| Carlo Suarés : De Quelques Apprentis-Sorciers : Some Apprentice Sorcerers :
Who is Jung?
Carl Gustav Jung. Born in Kesswill in the Canton of Turgovia (Switzerland), July 26, 1875. After studying medicine at the University of Zurich. he followed Pierre Janet's lessons at La Salpjtrihre (1908), then worked at Zurich under the direction of Eugen Bleuler. He obtained his psychiatric diploma in 1905. Two years later, he meets Sigmund Freud. In 1911, he was elected president of the Psychoanalytic Association international, which has just been founded. Following the publication of his work Metamorphoses and symbols of the libido (1912), he came into conflict with Freud, from whom he definitively separated the following year. In 1946, his poor health no longer allowed him to exercise his functions as Professor at the Polytechnic Zurich and the University of Basel. An Institute bearing his name was founded in Zurich in 1948. He died on June 6 1961.
His best known work is The Man Discovering His Soul
C. G. Jung
The Old Man of the Earth.
31. - Who is Jung?
Jung might have understood why and how we turn our back on him: the way a second relay runner necessarily turns his back on the first, after having received from him the emblem of the race. Not that we received nothing from Jung: we owe him nothing. To tell the truth, we are only discovering it, as it is exactly situated, as a personal myth, in the curve of a myth two thousand years old. Jung, this giant, he, yes, is big enough to mark the end of a myth: not Goethe and his Faust, nor even Nietzche, whom we had thought a long time ago, that he could have had this function.
I do not think, in my considerations about man and his myth, to have uttered an ultimate truth, but I think that is all that can be said at the end of the Age of Pisces and perhaps, what must be said about the threshold of the Aquarian era (the water carrier) that comes, which has a human figure and succeeds the sign of Pisces. This is a "coniunctio oppositorum" composed of two inverted fish. The water carrier seems to represent the individual  himself. With a sovereign gesture, he pours the contents of his jug into the mouth of "Piscis austrinus" which symbolizes a son, a content that is still unconscious.
And we, no less lucid than him, declare ourselves, in the new era, part of this new consciousness. From here. Jung appears to us exactly as he saw himself, but from outside, that is to say outside of a period that he has been able to embrace in its entirety. He appears to us in the container of a very old man, heavy with all the perception of his time, as he advanced to the extreme limit of his era, beyond which his consciousness could not to venture out. He was predestined. He was the predestination of the gaze plunged into the past, into a past hitherto unconscious of itself, but which, like these dying people who, with a single act of consciousness perceive the totality, the reason for being and the constituent elements of their lives, integrated at the moment marked for its annihilation.
Thus, Jung is not discussed, one notes it. First of all, as he found himself, in the
 English version of the self, that we dare not translate either by the self or by the self. We refer here to "Memories, dreams, reflections", Pantheon Books, New-York, 3rd edition, 1963
modesty, the humility of one who was nothing other than the very task that was accomplished; first so, yes; but then as we see it beyond the threshold he could not cross: dead. Dead Jung, dead archetypes, dead numinous symbols, dead the Dei image, dead all this mythological phantasmagoria. Woe to those who let them selves be enchanted by this magic of the past! Jung is not the pioneer, the explorer of the regions of the unconscious who traces paths for future explorers: he is the duration, the totalization of this past. It has become one of those stones which constitute all the high places witnessing the mutations of the spirit.
He was right about us: it is, here, with him, a "coniunctio oppositorum" in all truth. With him, which preceded us, the vital flow was going, we are willing to believe, from the unconscious to the conscious; here, it is no longer in terms of this division that the reverse current occurs, it is not from an (arbitrary) part called conscious to another part (just as arbitrary) called unconscious, but from the "self" , from oneself, from individuation to (like a son) what the self generates, which, in these extraordinarily distant times - yesterday, when Jung was there - was still called the unconscious. And this is what he saw, without obviously seeing it, because between him and us there is the whole duration, the total duration of a total era.
Intelligence captive in the shell of the psyche is no longer intelligence, is no longer anything but thought. And thought lets itself be manipulated by what Jung calls archetypes, these living lines of force, preexisting in the psyche, which crystallize the psyche according to their designs and their designs. This is how Jung, while knowing, does not know who he is, because what he is - who he is - he sees only the imprint on the sensitive shell of the psyche. It is seen upside down, hollow for full. What is full, for him is hollow. Of course: it is the ground, it is the earth, it is the stone which bears the imprint of the foot that walked and the fossil imprints of the lost generations.
