May 1980 talk, Serial No. 00830

Audio loading...

Welcome! You can log in or create an account to save favorites, edit keywords, transcripts, and more.



AI Suggested Keywords:



AI Summary: 





We remember his theory of the human psyche, the consciousness and the unconsciousness and the pre-consciousness, the tremendous significance of the unconsciousness, remember? This was his sort of revolution, so whole new dimensions of the human person that normally we hadn't considered. Then his theory of his later model of the psyche, the ego, the superego, the id. Then his theories of the origin of religion, the first theory, very simple one simply is the religious person is a person who feels threatened, feels fragile, and so this mechanism of projecting a father image out there into the heavens, Daddy will help me, Daddy will protect me against the threats of this world. Then a later, more complicated theory having to do with guilt, etc. Remember the Oedipus complex, each one of us has wanted to kill our father and possess


our mother. Well, there's all that guilt inside of us and this is also collective Israel that had killed Moses, repressed the people of Israel, had repressed this, all this guilt around. Every tribe, Freud says, that wanted to kill its father figure, all this guilt around. So this theologian Paul comes up with this theory that Jesus, some unusual prophetic figure who had been done away with, Jesus satisfied for this death penalty that we all should pay for this guilt we feel. This was his second theory. We saw that here there is no proof against the existence of God, Freud himself would never say that, because there's this projection mechanism in every interpersonal relationship of the patient with the therapist, for instance, and the patient reflects, projects upon the


therapist some image, usually the father, and this is no proof that the therapist doesn't himself really exist. So the challenge of Freud is to reflect, indeed, on how we might be conditioned by our first experiences of our father, how this might condition and qualify and limit our understanding of God, and a kind of a purification of our faith, that it not be under sort of the shadow and possessiveness of a guilt complex or an excessively strong superego, this sort of thing. And then we saw, we started Jung, in which we have a very much more positive reading of religion. For Freud, any religious manifestation is an expression of neurosis, religious sickness. For Jung, any expression of, at least healthy expression of religion, is per se an expression of psychic growth and movement towards psychic health.


So Jung takes an essentially very positive approach to every, what he would call, healthier phenomenon of religion. Did we see his life very briefly, I think, some aspects of his life? He was born in Switzerland of a very devout Calvinist family. Several of his uncles were Calvinist ministers. He was always, the young Jung, born in 1875, was always caught up in these religious questions. In college, he was fascinated with the philosophers, also pre-Socratics later, who had wrestled with the God question. Then he studies medicine, becomes a doctor, then he has this decisive encounter with Freud, and he becomes sort of Freud's beloved disciple, and he becomes the president for four years of the International Psychoanalytic Society. He is groomed by Freud to be his successor.


Then they get more and more in tension, and he more and more rejects Freud's position on many, many things. And at a certain point, there's a violent break with mutual accusations, et cetera, and then he goes his own very different way. I think we saw last time some of his first categories that are very well-known today, like extrovert and introvert. We saw that. And then the feeling person, the intuitive person, the sensation person, the reasoning person, different approaches to reality. All of these are in us. In one particular person, there'll be more an extrovert tendency with reasoning as his basic approach to reality. Another person will be more introvert, intuitional, et cetera, and it's useful to know about this. I think we didn't yet deal with his model of the psyche, did we? Let... Yeah. Intuition?


Yeah. Intuition. Oh, this is, yeah. Those are different aptitudinal types, but now we'll see his model, sort of like, remember Freud's model of the superego, the ego, the id, sort of a three-layer universe. Here we're simplifying rather dramatically, but just to try to get a first hold of these. So here's an individual for Jung. Jung accepts the basics of Freud, but adds a great deal and reinterprets a great deal. So here is the ego, let's say. Remember the ego for Freud was that area of my conscious self-identification and my area of consciousness, who I think myself to be, and remember it develops first months of the child, who is first of all pure id, pure drives and needs and instincts, et cetera, then slowly


develops the ego. It's no longer it, the baby, but it becomes I, Robert, with my personality and awareness of myself as contradistinguished to you and you and the world about me, et cetera. And this is more or less, Jung takes this over quite directly, but Jung says between my self-awareness and self-consciousness and the outer world, there is a mediating function which he calls the persona, which is the Latin for mask, or the person in the social role, we might say. I put it here to sort of mediate between the outer world and my ego, as Jung describes it, doing. Think of it as sort of a lens of the eye or something, I don't know. Now that mediates. It's the role of a person, and each person according to his place in life and his family background and his occupation has a certain persona.


