Carl Jung's Problem of the Fourth (dialoguing with Tim Jackson)

Рет қаралды 2,638

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 31

@Effervescence421 Ай бұрын

Im not nearly as well read as either of you so apologies if these intuitions are not rigorous or if im missing something obvious but I'd like to hear your opinions if you have the time Matt. I believe its in psychology and alchemy that Jung says Mary is the hidden 4th in Christian theology and has never been fully incorporated into the divine, similarly there is a quote from somewhere in Christian thought that the role of the Mother Mary will not be understood until the end of time itself. My intuition is that 4 is the element earth, which is space, mother earth and mother Mary and to incororate the 4th into the godhead is to fully redeem the material world and circumvent the plotinian disgust of the body and the material world. Incorporating the 4th into the godhead will settle the divine within the body, the form in the flesh in a sense that embodied cognition in its more radical forms is unconsciously striving towards. At the same time i see this as healing the denigration of women and the feminine, our fear and hatred of the natural world and our foolish pursuit of disembodied reason and techonology as the savior we need. I may be drawing unwarranted conclusions or overgeneralizing and if so please correct me.

@Effervescence421 Ай бұрын

I should have watched further in the video before commenting, you guys get to basically all of this lol

@MatthewKelley-mq4ce Ай бұрын

Still, very cool articulation!

@Formscapes Ай бұрын

Yoooooo here we go!

@yotamschmidt570 Ай бұрын

What a pleasent surprise. Will return to watch in the evening. Exciting!

@andrewpaulsullivan Ай бұрын

Pseudo-Dionysius pushes a kataphatic approach way beyond most contemporary mystics who collapse into an “undetermined mystery” long before any intuition (abduction a la Peirce) of the spiritual hierarchies. His apophatic statements can’t be lumped into the same tradition as Jung if you read Jung instrumentally and as drawing limits to knowledge as he did in his Kantian phase. There would be no great chain of being if we had always been apophatic in the way we are now. And yet, we don’t have to continue collapsing into the apophatic at the edges of our intellect. We too easily, in my estimation, draw limits to our knowledge. Thanks for the great discussions!

@projectmalus Ай бұрын

1 hr 15 using language from the unconscious, then much later returning and using language from the unconscious which in the flat or odd seeming translation depicts the evolved self. edit: a little like rowing or paddling in circles, then figuring it out and the straight line to much later, then the circling again with evolved self as eternal object cone and the other as flotsam (time, hourglass) or jetsom (dynamic spinning top) cast out joining.

@Nimbulus85 Ай бұрын

Tim, have you had a chance to read Anthony Stevens' "Arechtypes, A Natural History of the Self"? I mention since it approaches the concepts and precepts of archetypes through an ethological lens. Your mentioning evoluntionary biology pricked up my ears. I think you would enjoy it!

@ejenkins4711 Ай бұрын

Dont forget jung was of a time when time was a greater curiosity 1 father=past 2 son=present 3 holyspirit =fewsure Fourth the Gift 2 understand ⌚🍀🏰 2 son=

@MatthewKelley-mq4ce Ай бұрын

I'm fairly novice at this sort of thing, but it occurs to me to assume the Fourth loosely speaking presupposes or pre.. morphologically sets up the conditions for the Trinity. But I don't really consider it to be different, unless I consider myself to be different from when I was young. I'm different but also the same. That said there are loads of consideration and material that you are familiar with which would reveal deeper elements into what I said, enumerating the "pros" and "cons" as it were of that loose approach. Obviously though it's no less of a mystery.

@MatthewKelley-mq4ce Ай бұрын

Oh and something perhaps tangentially related: Separation as pain. A tension.. {...}. That's unresolved. {...}

@MatthewKelley-mq4ce Ай бұрын

If God's morphological structure did change (or perhaps formed..?), and if that implies some form of seperation. Then it follows for me that that influence may come to in some sense manifest unto itself and inhabit the spirit or join with, however, of something like the Antagonist. The Devil. The Luciferian impulse. Just loose speculation from a curious fellow.

@ejenkins4711 Ай бұрын

Dont forget lads you only have an intelectual understanding the shadow jung had the full physical feeling first. Take time 4 U as time belongs some amazing grace the song 🏰🍀⌚

@Effervescence421 Ай бұрын

I find the zoroastrian understanding of evil to be somewhat useful here (referring to the turn the cheek discussion and the impracticality of loving your enemy.) It *is* in my view irresponsible to allow evil to thrive so you can die at least with the satisfaction that you've never othered anything. However this doesn't mean evil must be approached or fought with vicious hatred. In a sense I think the issue of evil is very similar to the role the 4th plays as necessary resistance to allow creation in the first place. It gives room for the heights of the heroic struggle, which is a fine line to toe between glorifying the struggle against evil and glorifying violence for violences sake. Certainly evil itself is not to be loved, otherwise why do we choose good over evil? I do find at times in the spiritual revival of today there's an extreme pacifism that is the flip side of the fascist tendency to eradicate the other. The pacifist who says there can be no enemy just as radically refuses the existence of the other as the fascist who says the other must be reduced to nonexistence

@MatthewKelley-mq4ce Ай бұрын

I have to wonder why it can't be loved for what it is, while recognizing it as the lesser?

@Effervescence421 Ай бұрын

@MatthewKelley-mq4ce maybe it can be, but it seems to me that the assimilation of all evil under the umbrella of good is the same instinct towards totality that is simultaneously being pushed back against - that "desire for yahweh to be omnipotent." If we refuse to recognize evil as an other to be opposed what are we doing but assimilating everything under the omnipotent umbrella of the Good? In the end I think evil provides a needed service for the Good so maybe I'm actually just doing the same thing in a different way lol