It is only by means of the psyche that we can see that the divinity acts on us: in doing so we are unable to distinguish whether these efficacies come from God or from the unconscious, that is to say that we we cannot settle the question of knowing if the divinity and the unconscious constitute two different magnitudes. Both are borderline concepts for transcendental content .
Can we finally see the threshold that the psyche cannot cross, for the obvious reason that it does not stop building it, with the aim of never crossing it? If she did not surround herself with her cocoon, she could not mature. Enveloping itself is its maturing process. And who thinks? Who is the thinker, who,
 See: Response to Job.
stupidly - and with what success with the public - perceiving themselves thinking, declares "I am"? And what is this thought, if not the evaluation, of animal origin, and which remains purely animal, more and less, of what can, or does not, satisfy appetites or ward off dangers? And what is so mysterious about the fact that this collective thought in animal species crystallizes in man, the way in which water crystallizes in ice at an end point? And this limit point where the psyche becomes psyche, in accordance with pre-existing "archetypes", is it so metaphysical that one cannot discover in these "numinous beings" the appetites and fears of the animal kingdom? The crystallization of the animal psyche into a human psyche is a fact. Whether the reasons for this are found in theories and hypotheses, for or against the idea of ??evolution, matters little. What matters is the humbly honest observation that human thought is only an advanced form of animal thought. It appears in the most distant darkness of consciousness, as an organization of existence. Having acquired in man a certain autonomy - or an appearance of autonomy, individuals being much more conditioned by the collective than they believe - this thought modifies the organization: this in turn establishes in the brain adaptation circuits; these still modify, invent, perfect, occasionally demolish and rebuild; the new medium reacts again on the brain; this one sets out again on its new acquisitions ... Irreversible process, which led us to our historical turn, where the organization, implied in a new limit point by the dizzying multiplication and transformation of the data, rots in a private disorganization of data.
Our readers will remember that these considerations were the starting point for this book. By means of examples - Gandhi, Roncalli, Teilhard. Lecomte du No|y - we followed the drama of the thought of the measurable, grappling with the immeasurable world that has become ours. His attempt to climb the immeasurable to be adequate for his tasks, that is to say to regenerate himself in religious myths, to find even a reminder of distant memories where Revelation, in a form or the other, may have appeared in its freshness, this attempt is futile because it is untrue. It is untrue. because it is not for its material organizational tasks that thought wants to be immeasurable: it is for itself.
Up to the threshold of our era, she believed - from the beginning of time - to be able to organize the world in accordance with some imago Dei (to use the language of Jung); at this threshold we just read his confession: we are unable to distinguish whether these efficiencies come from God or from the unconscious. And this state of confusion, Jung admirably sees the cause, without seeing it. We always come back to this contradiction inherent in thought itself: we cannot settle the question of knowing whether the divinity and the unconscious constitute two different magnitudes. We have read it correctly: two different quantities, Divinity in measure, in the measurable, in the more and the less. Both are borderline concepts for transcendental content. We have still read it well: limit concepts, that is to say, increasingly large numbers, increasingly large quantities, up to the limit point, where, not being able to swell more, we say to ourselves : transcendence would be bad thanks to not being "contained" within these limits.
What then is this threshold where thought, which gave itself the illusion of intelligence, revealed stupidity? This threshold is obviously that where, after having crystallized into an apparent individuation, the psyche continues its metamorphosis. But thought cannot follow it, because it cannot cross this threshold. Perhaps we will see later how individuation, according to Jung, is only the image of an individuation and how this completion of the person in a metaphysical Self is only the projection of this image. For Jung, metamorphosis, even in the Aquarian age, is impossible, because the psyche, as he describes it, realizes that its structure is a congregation of living beings (the numinous archetypes) of which it knows that she only perceives images, as in a mirror (because, moreover, she knows she is a mirror). She realizes therefore, that she: psyche, is only the substance which is organized on the frame, given and preestablished, of a constellation of beings, whose birth it does not perceive. So she can't perceive death either. Therefore, it proves its own immortality: C.Q.F.D.
To prove your own immortality - as a soul, as a Self, as a succession of incarnations, etc. - it is to prohibit, by a feeling of self-defense, the access to the new era.
Having now picked up the elements of our response, let us ask ourselves again: Who is Jung?
32. -- So who is Jung?
