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

[Windmill knight]

There's another important aspect to the psychoanalytic movement. If you read Healing developmental trauma or Stout's work or Dabrowski or George Simons or Jordan Peterson, you can sense a deep desire by those people to help. They seem to care. They write in plain language and it's very down to earth. Whereas Freud and Jung were much more the "rumbling intellectuals" - what is actually in their work that really, truly helps people in therapy??

That's a good point. Before reading this thread my main complaint about Jungian stuff was that I found it hard to apply to myself in a useful, practical way, unlike many other psychology books we've read here. I think it was the concept of the Shadow that I found most useful many years ago, and I simply learned that rather than pushing away things I didn't like about myself, it was better to try to acknowledge and find ways to incorporate them in a healthy way. But concepts like archetypes, they were more intellectually stimulating rather than helpful. Trying to engage with them seems to end in pure fantasy, as someone already mentioned. As for Freud, kind of the same thing, but worse. Past the point when you realize you have sexual impulses and you can't simply get rid of them (duh), there's not much else to learn from him.

 

[Chu]

I highly value Jordan Peterson's capability for articulating simple truths and basic understandings. However, I cringe when I hear him talk about politics. Thousands of people highly regard him and when he talks about geopolitics, people listen. He could easily be co-opted if he is not aware. I think that in his position, it would be better if he refrains himself from talking about geopolitics or involving himself with this subject if he doesn't have the time to network about it or get an informed opinion. On the other hand, it might be asking too much.

Indeed, and he also doesn't seem to have much of a network, which makes me a bit nervous for him, and for the risks of his ego/blind spots possibly being taken advantage of at some point.

From this perspective, getting an idea that we live within another density that doesn't have our best interests at hand might be essential to our spiritual hygiene. The details might vary, and we can all benefit from everybody's work with the right attitude (e.g. Jungian material), but beware of wolves in sheep clothing. Those indirect signs of higher density interference might be hard to miss unless you're actively working to see the unseen.

I agree. I see Peterson and others as very brave and admirable people. What he is doing is invaluable for many given where most people are starting from. However, not to diminish the importance of his work or anything, but it's like his teachings provide a very useful framework in terms of "basic understandings", which one can build from. But I doubt many will want to go beyond. One could argue that if people get a grip on themselves in the way JP suggests, that is all that is needed, and that in fact, those changes in people's lives ARE what can protect people from being so "juicy" to hyperdimensional forces (if they exist), or make them evolve, etc. I think that that is a real possibility, but that without seeing a bigger picture, it may still have its limits.

Since some of you are quoting the Cs, I think it's also important to remember this:

Life is religion. Life experiences reflect how one interacts with God. Those who are asleep are those of little faith in terms of their interaction with the creation. Some people think that the world exists for them to overcome or ignore or shut out. For those individuals, the worlds will cease. They will become exactly what they give to life. They will become merely a dream in the "past". People who pay strict attention to objective reality right and left, become the reality of the "Future".

I think that this is where awareness of the hyperdimensional aspect comes into play, as well as geopolitics, health, you name it. So, IMO, it IS important, because it opens your mind to endless possibilities, which "just" sorting one's life out in practical terms (as extremely hard as that may be) is not enough for.

I think we have quite some evidence pointing at the fact that there is something out there. Perhaps not even in the ways we may think about it. But in the end, it allows for humbleness too, for realizing how tiny we may be, and for striving to be better to align oneself with something creative. At the very least, even if I don't think about it all the time, I like to keep the hyperdimensional aspect as a possibility. It reminds me that I know nothing, and that it's still important to "clean one's room" while being open to more and more knowledge, even if it's a very small fraction of what the Truth really is.

 

[Chu]

That's a good point. Before reading this thread my main complaint about Jungian stuff was that I found it hard to apply to myself in a useful, practical way, unlike many other psychology books we've read here. I think it was the concept of the Shadow that I found most useful many years ago, and I simply learned that rather than pushing away things I didn't like about myself, it was better to try to acknowledge and find ways to incorporate them in a healthy way. But concepts like archetypes, they were more intellectually stimulating rather than helpful. Trying to engage with them seems to end in pure fantasy, as someone already mentioned. As for Freud, kind of the same thing, but worse. Past the point when you realize you have sexual impulses and you can't simply get rid of them (duh), there's not much else to learn from him.

Same here. I never found any practical use in either of their teachings, but I thought I hadn't read enough. From Freud, basically we are ruled by our subconscious. From Jung, basically it's good not to deny parts of ourselves and hide. That's about it. The rest seemed like blahblah.

 

[Joe]

I think that this is where awareness of the hyperdimensional aspect comes into play, as well as geopolitics, health, you name it. So, IMO, it IS important, because it opens your mind to endless possibilities, which "just" sorting one's life out in practical terms (as extremely hard as that may be) is not enough for.

True, but it seems obvious at this point that the great masses of humanity are not going to go there, and who is going to judge them for that? For me it comes down to the assumption that the universe is not cruel and does not demand anything of anyone that they cannot achieve. What would be the point? So any movement by any number of people towards a more positive, realistic, accepting and humble perspective of life is a movement in the right direction.