Some of these personas are much heavier than others, much more articulated. I don't know what a typical Roman Catholic priest in Ireland, for instance, there's a very specific series of roles, ways he should dress, not dress, places he should go, not go, this sort of thing, very specific sets of requirements of social expectations from a person in that. That's the persona. I was out at the Holy Cross chapter, which was very interesting, and then we were down in the city, and there was this juggler on the street, and he was shouting at people, look at me, look at me, this is great, this is the best act you've ever seen, this has never been done, and he was quite delightful, but he had an approach to those around him that a priest could never attempt, or a sister, or a doctor. He was being perfectly what he was as a juggler, and everyone immediately said, okay, that's okay, that he's behaving that way because he's a juggler, but had he been a professor


or a doctor or something, that wouldn't at all have been acceptable. So each of us, as a Kamaldolese hermit of New Kamaldi, you have your persona, and you behave in certain ways. Some of this might be immediate inspiration, but some of it is just a kind of a role that's implicitly given. You probably would not juggle oranges out here, and that wouldn't be part of the New Kamaldi persona. So this is part of our psyche, according to Jung, and we have to keep a careful balance according to, between my ego, my awareness of myself, and my persona, that these don't get too out of whack. Some people, their private selves, they're aware that they're quite, quite different from their public roles, and that can get heavy, and at a certain point, you get caught in contradictions, etc. So you've got to keep some sort of positive rapport that distinguishes the two.


I shouldn't just so accept the persona that the society suggests, etc., that I'm confusing that with my deepest self-awareness. There are two rather different things. The priest, for instance, may be very aware of his shortcoming, sinfulness, and uncertainty, but sometimes in a counseling situation, he has to project a persona of quiet confidence, serene. Sometimes there's a tension there, and he has to know it. He can't simply immediately come across as the uncertain sinner, nor can he forget that, in fact, he is a sinner. So you get involved in that type of rapport, and you can't eliminate the one or the other, according to Jung. You've got to live with this dynamic. Then, there's the whole unconscious area in Freud. Now, Jung makes some decisive distinctions here. He talks about the shadow.


The shadow, just as the persona mediates between the outer world of symbols and reality and the inner world, so the shadow mediates between my ego and a whole other mysterious area that we'll talk about shortly. The persona, in all those tendencies, characteristics, and also experiences that I've sort of repressed or forgotten about or am not aware of, what Freud calls the unconsciousness, and very often also those qualities and characteristics of myself that are not very attractive to myself, so I keep them down there out of sight. And often, they're quite the contrary of the persona I project and also of my self-consciousness. If I normally project a personality that's very timid and shy, it well may be that in my shadow, there's a lion, there's fierce beasts sort of thing, much anger and violence


and hostility, et cetera. This can well be. Sometimes, you know, those little, quiet, lovely child who at a certain point explodes and most astonishing things come out. Or vice versa. It can be the very strong, macho type who's in control of everything and knows all the answers, et cetera. And underneath, in his shadow, he might be quite, quite insecure, frightened, this sort of thing. Or the very, very respectable citizen of the community. And underneath, there's the thief, the drunkard. There is a famous phrase of an Englishman he saw, a prisoner being led away to the death sentence. And he said, there but for the grace of God go I. Well, Jung would say, that's profoundly true that in a sense, here's this respectable Englishman who's a pillar of a society, but there's a dimension of him that would want to kill or


rob or just give himself up to drink or something like that. There's that kind of paradox in each one of us. So never take too seriously my own self-consciousness and also my own persona. These are realities. But I should be aware that there might be other things in my unconsciousness that are quite the contrary. And I might be very pious and devout, and there's the blasphemer in my shadow, sort of thing. I might be all under control, and there's the wild man, the beast in the shadow. Up at the trapestines up in Northern California, they use Jung a great deal. I was up there some years ago with Bruno, and I don't know, I was looking through their formation materials. But one of their big things for novices is to tell their novices to become somewhat aware of your shadow and come to terms with your shadow, be at peace with your shadow. Usually we're so terrified of all that down there that we repress it and we deny,


no, that can't possibly be in me. But it is in me, and that's just part of our makeup, part of our curious contradictions, etc., and part of the aspect that needs the full redemptive healing of Christ. And just acknowledge I'm not this pure altogether. So, come to terms with the shadow. That's one example of the way Jungian terms are used by now many theologians, spiritual writers, etc. So there's the shadow. Then there is, and that's also the area of my personal unconsciousness. That is to say, my own personal experience is quite as distinguished from yours that are here, and they're not in my consciousness, but they are mine, they're uniquely mine. Then Jung's decisive contribution that distinguishes him absolutely from Freud is what he calls the collective unconsciousness, which links me up to all of the rest of you.