He is none other than the Nahhash (the serpent) of the Garden of Eden.
The few who have kindly given credit to some of our writings previous , already understand (if, moreover, they have penetrated Jung - which we do not think his epigones have ever done), to what extent Jung played this role, noting down to the smallest details, without knowing what it was. It's obvious: if he had known, he would have deliberately put himself in the character's shoes and would have played the comedy. But he had, from his point of view, a compelling reason for not knowing himself this serpent: like everyone else he only knew this story in reverse. Certain events of the psyche are due to storms, to hurricanes unleashed by the violence of the breath of cosmic life, which fall on his well-closed, very cozy house, and have the whole appearance of wanting to destroy it. Trembling with prenatal fear, the psyche can only feel, deep down, that "good" is its refuge and "evil" the destruction of this refuge: destruction avoided by those who retreat into the past, but deliverance (the word is correct) for others.
To understand this role of Jung, let's summarize the myth of the Garden of Eden, in its truth. This snake - Nahhash 50-8-300 - is the actualization of all that the strongest condensation of matter (such as stones) can release from cosmic movement . The serpent, coiled in the infractuosities of the earth, phallic, rapid, suddenly launching, is, mythically, son of the Earth (as opposed to the son of Heaven), son of Mothers (as opposed to the son of the Father), it is all that the large female can generate from male, it is the proof that she can engender it, the proof of an essential and primordial fertilization (which, by the successive stages of the transfiguration of the feminine, will lead to the birth of an incarnate god). Such is the 50-8-300, emerging from the earth.
Here he is, erect, heir to all that the earth has been able to generate from animal verticality, exploring in his field and he suddenly stops before an unexpected spectacle: two standing beings, vertical like him (and more than him). One is Adamm (the Aleph in blood - we assume the reader remembers our explanations). The other, of feminine aspect, is not embodied (we strongly insist on this point); it's Icha: 1-300-5. Icha is the wife of Ich, the fire. (Adamah, the cultivable soil, is the feminine of Adam; much later, Hheva - and not Eve - becomes the wife of the man and the mother "of all the living"). For the moment, the feminine element is Icha and, we repeat, is not embodied. It is the life of the cosmic breath of creative immanence. And let us specify, to define it better, that lcha has never been expelled from the Garden of Eden. Only Adam was expelled. The text is formal on this point (Gen. III 23/24 "And YHWH-Elohim sent him away from" Gan-Eden "to cultivate Adamah from which he had been taken. He drove out Adam ...) We can
 In particular in La Kabale des Kabales, the allegory of the famous scene of the eaten fruit is explained in detail.
 Readers who would have opened this book to this chapter, would benefit from placing it in its general context.
imagine Icha, until this day, in this enclosure - ("gann" suggests sheath; we do not know if it is an etymology or a pun, but in any case English garden and even garden come, as well as so many other words, from Hebrew) still somewhat asleep, and appearing, Hellenized, under a name, Psyche, who remembers lcha, or under other pseudonyms. (We see that the popular invention of a "bad woman", Lilith, preceding "Eve", comes from the usual inversion of these themes.)
Nahhach and lcha thus meet, in "coniunctio oppositorum", would say Jung once again: in a unique and contradictory movement ... vertiginous (the biblical story describes it perfectly, but we cannot dwell on all these details), where they assume a cosmic scale. And, except this movement (the Sheen = 300) all their symbols are indeed contradictory. Jung is as old as one can be, Psyche is awakening; he has taken away all the memory of the earth, all the knowledge accumulated by the centuries, all the duration of time and has gathered the fruit of it; but the fire of the sky, it is in it that it shines. And as it is she who generates the new era, in total opposition to the bygone era, Jung can only take refuge in the past, but not without having transmitted his heritage. This is what matters, this is what counts in Jung's work. The double movement, or, rather, the single movement generated by opposing lines of force, is constantly in motion. On the one hand, Psyche, always in contact with the unfathomable, the unknowable, reveals what this contact is from Jung's very young age, to a very old man (his No. 2) who lives in him: Here lived "the Other", who knew God as a hidden secret, personal and at the same time supra-personal ... On the other hand, she let him know that the fruit is eaten well, and reveals to him, an overwhelming way, what is the mythical knowledge of Good and Evil: these two opposites are united in God himself.
Jung will spend his life exposing this myth, with more or less happiness, by confusing evil and good, the low and the high, the birth of Homo Sapiens and original sin, the rise of Cain and the crime . It is the penalty for those who are instructed while sleeping ...