 

[DianaRose]

Indeed, and he also doesn't seem to have much of a network, which makes me a bit nervous for him, and for the risks of his ego/blind spots possibly being taken advantage of at some point.



I agree. I see Peterson and others as very brave and admirable people. What he is doing is invaluable for many given where most people are starting from. However, not to diminish the importance of his work or anything, but it's like his teachings provide a very useful framework in terms of "basic understandings", which one can build from. But I doubt many will want to go beyond. One could argue that if people get a grip on themselves in the way JP suggests, that is all that is needed, and that in fact, those changes in people's lives ARE what can protect people from being so "juicy" to hyperdimensional forces (if they exist), or make them evolve, etc. I think that that is a real possibility, but that without seeing a bigger picture, it may still have its limits.

Since some of you are quoting the Cs, I think it's also important to remember this:


I think that this is where awareness of the hyperdimensional aspect comes into play, as well as geopolitics, health, you name it. So, IMO, it IS important, because it opens your mind to endless possibilities, which "just" sorting one's life out in practical terms (as extremely hard as that may be) is not enough for.

I think we have quite some evidence pointing at the fact that there is something out there. Perhaps not even in the ways we may think about it. But in the end, it allows for humbleness too, for realizing how tiny we may be, and for striving to be better to align oneself with something creative. At the very least, even if I don't think about it all the time, I like to keep the hyperdimensional aspect as a possibility. It reminds me that I know nothing, and that it's still important to "clean one's room" while being open to more and more knowledge, even if it's a very small fraction of what the Truth really is.

I may wrong about that, but I feel JBP is humble enough for his ego to take a backseat and not be co-opted. However, he lacks understanding of politics. And I would go as far as saying that he's rather naive. JBP has millions of followers. Yes a few of them sift through what he say, keeping the good and leaving the bad, but most are followers. He has become a kind of prophet for them. Therefore, they gobble his words. I fear that he will endorse misguided positions, not realising how it will impact his audience and how external influence could manipulate the situation. For example, he recently twitted an article about Tommy Robinson which I thought was very sloppy of him as some key information were missing from it and it only resulted in polarising people.

In regards to hyperdimensional stuff, I would lean toward Joe's opinion. While knowledge of 4th dimension could open your mind to endless possibilities, at the very least by taking responsibility for your life you would become a better citizen of Earth. Therefore, even if there are external influence if you have a certain control of yourself, you may be better able to help yourself and others and avoid unnecessary act of violence or anger. Practical people are useful to society, even if their belief may be somewhat limited.

 

[dantem]

I only ever read one Jung book: Psychology and Alchemy (based on Wolfgang Pauli's dreams). Thought it had some interesting ideas, but not much stuck with me.

Same here, except that I've never managed to finish the book and didn't get that it was based on Pauli's dreams... Thickness apart, I was repeating to myself over and over 'What's the point?' and 'Either Jung's mind needs a debug, or I've really missed something'.

Now it looks like that the whole Freud-Jung era was some subtle reprogramming operation at work. From the extreme materialistic to the more 'softer' kind? They both had such a huge impact on society.

 

[Scottie]

Well, this is the way I look at it. Rover the dog gets sick. He is taken to the vet. He receives an injection for an infection, and he feels better.

Upon his return, he does one of two things:

1. He tells the other dogs that he had a hyperdimensional experience. He was transported far away to Another Planet where there was a strange human-like creature who poked him with a sharp stick in a funny-smelling place. He was afraid, but now he feels better. Thus, he says that all the other doggies should poke themselves with sharp objects because clearly his other-worldly experience was trying to tell doggiekind something about evolution, and so on.

2. He tells the other dogs that he had some kind of hyperdimensional experience. He was spirited away and got poked with a sharp object in a strange place, but now he feels better. Never having been in a car before, it was traumatic. At the same time, he has perceived something more of reality, or so it seems. He can't be sure what it means, but he thinks there's much more to reality than just The Yard and The House - way beyond just The Road. The vet seemed to be an actual human, and other humans have visited The House before, and he also knows that His Humans often get into cars and leave the property. Where do you think they go? Other Yards? He knows there are other houses, because he sees some next door. But maybe there is more than just houses? Does the vet have her own house? JINKIES! What does it all mean?! Where do those strange bags filled with yummy doggie dinners come from? So many mysteries... So he thinks: maybe there is far more to reality than meets his doggie eye...

*WOOF!*

 

[Yas]

That's a good point. Before reading this thread my main complaint about Jungian stuff was that I found it hard to apply to myself in a useful, practical way, unlike many other psychology books we've read here. I think it was the concept of the Shadow that I found most useful many years ago, and I simply learned that rather than pushing away things I didn't like about myself, it was better to try to acknowledge and find ways to incorporate them in a healthy way. But concepts like archetypes, they were more intellectually stimulating rather than helpful. Trying to engage with them seems to end in pure fantasy, as someone already mentioned. As for Freud, kind of the same thing, but worse. Past the point when you realize you have sexual impulses and you can't simply get rid of them (duh), there's not much else to learn from him.

