It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Christ - Antichrist antinomy.

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I think the central issue here, from my understanding of Jung (of whom I have read a lot) is the dichotomy between personal truth and the collective. We are social creatures who depend upon one another not just for survival but for everything we know starting with language. But at some points in our lives we encounter conflicts between some personal experience we have ourselves, and the collectively accepted "truths".

People handle these conflicts in different ways. Many stay with the collective, coming up with suitable ways to explain away contradictory experiences. This lets them maintain the benefits of the community, but shuts them off from seeking any more sublime truths about the universe. Effectively it closes their minds, but it's an easier life in the long run, as long as contradictory experiences are not too common (in which case you'll end up with a neurosis under this solution).

Those choosing to seek after their personal truths (the "Christ" symbol) have a harder time because they are forced to go against the grain, but are rewarded (or cursed) with knowledge that is denied to the herd-mind. However, there is a tightrope here that must be walked, because you are still a social animal that needs society. Go your own way too much, and you become shut off from your social roots and unless you are particularly strong you may go insane.

Jung was all about balance. He was always careful to describe the two sides to any story objectively, without favoring one side over another. In his view the trick to life was actively maintaining the balance between all the various contradictory forces in your psyche, something that requires a constant effort and cannot be done lazily (laziness will result in one-sidedness on one side or the other).

The guy was extraordinarily interesting. Some of the choices he made in his personal life are personally repellent to me, so it was hard to get into him at first because of my prejudices. His contributions to knowledge were not made without the suffering of himself and those close to him. But contributions they certainly were.

They're the sort of ideas which once you understand what he meant, you cannot both ignore them and remain intellectually honest. You might refute them, but that means they are significant enough to demand refutation. They cannot be casually ignored like one might do with more obviously ignorant ideas.

S&F for a great thread.



edit on 20-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


Don't get me wrong, Jung was smart and understood there are mysteries because he searched high and low to uncover them . I haven't studied him in depth but it appears his own experiences drove him in many different directions, in an attempt to put his finger on and have that one "aha" moment to find the highest truths there are about God himself.

Let me just state for the record before I proceed that there are billions of people who follow Christianity but Jesus predicted in the Bible that there was one narrow path that leads to full disclosure of God that can be attained before one dies and crosses over to the other side. He said few will find it - many are called - few are chosen. In the Gospel of Thomas he throws some numbers at us, as to how few get to know the mysteries, that He himself dislcoses; one out of a thousand - two in ten thousand. When I use the term "christian" or "christianity" I'm using it in the most narrow of senses.

True Christianity is the fast track to full disclosure of the highest truths, and part of the narrow path is actually following the directions Jesus gave, in the order he gave them. The one constant theme found throughout the Bible and also the very first words out of Jesus' mouth at the beginning of his ministry is to Repent. It's that easy. But most people only do that when they are in a crisis or a calamity comes upon them or the city they live in. It's as if Jung lost sight of this.

He understood that there needed to be a merging of left/right male/female to make one whole. He knew a union had to take place. He knew it was referred to as an alchemical process. But did he ever experience it? Was he ever able to explain the who, what, when, why and where? My guess is that he knew from the writings of others something extraordinary can take place within an individual, but he never experienced it. And if he did experience it he focussed to much on "self" and how one can attain being "Christ-like" instead of what it really is - Christ in you.

He would have done better to have dabbled in Kabbalah and a study of the Cathars, in my opinion. He understood the tetramorph of the four evangelists, with Christ being the center - yet he didn't understand the power of the cross. And when a person understands the power of the cross - they will understand the meaning behind "as above, so below."

Divine union produces the man-child. Did Jung have the man-child? There is a true church and a false church. The true church brings forth the man child. For myself this is where theology is headed and will ultimately diivide into two groups. One for it and the other against it.

Would you be for it or against it? Are you pro or anti??



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
without trying to get into the world of Jung.......


The inner self which unites with the greater collective counsciousness/mind is the 'Christ'


it is when one crosses a morality boundary that they personify "antiChrist"
be it as a sociopath or in the form of an 'Elite'
the elite is destructive in the fact their role is to manipulate
the less-enlightened masses and guide them in certain directions.


anti-Christ does not always mean a deranged murderer or sinister lifeforce



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 




Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I felt that no matter how far Jung moved away from their camp he still can be grouped in the same category with them. One sided analysis.


I respect your opinion. However I must mention that I recall reading that Jung himself studied himself as much as the patients, which he expresses expicitly in his autobiography. If I recall correctly, there was the case of woman who was very disappointed with her son, thus developed a "mental disorder" which affected her capability to walk. After succesful projection (she projected the expectations she had towards her own son into succesful doctor Jung) and she left the clinic without any trouble with her feet. Besides of that, I recall Jung mentions in several cases that analyst/patient relationship is a difficult one, and can even some cases make the problem worse.