So we have, I just indicated to you, two other individuals, quite distinct in the level of ego and persona and shadow, but united in this immense, mysterious area that Jung calls the collective unconsciousness. Now this is the thesis of Jung, that Freudian say is just crackpot and just weird, and that Jungian say has been scientifically demonstrated by research into comparative religions and comparative myth and dreams, etc. Where he first plugged into this is simply the recurrence of certain symbols, like the swastika or the reverse swastika, in very primitive religions in very, very widely disparate parts of the world, South America, the American Indian, India, Africa, etc., groups that couldn't


possibly have had contact. Why do these religious symbols reoccur again and again in widely disparate places? If not because, reasons Jung, in all of us, not at the conscious level, because it ain't there, but at the unconscious level, there's a common experience that is articulated objectively in religious symbols, religious myths, religious right, religions, all this sort of thing. And this expresses itself in India, or in the American Indian, or in Africa, with extraordinary parallels precisely because we all have this common unconscious ground out of which we're all coming, insofar as we're all coming out of primordial human experiences that are passed on to us some way. Jung is a little vague, whether it be biological or whatever, but he says the contents of this collective unconsciousness are sort of the counterparts on the spiritual plane of the


instincts on the physical level. We all share hunger, we want to eat one, two, or three times a day, other instincts, sexual instincts, instincts of self-perseverance, preservation, every one of us, whether he's born in India or South America, we all have this. This presupposes the human condition on the biological level. So Jung says, also on the spiritual level, or the psychic level, there are certain tendencies, innate tendencies, innate instincts, which constitute the contents of the collective unconsciousness. These contents he calls archetypes. He's archetypes and says we can't give an exhaustive list of what these are, but there are certain basic ones that occur in all myths, in all religions, et cetera, that are the


expression, again, of this common ground that we all share. So you see, Jung would have a very powerful doctrine of the kind of the common base of the human family and something like the Christian concept of we are all members of one body. He could plug very easily into that sort of thing. Freud tends to be much more individualistic, but Jung sees that we're all tied into one experience. So Jung is interested in any religion, in any cultural phenomena, in any series of important symbols and legends and myths, whether it be in Africa or India. He's fascinated by anything profoundly human, profoundly religious, because it will speak to me and to you and to each one of us, because it speaks of our common matrix. Is that... Yeah?


Can I go back to something you were talking about, the shadow to the immediate? Okay, now, it mediates between the ego and this collective unconsciousness and these archetypes, et cetera. He says the youth, the child, is particularly in contact directly with the collective unconsciousness. So you see kids playing cowboys and Indians and cops and robbers, and they're all caught up in myths and Superman. This is the whole realm of the collective unconsciousness. And this becomes later naive for us adults. We build up a whole personal unconsciousness of our own personal repressions and experience and problems, et cetera. So we tend to get away more and more, and the modern Western secularist inhabitant of Los Angeles or Chicago or wherever, he's really out of contact, to a dangerous extent, Jung would say, with his collective unconsciousness.


The so-called primitive peoples are very often psychically much healthier than the modern secular man because they are directly in contact with these sources also of energy, of health. Health basically, for Jung, consists in getting in contact with these energy sources and getting all these elements and components harmoniously in rapport, so I'm no longer repressing one thing or in contradiction with another, but it all becomes organic, and I accept my shadow and my personas harmonious with my control of all these things. But the modern secularist, he's not aware of the collective unconsciousness, and also the Freudian is just not aware of this deeper level. Now there's another area mediating, not so much mediating, but he says it has one foot in the personal unconsciousness and one foot in the collective unconsciousness, and that


for the male is the anima, and for the female is the animus. That is, on my conscious level, and also personal unconscious level, I have a certain sexual identity. I'm male, and this is drummed into me from the first years by the parents in the society, et cetera. You don't play with dolls. You go out and you play cops and robbers and this sort of thing, but the little girl shouldn't go out and play cops and robbers. There should be a top girl and this sort of thing. So the length of the hair and how you dress, et cetera, you get this identity in the kid. You are male, and that is my animus, male. And that's very important, but on the unconscious level, halfway in the collective, halfway in the personal, it's just the contrary of that, the anima in me, a whole feminine dimension. It is the more intuitive, the more genteel, the more loving, et cetera. All those qualities characteristically feminine are in me, and in the woman there's the animus.