Same here. I never found any practical use in either of their teachings, but I thought I hadn't read enough. From Freud, basically we are ruled by our subconscious. From Jung, basically it's good not to deny parts of ourselves and hide. That's about it. The rest seemed like blahblah.

I agree. But I'd say that the archetypes concept seemed interesting to me in the way that Peterson and maybe Joseph Campbell (I don't know because I haven't read his book, just read articles about him) use them. It's not so much a woo-woo thing (although the terminology used by Peterson - "animus possession" - is already woo-woo for me) but it's more about how some stories can bring some understanding of our reality and how to navigate it. This is not so much in the direction of fantasy or imagination, IMO, but more in the direction of how stories can teach us about morality and reality because they show people doing the stuff we do, struggling with the things we struggle and interacting with others, solving problems, etc... when we read them, we can learn from their experiences. Yet, you don't need a concept such as "archetypes" for that, it's just an obvious thing too, I guess... we can learn from stories, that's it. There's no need to dive into those stories and "live them", find our personal archetypal story, talk to our inner goddesses (this is something some Jungian psychologists say), etc... that's when all the fantasy comes, I suppose. And we can learn this from reading about history and biographies as well...

But I was also thinking that even in that case the tendency to portray all these stories as simply myths misses the point that many of them were about real things happening, and I thought this about Peterson's Biblical Series as well when I started watching them last year. I mean, what he extracts from the myths is pretty interesting and helpful in the sense of "basic knowledge" of "how lo live properly", but what Laura does with the biblical stories, searching for hard data and actually "de-mystifying" those stories to try to find out what they were really about is very important, probably also "life-saving". So, even though what I've seen in JBP's Biblical Series (which isn't much) is inspiring and seems positive, doesn't it imprint a view in which these stories are just myths and therefore prevent a possible look into those myths as "hints" that could lead us to something very real, i.e. cometary and other climat/cosmic events?

So besides disregarding and even rejecting the possible reality of hyperdimensional realities, this view also disregards the idea that myths and stories can teach us more than just "how to live properly", and what they can teach us (with the proper research) is about our actual history, which is huge.

(Just some thoughts)

 

[mkrnhr]

Knowledge of the Hyperdimensional reality and how it operates in history in our alives is useful to make decisions in our lives and to be weary of any eventual influences. The lessons however do manifest in doing, which is how we act within the framework our possibilities.

Noll fails at not being judgmental in his book but the history of the Jungian movement he provides is disturbing on its own. There is an aspect with women that is somehow similar to Gurdjieff's "adventures" but in the case of Jung, promoting patients to "analysts" is quite unique (the blind leading the blind?). Edith Rockefeller Mccormick psychoanalysed patient while still suffering from agoraphobia! There are other examples as well.

 

[Seamus]

doesn't it imprint a view in which these stories are just myths and therefore prevent a possible look into those myths as "hints" that could lead us to something very real, i.e. cometary and other climat/cosmic events?

I hear what you're saying and I think this is inevitable for some people, it just depends on what they are ready for. Even if they have a basis in factual events, at this point they have all kinds of things imprinted on them because they've been handed down for so many years. Peterson is popular (at least partly?) because lots of people are hungry to hear what he has to say. Reading his book 12 Rules for Life this past spring was huge for me. Maybe its because I'm a young man, not sure.

IMO the stories have value both as an archetypal glimpse into our collective psyches AND as clues of what happened in the past. I don't get the impression that JBP is shutting the door on what may have happened in the past, what events may have seeded the stories, its just not his forte. He is a psychologist, not an historian. His area of expertise is interpreting the stories in a way that provides into both our collective and individual psyches and I think he is really good at it.

I agree with you that his approach is very practical, unlike Jung's approach seemingly and I think that's part of why I like his work so much. For me the concept of an "archetype" the way Peterson and Campbell and Estes use it evokes a sense of power and meaning stretching back through time, possibly even into our biology. Maybe that's a bit dramatic, but the concept is important to me because there's a difference between an archetypal story and "just a story". There are lots of books and movies that are crap, then there are movies like Star Wars that tap into something archetypal.

Not trying to defend JBP, I agree with you that Laura's interpretations of the biblical stories may be more important, but for different reasons and IMO both have value. Reality is hard to pin down, like the elephant and the blind man. Just my two cents.

promoting patients to "analysts" is quite unique (the blind leading the blind?). Edith Rockefeller Mccormick psychoanalysed patient while still suffering from agoraphobia! There are other examples as well.

I learned very early on in my medical degree that EVERYONE is dealing with "stuff". Its always the blind leading the blind. One of the illusions about healthcare providers is that they must be healthy and take care of themselves, but in my experience it varies about the same as in the general population and many people get into healthcare fields and especially psychology BECAUSE they are dealing with a psychological issue. Just because someone is a doctor it doesn't mean they are healthy and just because someone is a psychologist or psychiatrist it doesn't make them sane. Just because someone is a meditation instructor doesn't mean they're enlightened.

