Jung believed spirits resided in "the unconscious," while Steiner posited they existed in a spiritual realm. Today, we understand the unconscious as static content, primarily memories stored in the brain, not the dynamic mind Jung envisioned. Therefore, discussions about angels should refer to the spiritual realm, the Otherworld, the Platonic Hyperuranion, or the Christian kingdom of God-a realm both symbolic and corporeal. Jungians need to move beyond Jung's focus on "phenomenology." But modern theologians have "immanentized" the kingdom of God, interpreting it as a future good society based on Christian norms. Jungians, with their emphasis on symbols, could challenge this trend. Steiner's views are concerning in that also he envisions a future good society. In "The Threefold Social Order," he suggests that adopting his social ideas could transform society into one free from current evils. He believes social engineering can eradicate evil and corruption, a notion Augustine refutes in "City of God."
When Jung used the term spirits, it was used as psychological concepts and not be confused with the spirits in normal parlance. Not that he believed in the latter. The unconscious cannot be reduced to a deep recess in the memory. Jung's idea was that it and the subconscious are deeply (more or less) seated yes, but they affect our daily actions and inactions and have thus an effect on us. That's the dynamic Jung described as 'fate'. And I would not term Jung as a theologian in any shape or form. He used religious symbology and prominently the Christ as a symbol of the self. However, he had no 'missionary' bone.
I want to correct something you said: early on in his research jung believed in autonomous complexes, which are rooted in archetypal forces. He drew parallels to the myths of ghosts and demons found in earlier cultures. he attributed all these forces to the psyche, and the unconscious. As he got older, he later realised because of synchronicity and acausul effects in reality these "spirits" or "daemons" or archetypal forces have their own psychic reality.... so essentially he came to believe that spirits have a reality of their own outaide the psyche.
@@BrundageBungalows Interesting take. Now that I think of it, it is to be expected, in the sense that if the collective unconscious is, on the one level, the external (from without an individual's psyche but not culture) having an 'affect' on the sense of self within, these overarching archetypes must be out there being 'manifested' from within. However, what I have difficulty with is that these 'spirits' have no 'environment' to support their physical existence and must be understood as 'projections' of the mind. In that sense and to borrow the title of a Sting song, there can be no 'Spirits in the material world'. As to Jung's beliefs, after I read his Aeon, I was left reeling not at all clear what to make of his creed (was he pushing that or using example), his knowledge of astrology (does he believe it's science or is it for illustrative purposes)...I think (I am sure I'm wrong) that he is the last polymath. A brilliant mind. My opinion.
No, Jung merely proposed that the archetypes of numbers are fundamental to the unus mundus, the psychophysical foundation of the world. Beyond this, he concentrated on psychic phenomena and showed little interest in ontology.
for contemporary man I feel James Hillman is the transcendent function of the two....i need all three to understand each one individually.... Steiner is so cosmic that it's disorienting unless you've read Hillman and Jung...but Hillman tries to give us something similar to Owen Barfield's Final Participation... how to bring it back to daily lived life....the archetypal consciousness and how thought can be embodied when imbibed through the image
@joshuawilliams9276 To me, Christ meant universal awareness unidentified with form, aka the father or logos. Basically, the I am before it is identified with a form also known by other names.
Weird, i used to listen to roudolph Steiner until i recognized too many energetic signatures of my exes mother Sandy who went to great lengths and extreme measures to hurt me and make sure i couldn't recover..
Jung believed spirits resided in "the unconscious," while Steiner posited they existed in a spiritual realm. Today, we understand the unconscious as static content, primarily memories stored in the brain, not the dynamic mind Jung envisioned. Therefore, discussions about angels should refer to the spiritual realm, the Otherworld, the Platonic Hyperuranion, or the Christian kingdom of God-a realm both symbolic and corporeal. Jungians need to move beyond Jung's focus on "phenomenology."
But modern theologians have "immanentized" the kingdom of God, interpreting it as a future good society based on Christian norms. Jungians, with their emphasis on symbols, could challenge this trend.
Steiner's views are concerning in that also he envisions a future good society. In "The Threefold Social Order," he suggests that adopting his social ideas could transform society into one free from current evils. He believes social engineering can eradicate evil and corruption, a notion Augustine refutes in "City of God."
When Jung used the term spirits, it was used as psychological concepts and not be confused with the spirits in normal parlance. Not that he believed in the latter.
The unconscious cannot be reduced to a deep recess in the memory. Jung's idea was that it and the subconscious are deeply (more or less) seated yes, but they affect our daily actions and inactions and have thus an effect on us. That's the dynamic Jung described as 'fate'.
And I would not term Jung as a theologian in any shape or form. He used religious symbology and prominently the Christ as a symbol of the self. However, he had no 'missionary' bone.
Thank you as always for your thoughtful commentary Mats.
I want to correct something you said: early on in his research jung believed in autonomous complexes, which are rooted in archetypal forces. He drew parallels to the myths of ghosts and demons found in earlier cultures. he attributed all these forces to the psyche, and the unconscious. As he got older, he later realised because of synchronicity and acausul effects in reality these "spirits" or "daemons" or archetypal forces have their own psychic reality.... so essentially he came to believe that spirits have a reality of their own outaide the psyche.
@@BrundageBungalows Interesting take. Now that I think of it, it is to be expected, in the sense that if the collective unconscious is, on the one level, the external (from without an individual's psyche but not culture) having an 'affect' on the sense of self within, these overarching archetypes must be out there being 'manifested' from within. However, what I have difficulty with is that these 'spirits' have no 'environment' to support their physical existence and must be understood as 'projections' of the mind. In that sense and to borrow the title of a Sting song, there can be no 'Spirits in the material world'.
As to Jung's beliefs, after I read his Aeon, I was left reeling not at all clear what to make of his creed (was he pushing that or using example), his knowledge of astrology (does he believe it's science or is it for illustrative purposes)...I think (I am sure I'm wrong) that he is the last polymath. A brilliant mind. My opinion.
No, Jung merely proposed that the archetypes of numbers are fundamental to the unus mundus, the psychophysical foundation of the world. Beyond this, he concentrated on psychic phenomena and showed little interest in ontology.
for contemporary man I feel James Hillman is the transcendent function of the two....i need all three to understand each one individually.... Steiner is so cosmic that it's disorienting unless you've read Hillman and Jung...but Hillman tries to give us something similar to Owen Barfield's Final Participation... how to bring it back to daily lived life....the archetypal consciousness and how thought can be embodied when imbibed through the image
Connection is called freemasonry, used to be called the mysteries
I guess that doesn't get a response huh
I agree tho
Christ didn't come to start a new religion he came to destroy religion is about faith Relgion means to bind up . Read mark 3:27
@joshuawilliams9276 To me, Christ meant universal awareness unidentified with form, aka the father or logos. Basically, the I am before it is identified with a form also known by other names.
Few sure of the Self
Through who pleroma flows the distance 2 the future where the new tree grows
🦍🙏🚪🍀
Weird, i used to listen to roudolph Steiner until i recognized too many energetic signatures of my exes mother Sandy who went to great lengths and extreme measures to hurt me and make sure i couldn't recover..