Now, normally we're vaguely aware of this and we're terrified by it because we think it's threatening our real identity. So the macho type who never cries and who never gives a thought to mercy, et cetera, he wants to be pure macho. He's trying to repress that anima in him. So what Jung is, one of the key things in therapy is to serenely live as a masculine with your anima and for women to serenely live with the animus. That's another component that's actually absent to Freud. But it's very fascinating. There's some images in here if I can find them. This is a lovely book, A Man and His Symbols, edited, looked over by Carl Jung. And here, for instance, is the great legend or story of the knight who slays the dragon


and thus frees the princess who was possessed, dominated by the dragon. A great, beautiful, symbolic painting, 15th century. Jung loves this sort of thing because it's pure symbol. For him, it's a pure, in-contact artifice. So the feminine main there is the anima. And here's the animus who finally, courageously goes out and slays that repressing force that wants to cancel out my anima. And then they go off and are happily married and live happily ever after. And that's a symbol of psychic health, of coming to live serenely, harmoniously, with my anima. In dreams, when there's a woman figure, Freud would tend to analyze that in Freudian categories. For Jung, it is my feminine dimension in me.


And so, it's important to see whether that woman is serene, whether she has her own space, whether she's in happy contact with a masculine, or whether she's oppressed, or what is happening to her. That can be a key of what is happening to my anima in me. This is another lovely 15th century blemish. Here is a gentleman who's about to go into an inner room. And there's this woman right behind him. And the key in the door slightly opens. He's coming from an outer city area, et cetera. Now this, again, for Jung, is all expression of archetype. There he is, the animus, the more courageous going forward. And there's his anima directly behind him, sustaining him, supporting him. And he's going in a search of the inner depths, coming from the outer, that sort of thing. Here's another symbol. In a treatise of St. Thomas, there was this illustration of a figure that is half male and half female.


And hermaphrodite, technically. Now that, again, for Jung, is actually tremendous. It's a very serene balancing of the anima and the animus. And so he studies all these religious symbols. And his own categories, he feels, can illuminate not their final theological meaning. He doesn't presume to say that. But an important psychological component of these. So that's the anima dimension. Are we proceeding? Now we want to go into some of these archetypes. That is, the contents of the collective unconsciousness. Because this is the decisive point of contact with religion. And it would be Christianity or whatever. But is this fairly clear up to now? The structure of the psyche. And I think it's fun to try to see existentially in me. Do I recognize an ego?


Is there an area of consciousness and self-consciousness? It's very personal. I think that's true. I think each of us can plug into that. Is there a persona? How is it distinguished from my deepest consciousness of myself? This can be very interesting. I knew a woman who was also afraid of here. But she's a very, very efficient professional woman. She's got it all together. She goes into office. And she is tough. And she's got her act all together and this sort of thing. That is her persona. And I know that on a personal level, she's quite uncertain and suffering and this sort of thing. Not sure where she's going. Different tendencies, et cetera. So the distance between this and this is considerable in her. And it's interesting. And she's aware of this, et cetera. Now, she cannot go in a bank and just immediately express the other. The bank doesn't want it. The customers don't want it.


It would in no way be fruitful. Nor can she simply pretend that this banking, efficient professional woman role is her deepest awareness of herself. So I think you can plug into something like that. I think we can grant the shadow, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde sort of thing, fascination for murder mysteries and this sort of thing. There is a weird side of us. The English are particularly strong in this area of very proper social rules and then they're fascinated in Jack the Ripper and that sort of type. So I think something like the shadow, you can make a good case for. The anima, that's an interesting thing. Lots of contemporary people think this is great, to break down extremely rigid sexist roles of the pure macho or the flighty, sweet feminine.


But to accept that in each of us there is the other dimension and this permits then a relating to people of the opposite sex. They're no longer an entirely different species. For instance, there is something in me that helps me to relate and understand from within the feminine experience. Remember Dante and Beatrice, for instance, in his great hymn. Beatrice guides him. Beatrice would be the more intuitional feminine. And the whole business of the more contemplative prayer, which is a more passive, more receptive, I think one would make a case that the anima is very important there because the male is the kind of a knight who goes out and does it on his own sort of thing. There's a point when we have to receive and be more Mary Magdalene


than St. Peter, for instance. So I think one can at least theorize. It's an interesting theory when you think about it. And then the collective unconsciousness is a fascinating thing. And again, Jung insists that he's not proposing this as a theologian or as someone who's fascinated in religion. He's proposing it as a psychologist scientist who says it's the only hypothesis that can explain this phenomenon of parallelisms in dreams, in myths, in religions, etc., etc., of symbols, values, etc., that are decisively tied to psychic reintegration and health. And that's a debate that goes on between Jungians and non-Jungians. But it's fascinating for those of us who are also interested in things like religion, etc. So let's start looking at some of these archetypes. A basic one is the Great Mother or the Cosmic Mother.


Obviously, this fundamental, primordial experience is in each one of us, each one of us starts within the Great Mother. And this is perhaps the fundamental archetype, he says. Looking over all the books in your library, you have a very complete set of Jung symbols of transformation. And the first huge section is, well, there's a symbols of the mother and rebirth and a whole section on that. The battle for deliverance from the mother, the dual mother, the sacrifice of deliverance from the mother, the whole birth thing, then the whole growing up and at a certain point establishing your own identity, etc. The mother is the source of life, the ocean out here, if you ever look at it, and it strikes you at a very profound level.