Anyway, not condoning what Jung was doing, it sounds like he was running all sorts of weird and irresponsible (to say the least) experiments. Your comment just brought this up in my mind.

 

[mrtn]

I only read little of Jungian material, but I don't know anymore which books it were exactly and if it was by Jung himself, apart from Marie-Louise von Franz about Puer Aeternus. It actually resonaned well with me because like with many others i think there was a need for having less mechanical/materialistic conceptions of psychology and I was more new-agey at the time. Also descriptions of familiy situations and repeating roles/programs was very informative and insightfull for me, thought these observations might not have been sprung from Jungian psychology strictly but from psychology in general, but i found his observations about childhood/parent programs and their being conveyed to later relationships very helpfull to put a name and concept on previously unconcious ongoings. And I think (not sure!) that it was Marie-Loiuse von Franz who gave a much more responsible view on 'The Little Prince' by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, which was good for me because that story had been rather romanticized too much.
The archetypes (for me it was the Puer that struck) were also insightful to grossly structure some human guises, but at least Marie-Loiuse von Franz made it clear for me that identification with such forms is neither the point not is it beneficial. In any case one should not get stuck with such concepts and categories once they have helped to map and differentiate previously unconscious attributes. As i read recently in session 14-october-2017 :

A: Even lies have a bit of truth. Gurdjieff used his imagination and mediums to construct his system. In a project of that sort, it is not unusual to get some truth. Otherwise it would make no sense at all! The Enneagram system is accurate enough for 3rd density systems with no input from awareness.

As I understood that ('3rd density system' being a learning human), such 'maps' can be of great help to some next step of understanding, but can become a hinderance at the next step. And you always have people that stick with some kind of literal teachings, for example the Castaneda Tensegrity movement stuff, and maybe its even helpful for other people coming a long the way, or a different way.

As for Jordan Bernt Peterson, I don't think the 'teaching' is the most important thing. His big move was to come forward at the right time and say 'No, enough!' in face of this 'call-me-as-i-wish' movement, and speaking publicly what many people thought but where unsure about if they were right. It has a crystalizing effect on society, like gathering the salt that is spread every where, so that you have something. It's quite similar to the aspect of rattling the bushes in Lauras work.

 

[Alana]

Thanks for the book recommendation and for the ensuing discussion, much food for thought.

such 'maps' can be of great help to some next step of understanding, but can become a hinderance at the next step. And you always have people that stick with some kind of literal teachings, for example the Castaneda Tensegrity movement stuff, and maybe its even helpful for other people coming a long the way, or a different way. .

I agree. It depends on the person and what are the goals of that person. People can be Jungians all their lives and be content with that, that's as far as they want to go. I too had a Jungian period in my life, though I was never able to read his own writings (too bizarre and boring for me) and mostly I thought I understood his work through other writers. But one thing that Yas said, about correctively interpreting his work, I found very interesting. Because, thinking back, the way I understood the Jungian cosmology I think allowed me to later be prepared for the hyper-dimensional realities concept. As in, there are things we see and we know they are there, but there are things we don’t see but still influence our thinking and actions. Oversimplification of course. But as a simple person perhaps I needed these steps to bring me from knowing absolutely nothing, to having a teeny tiny glimpse of how things work in our reality.

But anyway, I don’t regret my Jungian period, even if I later found that he was sleeping with his patients, (or whatever else I will learn from this book, which I have ordered and look forward to reading) like I don’t regret what I learned from Gurdjieff and Castaneda even if they were similarly self-serving in some aspects, and I am not regretting what I am learning from Peterson now, even though sometimes I feel like screaming at him to shut up, when delving into geopolitical subjects he has no clue about. To me all these sources and all others have been valuable (by adding or subtracting) to the whole of “what is reality” and “what am I/are we”. And I am not going to worry about what the majority of the humanity is going to learn or how they will assimilate any information from whichever source. That is not my problem, nor my place. I AM extremely fortunate that I eventually landed here, and networking with you all is what save(s/d) me from staying stuck in ideologies and cosmologies that are misleading. But this forum, sott, Laura's and team's books are available for anyone to find when they are ready to take that step

Well, this is the way I look at it. Rover the dog gets sick. He is taken to the vet. He receives an injection for an infection, and he feels better.

Great example!

I often try to see reality from my pets' eyes (our everyday life and habits for example) and I end up realizing how very little I might understand any reality that might exist above ours!

 

[Anthony]

Richard Wolin has a chapter devoted to Jung in his book The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism (2004).

Here's my attempt at summarizing the chapter.

Wolin sees Jung as an progenitor of Postmodernism, a Counter-Enlightenment figure. Jung is devaluing things such as a reasoning, truth, science, objectivity, which is all of the things that postmodernists attack and try to do away with.

To subject his insights to the customary scholarly solvents
of critical discourse and analytical reason—approaches that Jung
had openly renounced—made little sense. As with most mystics, for
Jung the fact that the truths of analytical psychology remained inac-
cessible to the criteria of “public reason” became a point of honor.
In this sense, his insights and claims were frankly “unfalsifable”—
impervious to conventional standards of reason and truth. Instead,
they required a suspension of disbelief.

