Jung prefaces the book with a section called Lectori
Benevolo. He starts this section with
this, which lays the groundwork for the rest of the book:
…For, in what
follows, I shall speak of the venerable objects of religious belief. Whoever talks of such matters inevitably runs
the risk of being torn to pieces by the two parties who are in moral conflict
about those very things. This conflict
is due to the strange supposition that a thing is true only if it presents
itself as a physical fact…”Physical”
is not the only criterion: there are also psychic
truths which can neither be explained nor proved nor contested in any
physical way. (LB, 553)
It is interesting to me that we
still see this battle between two camps: literalists who claim that we can’t
have faith UNLESS it is backed up by physical facts; and atheists who claim
that we can’t have faith BECAUSE it cannot be backed up by physical facts. I would not presume to think these are the
two camps Jung had in mind, but it is something I see today. Jung
continues to describe the psychic nature as autonomous of the physical, and thus
of religious experience and language arising out of transpersonal, unconscious processes. These resultant religious statements…
are filtered
through the medium of human consciousness…That is why whenever we speak of
religious contents we move in a world of images that point to something
ineffable. We do not know how clear or
unclear these images, metaphors, and concepts are in respect of their
transcendental object. If, for instance,
we say “God”, we give expression to an image or verbal concept which has
undergone many changes in the course of time.
We are, however, unable to say with any degree of certainty…whether these
changes affect only the images and concepts, or the Unspeakable itself…There is
no doubt that there is something behind these images that transcends
consciousness…(LB, 555).
3 comments:
He may "layman", but most ordinary folk (layman) would not comprehend or understand the language he speaks.
I will await the further posts to comment further. Glad to see your back writing again. Press on man.
I think in this context, what he means by layman is that he is a layman concerning theology. He is definitely not a layman concerning depth psychology. I agree his writing is complex, but it's what any lay person would find as they begin to make a foray into a field that they are unfamiliar, i.e. if I started to read sociology, I would find the language a tough go until I became more familiar with it. I'll keep that in mind as I continue on in this series.
Yes, I love how Jung frames his discussion. Starting by describing the reality of the psyche, then drawing up the layers of experiencing God, from imaginal representations to symbol to something objectively real.
I've often wondered what Jung ultimately believed in terms of the objective reality of God. I've heard different takes on it. But I think I'm happy to imagine that he sometimes believed and sometimes didn't, and it didn't really bother him too much either way.
Post a Comment