One reason for that, according to Jung, is that the ocean, huge bodies of water, are tied into the Great Mother archetype. It's out of the primordial waters that life comes, this sort of thing, waters as receptivity, as depth, as mystery sort of thing. Now, life comes out of the waters, but you can also drown in the waters, so it's an ambiguous, mysterious symbol. The mother gives life, nourishes, but she can also sort of devour. So you've got to be very careful if your Great Mother archetype is healthy or if it's got these negative dimensions. So, for instance, the baptismal waters, you go down and die in the baptismal waters and come out reborn, all this sort of thing. This is something Jung is fascinated about. These are supernatural symbols,


but they are also, according to Jung, they hit us at a profound, preternatural level, quite beyond even our own individuality. So, for instance, with the Virgin Mary, he feels that Catholicism is psychically more complete than Protestantism, also because of the decisive role of Mary. Here's an image from a 15th-century Italian artist, Piero della Francesca. I don't know if we saw this last time, of Mary, the people of God, represented very small, coming up sort of to her kneecaps, and protected in her cloak. This, he would say, is the image of the Great Cosmic Mother, who is benign, who is loving, who is protecting.


Now, in this other book, there's a whole section of images on Great Protective Mothers, and lots of them are images of the Virgin Mary, lots of them are Hindu goddesses, lots of them are Buddhist. There's this sort of thing that can very much offend Catholics of a certain sensitivity, or fascinate others. But that's why he tends to be a little eclectic, and he's quite as fascinated in... Here's, for instance, the witch, the Ronin Dove, who's the thief of children. This is the Great Mother image in the pure naked side, who watches the child and eats it up. Remember the evil witch of Hansel and Gretel, the one to throw them in the oven. Now, why do these legends stick around so long, and why are they so fascinating to kids, if they're so grotesque, and not... Authors of children's books are trying to write


nicer legends, et cetera. Jung would say, it won't work. These things are referring to... Here's the mistress of the beasts of Greek mythology, and a corn god, and all sorts of things that reflect. Here's Mater Ecclesiae, Mother of the Church, another immense image of Our Lady, with little tiny Christians all around her, gathered in her protective... Then a whole series on the Tree of Life, in about eight different religions, including the Cosmic Tree of the Cross, this sort of thing. So, if he writes psychology, he loves to write it with illustrations from everything, from paintings, and religious statues, et cetera, because, as I say, any phenomenon, any expression of religion for him is an expression of this whole thing. As another example of the Great Cosmic Mother,


here is a statue of Mary, and you open it up, and within is the whole trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Now, this is... can be related to the Orthodox and Catholic doctrine of Theotokos, the Mother of God, the Bearer of God, but it also ties, you would say, very directly into the Great Mother, who, within herself, she somehow contains the whole, also, of the divine mystery. So this isn't sort of images that we're used to, kind of the pious images of the 19th century, where everything is according to proportion and flesh colors, et cetera. Jung says this type of statue or image is much more powerful, because it's not concerned with kind of photographic or sentimental presentation.


He wants to go right to sort of the essence. Also, icons are very interesting to him. He's very interested in triads and so on, all these sort of big icons of Trinity. So that's a kind of an example of where his approach to religious categories is extremely positive. Some feel almost too positive. That is, some say he's more dangerous to the position of faith than Freud, because he's assimilating these in a kind of a pagan, pantheist way, his enemies say, that's much more horrendous and blasphemous in its implications than Freud. Many think this is too critical an approach. Certainly he's not exclusivistically Christian, but he is, according to people I've talked to, sincerely a believer in God and a believer certainly in a pluralism of forms of religion. But he thinks that all these things, again,


are expressions of the way the human person has to come to fulfillment through union with and harmony with God. Another series of, another archetype is the cosmic man, the hero, kind of the Apollo or Prometheus or Christ. Christ is an expression, perfect expression of this archetype of the hero. The village is under the sway of a witch or a dragon or something. The hero goes forth, battles with the dragon, frees the city, this sort of thing. And also in every sort of Homer's Iliad or whatever, there's always a hero that emerges and decisively overturns a negative situation, often to risking his own life or even giving his own life. There's a whole new explosion of interest in legends, et cetera, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.