Jung sought to transform psychoanalysis into a new religion instead of a science since he though that
cognitive potentials of scientific reason were inferior to those embodied in mythical and religious experience. He basically wanted to bring about a radical change in society, and saw himself as some sort of a deity.

Jung states:

I imagine a far finer and more comprehensive task for [psychoanaly-
sis] than alliance with an ethical fraternity. I think we must give it time
to infiltrate into people from many centers, to revivify among intel-
lectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform
Christ back into the soothsaying God of the vine, which he was, and
in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the
one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were—a
drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an ani-
mal. That was the beauty and purpose of classical religion. 16

Wolin writes:

Jung’s suggestion that one must “transform Christ
back into the soothsaying God of the vine” was less a prescription
for the regeneration of Christianity than a recipe, in the spirit of
Nietzsche and German romanticism, for a new paganism. The
“soothsaying God of the vine” was none other than Dionysus,
whose mythological status was synonymous with intoxication and
libidinal-orgiastic frenzy.

Jungian analysis
became an initiatory process, a descent into the unconscious mind
in order to spark a process of individual transformation through a
direct encounter with the transcendental realm of the gods. . . . For
those that survived an encounter with the god or gods, Jung prom-
ised rebirth as a true “individual,” free from all repressive mecha-
nisms of conventional beliefs about family, society, and deity.

Sounds about the same as what has been happening for years now, with destruction of traditional values, relationships...

There are affinities between many of Jung's main ideas and the National Socialist worldview:

As Jung would insist, the archetypes
deposited in the collective unconscious of Aryans were of a qualita-
tively different (read: superior) variety than those that could be
uncovered in the collective unconscious of Jews.

Jung praising Hitler:

There is no question but that Hitler belongs in the category of the
truly mystic medicine man. As somebody commented about him at
the last Nürnberg party congress, since the time of Mohammed
nothing like it has been seen in this world. This markedly mystic
characteristic of Hitler’s is what makes him do things which seem to
us illogical, inexplicable, curious and unreasonable. . . . So you see,
Hitler is a medicine man, a form of spiritual vessel, a demi-deity or,
even better a myth.

In 1946 the
British Foreign Office went so far as to consider trying Jung as a war
criminal. A damning compilation of documents, “The Case of Dr.
Carl G. Jung: Pseudo-Scientist and Nazi Auxiliary,” attests to their
findings.

On Jung's encounter with Otto Gross:

Circa 1911 Jung repeatedly declared that he was being tormented by
the “hydra of mythological fantasy.” 30 What sinister forces had
come to possess C. G. Jung—the mild-mannered assistant to Bleuler
and rising star in the psychoanalytic firmament, suddenly caught in
the grip of hallucinatory delusions and Dionysian sensual excess?

Jung came under the influence of "psychoanalyst" Otto Gross, who seems to have
been a psychopath, addicted to drugs, sex etc.

At a certain point in the analysis, Jung and Gross essen-
tially traded roles: Gross became the analyst and Jung the patient.
As a result of this role reversal, Gross liberated Jung from the stric-
tures of bourgeois monogamy and converted him to the doctrine of
untrammeled libidinal hedonism.

From this point hence, Jung began to abandon the bourgeois
world of scientific sobriety and social respectability. Thereupon
commenced his headlong plunge into a hallucinatory world of neo-
pagan mystery cults and occult practices. In this way Jung willingly
succumbed to the “hydra of mythological fantasy” he had alluded to
in his letters to Freud. Such themes and influences would become
a staple of his writing and teachings during the crucial decade
between 1910 and 1920 when the formative concepts of Jungian
“analytical psychology”—anima and animus, persona, collective
unconscious, and archetypes—were conceived and elaborated.

Another interesting thing is that Gross was influential among Europe’s intelligentsia, and was an influence on D. H. Lawrence. Gross became friends with Franz Kafka and some scholars think that Gross was the influence for the main character in Kafka's novel The Trial, due to his problems with the law.

Wolin concludes the chapter with:

In many respects Jungian psychology seems like the postmodern
equivalent of the medieval Christian practice of selling indulgences.
If much about Jung and Jungism is conceptually and historically
flawed, what can be the real-world value of the mystical consola-
tions that the Jung industry is so ready to dispense—albeit, for the
right price? History has repeatedly shown that in times of acute tur-
moil and stress, nations and individuals are willing to rely on the
most extravagant mythological means to endow a confusing world
with order and meaning. Perhaps it is to this pervasive existential
need that Jungism in the first instance speaks.

 

[Laura]

I finished the book. Overall, very disturbing but if you can read between the lines, a lot to be learned. It's rather like that part from Faust where the Devil says "I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good.”

It seems to me that hyperdimensional powers intending evil did, certainly, take over Jung who was an egotistic mediocre doctor and would otherwise have never achieved fame. Those same powers probably manipulated things so that he could achieve fame and influence. The part about "doing good" would have to fall under the category of showing those who can SEE what hyperdimensional realities are like.