33. - A dream and stones.
Extraordinarily early. Jung, at the age of three or four, had a dream that would haunt him all his life: a dark, rectangular hole in the ground; a staircase which descends; he takes it with fear; below, an arched door with a sumptuous green curtain; he raises the curtain and enters a poorly lit rectangular room, paved in stone and vaulted in stone; in the center, a red carpet; on the carpet, a platform; on it a magnificent golden throne, royal as in a fairy tale; finally, on the throne, something he first takes for a tree trunk, twelve to fifteen feet high, going almost to the ceiling: a huge thing; he realizes that it is made of bare skin and flesh; above, a sort of faceless round head. and at the very top, looking up without moving, one eye. He is paralyzed with terror; at this moment, he hears the voice of his mother above him which says: "Look at him, he is the man eater".
Much later, he realizes that what he had seen was a phallus, that the green curtain represented a meadow, and he notes that the red carpet was the color of blood. He finds Hellenic interpretations and does not even think of looking for them at their origin: DAM is blood, ADAM man, ADAMAH earth. At the end of his life, this dream still haunts him: anyway, he says, the phallus of this dream seems to be an underground god, "not to name".
We easily name him: his name is Jung. With this dream of a child of three to four years, a phenomenon, to our knowledge, unique, prodigious, occurred: the myth revealed its real, objective existence; he demonstrated that psychic facts are realities, that is to say real, organic forces, having their own biology and their historical unfolding parallel to that of the chroniclers. These beings, structured according to the "numinous archetypes" of the divine-unconscious, we, of the new era where we are, we know the secrets: these beings are vampires. These are the dead who live by sucking the blood of the living. "Look at him, he is the man-eater", exclaims Jung's mother, in this dream that she pierces with a prophetic voice that she sometimes happens to have, even in everyday life Because myth has taken hold of this young consciousness. And Jung imprinted on him the incurable seal of a pseudo-Christian origin. He could not go back to his primordial ontological source. This young child, so precocious, was already conditioned by his Protestant environment. The myth which, before ending, picked up in itself its duration from its origin, found the medium (in the broadest sense of the word) that it needed to proclaim its life in the moment that he was dying. Jung lived his death, thinking he was living his life, and in doing so lived his life, but backwards, because everything that predates the Christian stage was already closed to him by his environment.
What is remarkable about Christianity, he writes, is that, in its dogmatic system, it anticipates a metamorphosis of the divinity, a process of historical change "on the other side". He does this in the form of the new myth of dissension in heaven, the first allusion of which is the myth of Creation, in which appears in the form of a serpent an antagonist of the Creator, which incites man to disobey, by luring him by the promise of increased conscious knowledge.
The truth is exactly the opposite of these assertions: Christianity has only frozen in a Hellenic mythology the intense movement of the Hebrew myth: we have seen it quite often: what interests us here is the reminder of the serpent as the beginning of the myth which will become that of Jung himself: that this is MY fable, MY truth, he writes. He will never tell that his unconscious identification with the phallus-serpent of the earth. The Lord Jesus never became completely real, for me, never completely acceptable, never entirely worthy of being loved ... Each time someone spoke to me of him in exalted terms ... , I thought back to its underground counterpart, to this terrifying revelation which had been granted to me without my having sought it.
Here it is, led by something or someone who owns it: this foreign host, both from above and from below ... Through this childhood dream, I had been introduced to the secrets of the earth. What happened was a sort of burial in the earth, and many years had to pass before I got out. Today I know - he wrote at the end of his life - that this happened in order to introduce as much light as possible into the darkness. My intellectual life had its unconscious beginning at that time ... but also its secret life, so fraught with significance ..., at the age of four!
From seven to nine years old, always harboring his secret, he sometimes plays with fire. He takes the habit of lighting a fire in the interstices of the stones of a certain wall, a "sacred" fire which must never be extinguished and which he alone has the right to maintain. Facing this wall, a stone emerges from the sloping ground. Often when I was alone, I would sit on this stone and then begin a play of imagination which went approximately like this: "I sit above this stone, and it is below". But the stone also could say "I" and think: "I lie here, on this slope, and he sits on me". The question then presented itself: "Am I the one who sits on this stone or am I the stone on which he" sits "? This question always puzzled me and I got up, wondering who, now, was what. The answer remained quite vague and this uncertainty was accompanied by a curious and fascinating feeling of darkness. But there was no doubt that this stone had secret dealings with me.