The Episcopal Church sponsored a whole series of television programs on one of C.S. Lewis's legends, which is very thinly disguised Christ language. There's this lion who saves these three children from the fierce woman, and he saves them through giving his own life to her. It's a very, it's a sort of thing that human would be fascinated with. So the hero, and each of us has need of the hero. Each of us feels ourselves in a situation of predicament, unable by ourselves to get out of it. So the hero comes and changes this situation. And this should be the cosmic hero, the cosmic man. Here's an example of a beautiful Gothic Christ surrounded by the four symbols,


the four evangelists. And he points out the four beasts that are quite, quite similar. In Egyptian mythology, protecting the Egyptian hero. Here's the cosmic man. In some of the Gothic images of Christ, all the symbols of the Zodiac surround Christ. You see, he is the fullness of all cosmic and human reality, this sort of thing. So that's another hero. And this will come through in any stupid Western film, or it comes over again and again and again, precisely because each of us needs, in other images of Christ, this powerful, dynamic presence that overturns man's ultimate enemy, death. This sort of thing. Again, what is he directed to? Mithra does the same thing. He battles with a bull


and loses his own life, but through this loss comes regeneration, etc. These, again, are recurring themes that reflect. Now, you can take one of two approaches here, where Jung points out, for instance, parallelisms between the Mithra myth and the Christian story. One is to deny any parallelism. Another is to serenely note differences, decisive differences, but also accept parallelisms. Now, it depends on your theology. If you have a theology that it's God the Father who created us all, and created us also on the natural plane, and created also this mysterious dimension of the unconsciousness, then it's not terrifying if we do discover parallels and anticipations in other cultures and other religions. This would be thought to be rather inevitable. Justin talks about the Logos Spermaticos,


this seed of the divine Word that's scattered all over and is present also, for instance, in the Greek philosophers. And so they become, for him, also sources of divine truth, but little sources that have to find their fulfillment in Christ, the Logos made flesh. So also Clement of Alexandria talks about the propodutic function of Greek and Roman culture. That is, these cultures are not the enemy, simply, or negative. They are positive forces that prepare for the Christian message, rather like, I don't know, going through elementary school before you really get into your major area, etc. So the Old Testament and the Greek culture, according to Clement, these are preparations for the gospel. Well, if you get into something like that, there's this...


We aren't horrified by this sort of parallelism. Indeed, it can be a kind of a confirmation that there is an exigency in every human being for a hero, for instance, or for a mother. So it can be taken in two ways. It can be taken in a reductionist way that Mary is simply like any other mother myth and Jesus is just another hero, or you can take it in the other that there is a decisive qualitative newness with these that fulfill all the others, and all the others indicate how essential is the need in every human person. Also the Marxists, for instance, will be going into Marx, but it's fascinating how important Karl Marx is for them. And if you push them rigorously, they'll have to admit that they're not claiming that Marx is some sort of prophet or infallible... He's just a human being, but he's very, very important. And they tend to create their heroes, you know, what Castro and all these people,


their decisive importance. The personality cult is much more fanatically present in Russia or China than in West Germany or the United States. We're less attached to President Carter than they are to... So another very important archetype, but of a very dynamic quality, is precisely the journey archetype or the pilgrimage archetype or the search archetype. This is a fascinating one, but each one of us is on his search, life is a journey, this sort of thing. And this expresses itself constantly in art, in legends, etc. The Iliad, the Odyssey, the searching for the Grail, the Crusaders that set out for Jerusalem, this sort of thing. The Exodus. We're all on our way. We're in a different situation today


than we were yesterday. And this very powerfully expresses itself in this key archetype of journey. One of the problems of modern man is he's not quite sure where this journey is going. And so there's this intuition sometimes of being in a labyrinth. I saw a political cartoon just a few days ago of Uncle Sam caught in this Iran labyrinth and there was just no way out. And this is a kind of a nightmare. You know, you've got to move, there's some danger behind, but you don't know where to go and all the doors are closed. A sort of no-exit thing of sort. Here's an impressionist painting by the Italian artist De Cirico, Anxious Journey. This is a whole series of arches and winding corridors and nothing is opening out.


Nothing is clearly the route that I should take. So many young people are in this, they're on a journey, they know that, but they don't have a way in here. It's a labyrinth. This is the journey archetype of going back when you don't know where you're going. You don't know if you're going in circles or going backwards or what. So that's a contemporary problem. Then there's the... There's rather the more serene medieval and late medieval journeys. There's Dante's whole journey, remember, down to Purgatory, Verano, you know, to heavens. He was led by Beatrice, so all the way to sort of open up. And then this is Paul Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Bunyan relates this whole thing as a dream,


interestingly enough. And the pilgrim sets out and has all these experiences and finally arrives at the celestial city, as does Dante. Whether it comes from the Protestant heritage or the Catholic heritage, it's this key archetype of now a religious journey. I am not now in heaven. I realize it, so I have to move. I have to get somewhere else. So all the businesses of which road to take and who's going to guide me and what I can take with me and what I have to leave behind and what dangers I can encounter on this journey. This whole bit is tied in with this journey archetype. So key of Pharaoh Ramesses II, and he says this is a great image, of the journey into our depths. One of the key journeys that I'm going to have to take