The thing is, when Jung coined the term "archetypes", he meant it as a mask for something altogether different and I think that a lot of people understand it in a certain way that is neither bad nor good per se, but simply wrong. Jung MEANT "the old German gods" that could take possession of a person. The truth probably is that there are more "gods" that can take control of a person, or that exist, than just the "Old German" ones. I'm not sure that such an idea ever occurred to Jung as far as I can see from this text. So, in a sense, the concept of archetypes is a good way to think about 4D and higher. Ra referred to them as "social memory complexes."

In my limited understanding of the idea, I did ask some questions about archetypes over the years and interestingly, it seems to have been most recently in respect of Zoroastrianism which so much attracted Jung:

14 Aug 2016

Q: (L) I see. Well, maybe we should begin with some of the questions that are from that abstract level since that's where we are. In the course of my recent research, I keep going deeper and deeper and further back following one thread after another. While I have touched on the topic of Zoroastrianism in the past, I had never gone into it as deeply as I recently decided to do. As a consequence, I ended up reading several scholarly tomes on the topic. It seems there are two schools. One school thinks that Zoroaster was a fairly late phenomenon, probably 7th century BC. The other school relies on the linguistics - the philology I guess they'd call it - and they claim that the language of Zoroaster must date back to the second millennium BC - that is, somewhere between 1600 and 1200 BC. That would put Zoroaster in the timeframe of, say, Akhenaten. In brief, Zoroaster claimed to have had a vision, or so the story goes, that revealed to him the One God, Ahura Mazda, and he promoted a religion of almost pure monotheism as well as being more or less the originator of the idea that human beings have the free will to choose good or evil. He also was the first to come up with ideas of messianism, eschatology. It was an apocalyptic religion in the sense of being revealed, but also that there were to be revelations about the end of time - time of course being a very important concept in his religion as it developed. So, I guess the first question I want to know is: Is there any possibility that Akhenaten was influenced by Zoroastrianism? Is that a possibility?

A: Not just a possibility, but a certainty.

Q: (L) If that's the case, how was that possible?

A: The ancient world was quite "well connected".

Q: (L) Okay... Can you get me any closer to a clue here?

A: Check the Hurrian connection.

Q: (L) I thought I had checked that pretty deeply. I guess I could read some more. Now, there are those who say that Zurvanism was an attempt to deal with some of the dangling problems that Zoroaster left in terms of his dualism. One of his hymns describes Ahura Mazda and Ahriman as twins, so, they came up with Zurvanism, the ultimate god of space/time as father to the twins to explain this. Is that in fact the case?

A: No. Zurvan was the ancient god of the steppes and the Indo-Aryan peoples.

Q: (L) Okay, I've got a paper here... It seems that Zurvan was perceived as the god of infinite time and space, and was described as, "One Alone, a transcendental neutral god, and without passion. One for whom there was no distinction between good and evil. So, Zurvan had a varied history... So, the problem I want to get to right now is the idea that Zurvan was represented as the lion-headed god. There was a lion man figure found in Hohlenstein-Stadel, which is a German cave. It's carved out of ivory, and it's THE oldest known zoomorphic animal sculpture in the world, and the oldest known uncontested example of figurative art. It has been determined to be about - ready? 40,000 years old!! That was by carbon dating the material which was in the same layer where the figure was found. It was associated with the Aurignacian culture and it was 29cm in height, carved out of mammoth ivory using a flint stone knife. Seven parallel, transverse, carved gouges are on the left arm. The figure of Zurvan is often represented with a serpent coiled around him seven time. It is said that the sculpture shares certain similarities with French cave wall paintings which also show hybrid creatures. The Lion man is several thousand years older. Anyhow, this artifact seems to resemble very closely the lion man figure that was described as being the representation of Zurvan. So, I guess my question is: Are we talking about the same religion or religious ideas or perceptions that were common to the cultures that produced the cave art in Western Europe?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And they came up with these ideas of infinite time and space that far back?

A: And so much more. They were "connected".

Q: (L) So in other words, what we are looking at here through a probably distorted survival via Zoroaster or Zarathushtra is that the Aryan religion was based first of all on a supreme principle of infinite time and infinite space from which was born essentially "good mind" and "evil mind" as Zoroaster put it?

A: Yes. STO and STS duality.

Q: (L) And this same religion, either in its older form or its later elaboration by Zarathushtra, was the origin of the ideas of free will?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Of savior gods?

A: Yes

Q: (L) The Six Bounteous Immortals, or I guess what we could say archetypes or sixth density?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Basically, it almost seemed as though it was a religion about information. Everything emerges from information, but there are some other very particular things about it that are very advanced. They were talking about things that physicists talk about nowadays.

A: Yes

Q: (L) It also seems to be the closest religious exposition of anything that I've come across to what we have received via these transmissions.

A: Yes

Q: (L) I'm just saying "close", because obviously there are some distortions and so forth. So did Zarathushtra modify this original religion because he had a vision, or...?

A: The ideas had already been corrupted, and Zarathushtra sought to recover the truth.

