejo]

Here is the excerpt of Mouravieff's Gnosis II that best describes the Absolute III, or 'libido' for that matter:

oh thanks for that! that's very good and it's interesting that this is made completely easier, being sexual energy what it is, through marriage. Beyond the rest of the creative professions, the goal of marriage is creation of life, the most involved form of creation as it changes your life forever and if you remain in your kid's lives, you're forever creating something.

I watched Russell Brand's latest interview with JBP and he discusses Sex and lust to a certain extent, and he discusses it within the context of self gratification and impulse control, and how it subsumes the self to said instant gratification, and he uses Jungian terms that I feel, somewhat applies to the discussion at hand:

Not to hijack the conversation away from the subject of the thread, as I feel it could also go on the JBP thread. But here it is nonetheless:

 

[987baz]

I have only just started to read Memories, Dreams and Reflections (a few chapters in) and it certainly does have an "interesting" flavour. I think I will put it down and read The Aryan Christ first. Thanks for the recommendation!

 

[Keit]

The question is, why he got so famous when other and much better psychologists like Dabrowski did not. Was it his connection to the CIA and that they promoted him on some or many levels? Was is calculated by the CIA or 4D influences? Because Jung is like the elephant in a psychology room and you just cannot miss him, since he is so big and colourful.

I'm looking forward to hear more about the recent book and the developments into his work under the new light and it would be good to know, what parts of his work are still countable.

This recent development is truly fascinating! I am also looking forward learning about it more and seeing where it will lead. Also wonder if there were indeed other sources (like Dabrowski) that weren't as famous as Jung, but their work was just as invaluable, and perhaps less influenced.

 

[Eulenspiegel]

Over the years, I've often found that the most famous and well known "influencers" need to be investigated the most. While those who most people have never heard about tend to be invaluable. Not saying that the latter doesn't need to be scrutinized as well, but taking into account the hyperdimensional reality and what is known about intelligence agencies, we really seem to live in a world where everything is upside down.

 

[Laura]

What seems pretty clear to me as I proceed through the book is that it looks like Jung was possessed probably via his interaction with the psychopath, Otto Gross. What's worse is that his system appears to be one that would encourage possession in patients, or most definitely opening themselves up to negative 4D STS influences in the guise of their "inner" or "true" or "archetypal" self. At this point, even though I don't really like Noll that much because he's pretty arrogant and dismissive of the paranormal/hyperdimensional realities, I think this is an important book to read. It sure gives more insight on the current day "sexual fluidity" and "Dionysian Syndrome" of the Liberal Left. I would say that many of them are possessed as well. It reminds me of a really creepy thing the Cs once said about preparing people to download into. Well, Jungian psychological analysis is pretty effective downloading as far as I can see! It's ironic that Noll doesn't really see what he SHOULD be horrified about; he's just academically worried about some guy playing savior and creating a cult; he has no idea!!!

 

[mkrnhr]

What seems pretty clear to me as I proceed through the book is that it looks like Jung was possessed probably via his interaction with the psychopath, Otto Gross. What's worse is that his system appears to be one that would encourage possession in patients, or most definitely opening themselves up to negative 4D STS influences in the guise of their "inner" or "true" or "archetypal" self.

Those are exactly the impressions I'm having through the beginning of the book. Maybe the "entities" he encounters in his altered states are not inner psychological but real possessions. In fact, the way the author describes "en passant" some episodes where Jung have conversations with his "anima" while imitating a female voice are just creepy. The encounter with psycho Gross may have led to the "sexual liberation" in the mid 20th century and therapy via polygamy in the time of Jung. He hints that some of Jungian theology encouraged post-modernism to develop but I'm still not there in the book.