is into the depths of my personal and collective unconsciousness to come to terms with these areas within me. And that's the fundamental. So in dreams, again, we're in dreams. You chase through when you're on a journey and the journey's going well. If you do get there, if you don't get there, all these things are important as indications of how your basic psychic journey into the depths is going. Also, the whole bit about space journeys, the trip to the moon. Why was this so fascinating? Millions of people before television sets everywhere. Here's the missile taking off. Now, for Freud, this is an obvious symbol of the male organ and sort of male power. For Jung, it's much more subtle and spiritual. It's an outward and physical sign


of a human and spiritual journey through the planets, to other realms, et cetera. The last days of Freud with Jung were very bad because Jung would be having dreams and he would immediately intuit how Freud would interpret them in sort of, he thought, materialistic, vulgar ways. Whereas he saw them, again, in these spiritual dimensions of journeying and going into the depths, et cetera. So, those are some of the key archetypes. And again, you can't list them all. They're just inside of a certain realm of mystery and you get at this one or that one through religious symbols. A key one is the archetype of self or totality or divinity. The key to my psychic health


is, again, to get all these components into some sort of harmony, some sort of totality. And this, in my inner cosmos, in harmony and totality with a whole of objective reality with others. Now, it's the self or the divinity, which is sort of, in my picture, is the central, decisive archetype here. And in another sense, it's kind of the circumference, the totality on the outside. It's the center and also the radius. That is what he is going to relate to God. Each one of us, then, is in search of God. We know that God will give us fulfillment, completion, totality, will center us. That's the self in Jung with a capital S. And here are problems and possibilities. The problem says, we seem to be approaching here again


a rather clear reductionism, that the almighty transcendent God out there simply becomes a central, decisive component of my own subjective psyche. This is the problem. And this central archetype of the self is expressed in a very beautiful way in the mandala. This is a mandala, and that's why it comes up again and again and again. The mandala in Tibetan Buddhist religion is a symbol that is constituted by the basics or some sort of circumference and some sort of center and some sort of components that lead to the circumference, to the center. Now, the Tibetan Buddhist monk would have these images, sometimes they're very, very elaborate, and meditate on them. And it would be a method of coming to kind of spiritual integration and profundity.


And Jung learned about the mandala and became fascinated in it, and his books are filled with mandalas. The cross is a mandala, especially in its more complicated expressions. For instance, the Soviet cross, where you have the circle also and the lines here. Why do we meditate the cross? Jung is saying, of course, it's supernatural, but it's also an integrating force. These archetypes are sources of energy, sources of healing, if we can get back in contact with them. Now, we need outer and visible symbols to nourish our contact with the archetypes, giving them outer shape, etc. Get off on one side there. That's why, for instance,


liturgy, for Jung, is very, very important. He has a fascinating whole treatise here on the mass and the symbolism of the mass. He goes through the whole rite in terms of a Gnostic text transformation symbolism in the mass. It's a 100-page treatise that's been published separately now. The sequence, the ablation, the preparation of the chalice, elevation of the chalice, Epiclesis, etc., the symbolism, the psychology of the mass, etc. These symbols out there are very important for us. Now, if we've got a group here of Catholics, we share an outer series of symbols that integrate us, each with his own subjectivity and each with the other. It's lovely to live archetypal symbols together, and that builds community. And the liturgy here,


we mentioned that the chapel here, I now remember, is an architectural mandala. There are other examples of that here. But that's a clear mandala. And then as you come down and go around the altar, the altar as the center, and the community makes that quite spontaneously, if you'll notice. It's quite a perfect circle that's made by the monks around the altar. And then when we extend our hands for the Our Father, it's interesting. It's a perfect circle. And I'm not sure anyone ever said, when you come down, do form a perfect circle. But it was just spontaneous. It was just because it's archetypal. The circle, the circumference, and the center, which is the altar, and the final center is the chalice and the host. And so as a community and individually, we are centered and unified and opened to the whole in that moment. Now the problem of modern man, for Jung,


is that we've got a whole series of different archetypal outer expressions. For instance, let's say this is a Marxist out here. So he's got his May Day march, which is a kind of a, it's the procession journey archetype being expressed. And then he's got his martyrs, the workers who fell on May Day. These are his key symbols. So he shares this with others. Now they're strongly bound. In Italy, we know all sorts of young Marxists. And they immediately share on this deep level of basic symbols and values the way Christians do. Now the problem is, though, the modern Western family is all fragmented. You hear maybe Jews, you hear modern secular man as his symbols of value, of money and power, et cetera. So this complicates things. And obviously some of these symbols are much more adequate and healthy expressions of the archetype.