Anyhow, I think I know what you mean. Whomever practices the art of "soul healing" in any form (be that priest, guru or psychologist) must always proceed with great caution and surrender into the relationship as deep as the patient.

-v


edit on 20-9-2010 by v01i0 because: 932



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Hi and thanks for a very thoughtful post



Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Those choosing to seek after their personal truths (the "Christ" symbol) have a harder time because they are forced to go against the grain, but are rewarded (or cursed) with knowledge that is denied to the herd-mind. However, there is a tightrope here that must be walked, because you are still a social animal that needs society. Go your own way too much, and you become shut off from your social roots and unless you are particularly strong you may go insane.


Indeed that is a narrow path to tread upon.


Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Jung was all about balance. He was always careful to describe the two sides to any story objectively, without favoring one side over another


This is also how I feel after reading his works. Also he never expressed his findings as absolute truths, but rather as possibilities, which were supported by facts and great deal of experience - after all, IIRC, he had analyzed more than 10.000 people and not even all of them were mad.

-v



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrtales Instinct
 



Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct

He would have done better to have dabbled in Kabbalah and a study of the Cathars, in my opinion. He understood the tetramorph of the four evangelists, with Christ being the center - yet he didn't understand the power of the cross. And when a person understands the power of the cross - they will understand the meaning behind "as above, so below."


I had the impression that he did understand this. Of course, his works consists quite many tomes of heavy text, and while I've not read them all, I've got the impression that he indeed understood this.


Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
Would you be for it or against it? Are you pro or anti??


I dunno
I let others decide.

While gnosis has deep knowledge about psychology, I do think that it is much less refined art as it is possible to understand psychology in scientific terms. Gnosis is based on ad-hoc psychology of human being, based much on ancient knowledge (which hasn't gone away from the world but is still living and well). But there is - in my opinion, which is based on some empiricism and research - a feeling of underripeness in it. It mystifies too much and rationally explains too little. Although I understand that somethings cannot be understood rationally, but much more like emotionally, with intuition. Yet gnosis represents things in very flickering and metaphysica symbols, some which I could explain more explicitly. At least to myself that is


Thanks for the clarification and a decent post


-v



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 



Originally posted by St Udio

The inner self which unites with the greater collective counsciousness/mind is the 'Christ'


Yepzor, the Christ is the relationship between man and god (symbolically speaking) and Qabalah expresses this with the Sephira of Tiphereth (or however it is typed). It kinda unites the upper part of tree of life with the lower parts. The puzzles are perhaps quite fitting.

-v



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by davidgrouchy
I felt that no matter how far Jung moved away from their camp he still can be grouped in the same category with them. One sided analysis.



Originally posted by v01i0
I respect your opinion. However I must mention that I recall reading that Jung himself studied himself as much as the patients, which he expresses expicitly in his autobiography.



If only the patients had all recorded
their analysis of him in their own diaries.



If I recall correctly, there was the case of woman who was very disappointed with her son, thus developed a "mental disorder" which affected her capability to walk. After succesful projection (she projected the expectations she had towards her own son into succesful doctor Jung) and she left the clinic without any trouble with her feet.


No kidding. That's awesome!
She's not really fully analyzing him, but
by wielding one of his tools she actually got to spar with him.


David Grouchy


edit on 20-9-2010 by davidgrouchy because: missing word



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by v01i0
 


thanks....


but i still think that the reality of duality (upper portion of Life Tree & lower portion of Life Tree)

is only one aspect of 'G0D' and the joining process isn't Christ like, alkthough Christ did unite
all of dual nature, right brain-left brain, etc, etc, et al

the Physical Jesus and the Spiritual 'Christ' is another exmple of the creative nature & unity...
as opposed to destruction which is anti-christ...


my own model is more appropriate to my mind-brain than the esorteric Quabalah-Kabbalah tree of Life or other exotic sacred geometries... but thanks for your efforts



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 



Originally posted by St Udio

my own model is more appropriate to my mind-brain than the esorteric Quabalah-Kabbalah tree of Life or other exotic sacred geometries.


Man, I think that is exactly how it should be
Everyone should have models of their owns for explanating such things, instead that of accepting some readily chewed dogma. I have my model as well. But I think it is still useful to explore what others may have thought about these things, as long as one don't make them dogmas. Then again, we all start with same capability to figure these things out.. So anybody out there ain't having any advance when compared to ourselves.

I'd say thats good for you, but you know better!


-v



edit on 20-9-2010 by v01i0 because: 086







 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join