20 Comments

A thought-provoking essay, thank you.

I found another review of Catafalque that I also found rewarding here:

https://appliedjung.com/catafalque-carl-jung-and-the-end-of-humanity/

quote: "Kingsley believes, with some evidence, that many of Jung’s followers hid the most disturbing prophecies Jung made in his days of dying. These prophecies foresaw the end of the world with 50 to 60 years."

One thing I think is worthy to note here is that less than 18 months after Jung's passing came the Cuban Missle Crisis with some of the events leading up to it already in motion when he had those premonitions.

another quote: "Kingsley believes that much of Jung the Prophet wanted and desires was disregarded against his wishes. For example, he was firmly against the formation of any type of Jungian training or institutes, but they started, nonetheless."

This is an unfortunate pattern seen time and time again over millenia with the "prophet" archetype and one that does dishonor to the person who embodied it. Which leads me to ask:

Is it possible to 'remix' archetypes (to use a musical metaphor)?

For example, Bittersweet Symphony by the Verve is more 'bitter' than 'sweet' - very melancholic (at least for me). But that Amonita & Makebo Remix takes the familiar riff from the song (itself a sample from the Rolling Stones) and transforms it into something more sweet than bitter, almost euphoric (again, at least for me).

Would it be possible to do this with archetypes or are the patterns so ingrained in the collective consciousness that everyone (save for the very few, but not enough to matter in the end) will unconsciously fall into the same groove and replay the same story that's already been told and retold and retold over and over and over?

Expand full comment

I've never wanted 4 hours of your undivided attention more. Someday.

Expand full comment
Aug 12, 2023·edited Oct 31, 2023

There’s good stuff here, but I’m a little confused because this is exactly what I’ve been saying (that I feel like you haven’t been on board with). The only explanation is that we are interpreting the same words differently.

These quotes below are all instances of life living us. In other words, it’s not my will, but thy will (also capital “S” Self = God):

“relocate the center of gravity of the personality from the ego to the Self, another way of saying what the apostle Paul once observed: ‘I must decrease that He may increase.’”

“everything meaningful or worthwhile depends absolutely on the divine will.”

“It's all done through us, for us. In fact we don't do a thing because, thanks to a divine process we can't or won't acknowledge, it's the sacred that takes care of everything.”

Here’s more Kastrup that I’d love to hear your thoughts on:

“The meaning of life has nothing to do with making ‘free’ choices, as if such freedom were somehow distinct from the necessity of making said choices. The meaning of life has to do with paying attention to what is going on, observing the dance of existence, taking it in, reflecting, bearing witness. This is humanity’s service to nature, not the egomaniacal delusion of individual agency. Only when you truly see this, will you be free in the only way that holds water: the freedom to allow yourself to be what you cannot help but be, and to choose to do what nature demands.” — Bernardo Kastrup

“A free choice is not the opposite of a determined choice; indeed, a free choice is always determined, but determined by that which we identify with. And what we identify with is our subjectivity. Choices determined by our subjectivity are free, while choices determined by agencies outside our subjectivity aren’t …

The necessities entailed by our being are experienced by us as our desires. Allow me to repeat this, for it is the key point: the necessities entailed by our very being are our desires; this is what our desires are, have always been, and will always be: the manifestation of the necessities intrinsic to our being. This is why the question of free will is a meaningless red herring: it presupposes that necessity and desire are distinct—even dichotomous—things …

This is what you must try to see so to realize that the whole discussion about free will is nonsensical … There is no fundamental distinction between necessity and desire. What the universal subject desires to do is what its intrinsic dispositions dictate; its desires are determined by what it is. And what the universal subject must do is what it desires irresistibly to do; it can’t desire otherwise because its desires, too, are dictated by what it is.” — Bernardo Kastrup

Expand full comment