Some are very sick. The initiation process of the ancient tribes, this is very important. It's the beginning of the journey of the youth, et cetera. So even if there's lots of pain, et cetera, involved, it's a growing thing. But if you're in a college and you get into a college fraternity initiation, there's lots of that. It just comes out spontaneously. But it isn't very healthy. It's not that you're being brought to real maturity. You're just sort of introduced to this group of guys who drink beer here on Saturday, et cetera. So you get archetypal symbols there, but they don't really heal and nourish and fulfill, et cetera. This is the problem of modern society, according to Jung. So just briefly, again, some of the mandala. This is a modern contemporary mandala. But just looking at it, one feels a kind of a harmony between this sort of thing. Then the Gothic rose window


is a perfect mandala. And in the center, usually, there's Christ using something in all the scenes. This sort of sums up the whole of salvation history, really all the symbolism, et cetera. So this work here would be a mandala. And so it can be an architectural mandala, the chapel here. The human person himself can be a mandala if you then... a kind of a hesychast theory of the heart as the center, et cetera, go from the circumference to the center, bring the mind down into the heart, this sort of thing. So you can interiorize the mandala, and should, or you can exteriorize it, this sort of thing. So this is briefly some aspects of the Jungian psychology,


Jungian tools, and key elements. So we might discuss this for a while. We might take a break of about 5 or 10 minutes and then see what comes out of this, and then see what he does from this for his dialogue with religion and with theology and with spirituality. And we can discuss what our answer to him should be, et cetera. So why don't we take a break for about 6 minutes, let's say, and then come back and discuss whether this is good or bad or meaningful. It's very big on dogma, and he was delighted at the doctrine of the immaculate conception and the assumption of... so psychology and religion. It's very big on the narrative of the Trinity, but he does believe that there's an objective reality that corresponds to this. There's a narrative sitting right up to the thought,


and this, he says, is a mandala. And at the center is not only the Trinity, but all the religions, the third book of the Vedanta, and then the Trinity is very important. Triangle, circle, corresponds to that sort of thing. What person is that? Rival completes. The four is the sign of completion. He sees that also in the Eucharist, in the Eastern Liturgy, especially with the breaking of the host of the four. The four evangelists gives the complete. He's very into numbers and all this. This one can end up completely inner-directed


in a kind of a perhaps not always healthy way. This, I think, is significant. This person is speaking in English today, but I don't know if he's a Christian. He's looking at you as having done something to your man's conscience.


I'm not sure. This, to let the word of God speak to you, again, because of the rest of the revelation, some of the guide dog, the guisement of God, to be a part of God. I think Jung divides Jews and Christians pro and again him. He's a rock. But some are very much against him for that, always. Reductionism. And some are very for him, and then he opens up the dialogue. You have here in your library this God and the Unconscious by Victor White, Dominican. Quite an older book, published back in the 50s. It has an introductory essay by Jung.


It's very interesting. White asked Jung to introduce it. White was just beginning the dialogue with psychoanalysis and psychology. And White is much harder on Freud, obviously. I think the conclusion of White relative to Jung, as one example, is possible. That is, there is this danger, but there is not anything in Jung that would exclude the objective God who addresses us. You can get so caught up in this fascinating world of interior world of archetypes, et cetera, and the God can become the I. Then Jung cites all the mystics. I think John of the Cross says that ultimate center of myself is Christ, this sort of thing. So you can interpret this always in a reductionist, pantheist way or in a mystical way of profound union in diversity.


It's very hard to... One of the reasons it's hard to pin Jung down is that Jung doesn't want to say anything about religion because he's been so attacked by the Freudians as just being some sort of religious weirdo that he says, no, I am a scientific psychologist and I'm not talking about... That's why he doesn't like to talk about whether there is a God out there or not. He says, that's for the theologians. My job is a psychologist and I'm talking about archetypes and this is science. So he goes on and on in this introductory essay along those lines and he's so defensive of himself that sometimes he can seem almost sort of anti-theology whereas in other paragraphs he obviously isn't. But he's very sensitive. This is one of his last essays. This is in 52. He's very sensitive to the Freudian attack on him that you're just involved in acts of faith or something. So he's attacked from both sides. He's attacked by some religious as being


too reductionist, humanist and he's attacked by the Freudians as being too religious, weirdo, faith thing. And he has to defend himself from both sides. So I think everyone has to make his own decision on what to do with this man. But he is around and he is having a big influence and so I think it's good to know about him. So I think we can now, the next time, take up more explicitly his theory of the relation of faith and this tomorrow. So you might think about this and good.