Thirty years later, he returns to this place and feels caught up in the world of his childhood. It was scary, he notes much later, because this world of my childhood, in which I had just abandoned myself, was ETERNAL and I had been removed from it, and had fallen into a time that had continued to flow , going further and further. The attraction of this other world was so strong that I had to tear myself violently from this place so as not to give up the direction of my future.
Jung's confusion between eternal immobile duration and eternity is constant. If it is true that the word eternity never has any meaning (reason why it would be well to avoid it), the conflict of emotions, which it reveals here, is significant. In spite of his awareness, at the age of twelve or thirteen, where he exclaims: Now I am myself, now I exist, despite all his inner work in sight to complete his "Self", despite the affirmation of his success, he never ceased to be so "the other" and to oscillate between a false eternity and the passage of time. He never stopped transferring his "me" to stones, surrounding himself with a complex protection system (his house, his family, his job as a psychiatrist) in order to not get lost. At the age of eighty - after the death of his wife in 1955 - ... I felt the inner obligation to become what I myself am. To express it in the language of the house in Bollingen, I suddenly realized that its small central section, squatting so low, so hidden, was myself.
This house in Bollingen, he had built in the 17th century style, for the needs of the old gentleman who lived in the 18th century, who wore shoes with buckles and a white wig, and who was, in Jung, "the other, from the age of twelve, to the end of his life. Does this mean that he was mad? No. It was special. Was he not cured, at the age of twelve, of a neurosis, by his intelligence and his will alone? But, therefore, he made a colossal error in generalizing his case - that, incidentally, he only perceived through his "possessed" psyche. There is nothing to justify his assertion (which made it successful): there are archaic psychic components, which entered the individual psyche without any direct line of tradition .
We do not deny that archaic vestiges can exist in the psyche, just as, in the body, vestiges of gills, for example. These psychic vestiges have the same animal origin as the physiological vestiges. There is nothing "numinous" about them. We immerse ourselves in them, resuscitate them, it is, as we have just seen, generate vampires. If Jung, this prince of apprentice sorcerers, had not had recourse to innumerable mandalas  to stabilize, a constant transfer on stones and a whole structure of existence, one might think that he would have lost his mind.
34. - The false problem solved.
We know that his father was a pastor whose faith, little assured, was expressed only in banalities of a moral order, in praise of an infinitely perfect God, etc. Since his first dream, the child Jung had impatiently received these teachings: he knew that his father did not dare to face the problem of evil and could not solve it, but he had had the revelation of him. antagonist hidden under the ground. One day, leaving school one fine summer noon, he sees the roof of the cathedral shining wonderfully at
 Cited work, page 23.
 Mandalas are symbolic drawings, often complex, on a square and symmetrical diagram. Jung drew thousands to stabilize his psyche,
the sun, and think: the world is beautiful and the church is beautiful and God has done all this, and he sits above, far away, in the blue sky on a golden throne ... Here occurred a big hole in my thoughts, he writes, and a feeling of suffocation. I felt like I was paralyzed and didn't know that, "Don't keep thinking now. Something terrible is happening, something that I don't want to think, that I don't even dare to approach. Why? Because it would be a terrible sin ... "
Three days and two nights, he struggles in tortures, saying to himself: "don't think, don't think"; and "I don't want to think until the end"; and again "why should I think of something I don't know"? "Who wants to force me to think what I don't want to know"? And "where does this terrible thing come from"? And "why is it on me that it comes"? Terror seizes him. He is frozen with sweat. We think he's sick. In his eleven-year-old child's head he waves the rudiments of "holy history" that he has been taught, and reasons "If Adam and Eve sinned, it is because God, in his omniscience wanted him; therefore, it was God's intention that they commit sin. He realizes that according to conventional morality we must avoid sin, but he tells himself that he cannot continue like this. However, before submitting to the "divine will", he wants to understand it, because he is convinced that this desperate problem of evil, it is God who is the author. Curiously, the idea never occurs to him that it is the devil who drives him. He is fully convinced that the salvation of his immortal soul is at stake. "God knows that I cannot resist for a long time yet, and he does not help me, although I am on the point of committing irremediable sin. .. It is obvious that God also wants me to have courage ... If it is so and if I go to the end, he will give me his grace and enlightenment.
Is he able to go to eternal damnation, in obedience to God? ... What a problem, for a child of eleven!