Q: (L) So it had already been corrupted, and he was trying to bring it back in line. He got close, but didn't quite make it. Is that it?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And what had it been corrupted to?

A: The Indian Vedas will give clues.

Q: (L) Maybe he wasn't wrong when he said that the divas were demons. Where the divas like STS beings?

A: Close

Q: (L) Were they like 4th density STS?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Okay. Well... I guess that tells me what I wanted to know on that topic. I’ll keep digging.


An earlier discussion from 17 Aug 2000

Q: Our little egroup discussion list is growing. Everyone is talking about the Wave:
what does it mean, what is it, when is it coming, how are we going to be able to tell, and
so on. I have been collecting the material and getting it in shape. I have been learning a
lot as I go along as well. It isn't finished, but as I go along, I do have some questions.
We would like to have a little bit of a clue about the progress of the wave. I would also
like to know if this Wave is sort of like the recompiling of a computer program, with the
universe as the program? What is the progress, and is it going the recompile the program
of our universe?

A: So many questions rolled up into one. But, one way it might go is that all of a
sudden, everything that ever was is new, everything that IS is new, and everything that
will be is new. Programs change, oh we suppose, what an awesome event indeed!

Q: Is it important for the information about the potential making new of everything and
the awareness of the state of the planet as it is now, or the state of the universe, be shared
and spread so that as many people as possible will be aware at the point of the arrival of
the wave so that it makes it more likely that beneficial changes will occur, that the
universe will change in a positive way? Or is that simply not even important. It will
change the way it is going to change no matter what anybody does?

A: Closer to 2nd criterion.

Q: In other words, we are doing what we are doing, and it doesn't really matter what we
are doing. The Wave will happen, everything will change, become new, and that's that?

A: What matters most is what others are doing, have done and will do.

Q: Who are these others that it matters most what they have done, are doing and will do?

A: Program rewriters, i.e. you and us in the future.

Q: So, what we have done, what we are doing, what we will do - WE - is important? I
think that I missed something. I thought you said that what we were doing simply didn't
matter.

A: You are/will be others.

Q: Okay, how is what we are doing now helping or hindering this process?

A: No help/hinder, just is.

Q: So, this has all been done before? It's a foregone conclusion how it is going to turn
out? It's a done deal?

A: No Laura, stop your linearishness!

Q: I don't understand. Is what we are doing making a difference?

A: What is "time?"

Q: Time is an illusion. (A) Is doing also an illusion?

A: If you are thinking in linear "time" terms.

Q: In other words, the best way for an STO future to manifest is for us not to anticipate
that ANYTHING we do will matter. Because, if we are anticipating that what we do will
make a difference, it won't. It is wanting. (A) I can't stop thinking that my working is
going to be useful! (L) I can't stop what I am doing either because it is what I DO. It is
being ME. We have to stop anticipating. We do what is in us to do without expecting it
to matter.

A: And you do it because you are directing you to do it from another plane of existence
where you know the score. Where you are on your present awareness plane, you are
largely, though not completely, scoreless and clueless.

Q: So, it is from another level of reality that we create THIS reality?

A: Close.

Q: How much input do we have from this level of reality regarding the creation of a
future reality, and I use the term "future" loosely, but meaning "future" as we perceive it
from this reality? How much input?

A: About as much awareness as a small child does when contemplating how to fly the
plane they are riding on.

Q: Well, you have talked about the Wave before, and I complained that we did not have
time to do certain things that you had suggested that we do. You said that, yes we would,
and that these things were suggested to "prepare" us for this event. Just trying to deal
with it from a linear point of view, we still have to build this pool with the columns, get a
Nobel prize, supposedly, work with people on the crop circles, and all that. Are we still
looking at doing these things in this linear time progression that we exist in; that we are
aware of as small children on a very large plane?

A: If you let it flow, it will flow.

Q: So, you are us in the future, we are you in the past - when you say this, are you "us"
in the future in the sense of ALL mankind, or in the sense of any particular group of
mankind?

A: In between those limited options.

Q: Could you be more explicit?

A: No, because you wold not "get it."

Q: When I post material on the website, those people who resonate to the material
believe that this refers to them also. I have been of the opinion that Unified Thought
Form being must mean a very large group as represented in this density. I know that we
are dealing with limiting terms. But, is this applied to people who CHOOSE the
Cassiopaean option?

A: Maybe it is best to say it applies to those who recognize the application.

Q: So, if they recognize it, if they know it is them, they are part of it. (A) But, thinking
in nonlinear terms, its up to us to work to make this precise. You are asking this question
which implies that the answer exists. But, exactly what the answer is may be it is not yet
chosen, and it is up to us to make it this way.

A: Lodestar is a clue for you.

Q: I guess that means a guiding star of some sort. Something that attracts... a lodestone
is magnetic, it is where the compass points. In the myth, Cassiopaea, Danae, and Athena
work together to enable Perseus to cut off the head of the Gorgon and kill the sea monster
and rescue Andromeda. Of all the mythical heroes, Perseus stands out because he was
SUCCESSFUL. He went on the quest, he succeeded in the mission, he freed the maiden
in distress, killed a slew of Lizzie types, balanced the situation in his environment, and
then even lived happily ever after. He didn't lose his reason, he didn't fail... it is about the
only really successful myth. He DID it. And did it well. Is that...

A: A quest is successfully followed one step at a time. No need to gauge the staircase.

Q: The only point I was trying to make was that maybe the only reason for the
Cassiopaean connection, maybe even for the term "Cassiopaea," is that it is the archetype
of the function...

A: That is good, planning book fairs? Maybe not so good. We shall see!

Q: You guys, just basically, from the whole start of this thing about a book, have
basically hinted that there is something else in store, and that we should not even try to do
that...

A: We have not said that that is not the way. We have hinted that the way will become
clear when it is necessary.

Q: (A) I think that it is good to have an external pressure to make things happen.
Composers, like Mozart, had to be under pressure to produce. There should be pressure.
We need to have income to build this pool and other things. So, if we put it into the
indefinite future... (L) But they said money will come from unexpected sources. I don't
know where or how that can possibly be. But YOU were certainly unexpected! I would
have dreamed of YOU! (A) Well, there may be another unexpected millionaire may
come to replace me! (L) Nobody could replace YOU! (A) How else shall we explain
this unexpected money?

A: No need to explain, or expect either, silly! You should know that the one time that
Mozart wrote music under external pressure he quickly transited to 5th density.

Q: (A) Well I know that I work best under standard external pressure.

A: No, because you only sometimes think it is external, but it is not really. When you
have been "treated" to external pressure, you have rebelled.

Even earlier on 14 July 1996

Q: (L) You told us before that stars and planets are portals,
or openings into other densities. Is it possible that
this oncoming wave, this Realm Border Crossing will be
accessed through these types of portals, that it is not
something that is actually in our 'space,' but that it
would emanate through stars and planets? Am I onto
something here?

A: You may be starting down a long path.

Q: (L) So, it is complex. When I was re-reading Noah...

A: Just remember: All prophecies attached to calendar dates
are useless unless you wish to be sucked up by the 4th
density STS forces!

Q: (L) Speaking of being sucked up by 4th density STS forces,
MM was told by her local Hindu gathering that she was
vacuuming up their energies. What kind of an interaction
was this? Why were they so uncomfortable?

A: Because they wished to be worshipped.

Q: (L) They wished to suck her energy, because being
worshipped is the equivalent of sucking energy?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Now, I am curious about the doggie image that was on
the aura photo that MM took?

A: In these times, 2nd density creatures will collect more
and more attachments.

Q: (L) Are these attachments like other entities?

A: Yes, and others.

Q: (L) When they are collecting these attachments, are they
collecting them from us, as in protecting?

A: No.

Q: (L) Are they being used to collect attachments to be
detrimental to us?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) You mean we are gonna have to do depossessions on our
dogs, too? (V) Holy Toledo!

A: That won't work.

Q: (L) Why are our animals picking up attachments?

A: Because of vibrational frequency intensifications.

Q: (L) Is there something we could do? I mean, are we
supposed to get rid of pets?

A: We would never suggest something as harsh as this.
However, beware: 3rd density STS orientation includes the
thought of "dominion" over 2nd density, and this is merely
a continuation of the energy buildups of the approach of
the wave... Some of the lessons are interesting indeed.
When you assume that capture and imprisonment of those of
lesser capacity than you is for "the good," why should not
you expect those of greater capacity than you to assume
the same regarding you?!?

Q: (MM) Well, I want to know what is the deal with this
portal in my house?

A: Before we discuss that, we would like you to ponder
further the previously given responses. We suspect there
is much to be gained from insights lurking there. Now:
Portals... ionic column... hmmm...

Q: (V) Are portals archetypal?

A: Are they? Hmmm....

Q: (MM) So, my column is an ionic column? (L) I don't think
that is exactly what they mean. I think that they are
saying that an ionic column represents a portal into the
next density. It is an archetype.

A: Third density facsimile.

Q: (V) So, this is how we choose to see it with our eyes?
(L) I think they mean that it is a representation, that it
follows in its form the 4th density form, only it is
material here.

A: And 5th density, etc...

 

[whitecoast]

Going through this thread, I was reminded of a small section of a C Session. It pertains to "totems", but in a sense I think they can play the same role as archetypes in the sense that a person can be possessed by them (particularly in the ways shamanism is conducted in the masses these days, which does have lines going back to Jung). Reading between the lines, it doesn't seem to promise anything too beneficial to the person who indulges in these concepts.

Q: (L) According to shamanistic teachings, one can have animal spirits or guides. Is this correct?

A: Partly. You have them if you believe you have them.

Q: (L) If believing in them makes it so, is this belief beneficial?

A: All belief is beneficial at some level.

Q: (L) Did Jesus of Nazareth believe in animal spirits or totems?

A: No.

Q: (L) Is it just New Age revival of superstition?

A: Shamanism is subjective and limits. Lizard inspired.