And here, in response to this problem, the vision that presents itself to him: I picked up all my courage, as if to rush into hellfire, and I allowed this thought to present itself to me. I live in front of me the cathedral and the blue sky ... God sits on his golden throne, very high above the world - and from beneath the throne an enormous mass of feces falls on the new sparkling roof, puts it in pieces, completely demolishes the cathedral.
The child immediately experiences unspeakable bliss, an enlightenment. Many things, hitherto obscure, become clear; he received grace . And why? Because he obeyed God. But why did God excrete on his cathedral? It was a terrible thought to me. Then came a glimmer of understanding: God could be something terrible. I had experienced a dark and terrible secret. He cast his shadow over my whole life, and I became deeply pensive.
This secret, combined with the taboo of the phallus dream (which he dared not reveal until sixty-five years of age), reveals to those who have emerged from these psychic conflicts, that the old man, the very old Jung, does not never came out of childhood. And it is normal that we see it thus, because, for each new era, that which precedes it has not yet reached maturity. You could say that, all his life, he consciously played a role of which he was oblivious. We have just seen, in this role of the serpent, go to the end of the pseudo-knowledge of "good" and "evil". This revelation, which the psyche transmits to him, to show him that he has understood and assimilated the problem, betrays, however, much more than it translates, the original ontological message. But, in Jung's mind, it is the culmination and the accomplishment of the first announcement of the Christian myth the dissension in heaven and the appearance of the antagonistic serpent. We can see how carefully he plays this phase of the myth. The second allusion to the myth is, according to him, the premature invasion of the human world by unconscious content. And there again, we see him as a conscious-unconscious actor, since this invasion occurred in him as early as three or four years of rage. Finally, the third, final stage is, for Jung, that of the self-realization of God in human form. It is this incarnation that he wanted to be, expressing it thus: the unconscious, in its totality, has penetrated the psychic field of interior experience, and man has been made aware of all that is come to constitute its true configuration. It was a decisive step, not only for man, but also for the Creator.
Driven by speculations of this kind, man zealously goes to the aid of God. But it is not clear who this God is. Jung's ignorance of the original Hebrew message never made him say that mistakes about the tetragrammaton Y.H.W.H. which he transforms into a character named Yahveh.
For the moment, let us simply note that the solution of the problem of good and evil, revealed by his psyche, if it is valid for him, has nothing to do with the problem posed by Biblical Genesis (Gen. III. 22) : YhwhElohim, said to him the Adam, here he is like one of us, for the knowledge of Tov and Raa. To simplify our explanation, we will extract, from the vulgar meaning of this sequence of diagrams, only the meaning of Tov (9.6.2) which we translate "Good" and Raa (200.70) which we translate "Evil", and that in very few words:
Tov is the fruitful beauty of the house. Raa is the cosmic actualization of all possible possibilities. We immediately see that this immeasurable updating very often requires the demolition of beautiful houses where, in all the compartments of existence, we dream of settling down. Adam is then, as Homo Sapiens, expelled from the psychic matrix, projected into existence, and the path of the tree of life (the tree of the dead and resurrections) is protected by the cherubim and the flaming blade. of the sword which turns. The myth is infinitely more complex and more current, in the immediate life of daily existence, than Jung never imagined. Instead of understanding that there is life only in dead and resurrections indefinitely lived, always new, always intense in the timelessness of the discovery, he lived the reverse direction of this vital movement, by freezing in the long term: In Bollingen, I am in the interior of my real life, I am in the deepest part of myself. Here I am, so to speak, the aged son of the mother's old man. This is how alchemy expresses it with wisdom, because the old old man whom I had already known internally in my childhood, is personality 2, which has always been and will always be. He exists outside of time and is the son of the maternal unconscious. In my imagination it took the form of Philemon and it comes back to life in Bollingen.
In light of all that we have said so far, is it still necessary to comment on this text? This old man, canned away from the passage of time, is not "out of time", it is duration itself, and makes necrosis in all its forms. The timeless is the opposite of these bindings. Straddling the flow of passing seconds, it is too fast in its being to have time to think. He has no time to think because there is no time in him. To be "out of time" has no meaning. Thought is time, intelligence is non-time. How should we still say it? ... Jung's individuation is therefore a false individuation. It is a production of which we can easily see the elements that constitute it. What is made up of elements is always divisible, since it is a compound. What is decomposable is not individualized. The device of false thought is identical to itself, ad nauseam, Jung writes volumes on an alleged divinity, known as Yahweh, while admitting: We must remain aware of the fact that we can only sketch an anthropomorphic image , which, moreover, is not easy to imagine. Or Y.H.W.H. has only one requirement: that no image be made of this tetragrammaton. As soon as there is an image, it is no longer that (we avoid saying: it is no longer him; "he" is already an image).
35. - The old man.
It is not our intention to pursue Jung through his twenty volumes. If his work in the field of psychotherapy is valid (we have no competence to judge it), let psychiatrists be inspired by it. But to the extent that we have the health that common sense confers, it would be wrong to follow it in the prehistoric caves of the monsters of the unconscious: our current world has a tragic need for new minds.
The cause of necrosis in Jung is attributable to the method, and it is not attributable to Jung: he did not choose it, it imposed itself on him from the age of three or four years, with such force of conviction and such continuity that he did not think of questioning it. And yet she carried her own condemnation. We now know that dreams are far from all having the same origin. The millions of circuits in the brain do not all undergo the same interruption during sleep, and this, for sometimes purely physiological reasons, certain parts of the body may be more tired or more painful than others, etc., etc. These partially open circuits communicate with each other as best they can, which causes the absurdities of most dreams. Other sensory, emotional causes, apparent or hidden in the corners where moral censorship or some trauma condemns them, also intervene. And finally, we have in us innumerable fossil circuits, inheritance of the whole duration of life on this planet (assuming that life has not been transmitted to Earth from other planets). We know all this, and we know that no one has ever been able to untangle the skein of dreams, not even Jung, who has repeatedly seen it himself.
Why then did he give himself the task of reconstructing the primitive psychic unconscious? Why did he invent the anima, which for the individual is all of life that has been in the past and is still alive in him? Why does he attach so much importance to what he calls the unconscious, which, if anything, must consist of the first stages of evolution of our conscious psyche? And from what pre-established philosophy do some of his assertions come?
Our souls, as well as our bodies, are made up of individual elements which were all already present in the lineage of our ancestors. The "new" in the individual psyche is an endless variation of recombinations of components as old as the world. Body and soul, therefore, have an intensely historical character and have no place in what is new, in things that have just come into existence.
If (in everyday life) our impressions are too distinct, we are caught in the hour and minute of the present and have no way of knowing whether our ancestral psyches hear and understand the present - in other words, if our unconscious responds to the present.
These few words should be enough to eliminate the word "unconscious", as well as the logic of a false thought which wants us to cease all contact with life, in order to know how we react to life. We are no longer surprised to read that, faced with the changing flow in which we are plunged, we must not envisage (social, material) "forward" reforms. Regression reforms are generally less costly and, moreover, more durable, because they return to the greatest simplicity, to the tried and tested means of the past, and make as little use as possible of newspapers, radios, televisions and all the innovations that are supposed to save time.
And here is the spectacle of the old son of Earth, as he dialogues with his dead:
In the tower of Bollingen, it is as if one lived in several centuries simultaneously. This place will survive us. In its site and its style, it indicates the direction, backwards, towards the things of a distant past. There is very little that can suggest the present. If a man of the sixteenth century came to settle in the house, only the kerosene lamp and the matches would be new to him: otherwise, he would find his way around without difficulty. Nothing bothers the dead, neither electric light, nor telephone. In addition, the souls of my ancestors are supported by the atmosphere of the house, since I answer for them the questions that their lives have left behind. I'm siding answers as best I can. I even drew them on the walls. It is as if a silent and larger family, stretching out over the centuries, populated the house. There, I live my second personality, and I see the life around as something that, indefinitely, comes into existence and passes.
36. - The aberration.
Let us leave this "second personality" in the perfect happiness of its necropolis, and quickly see how a false thought can arise, powerful enough to lead the mind to proclaim aberrations. We are very interested in this process, since we see it from the earliest documents in history, to the present day.
Would someone feel tempted, considering the images of the divinity which populate our representative universe, to consider them with this kind of casualness which incites to say: "it is only ..." he would put himself in contradiction formal with experience which reveals in an impressive way - the slightest doubt being excluded on this point - the extraordinary numinosity of these images. Their unparalleled effectiveness (which is the definition of "mana") is such that one has the feeling, when evoking them, not only to allude to "Ens realissum" - the supreme reality - but also to name this one. this, and, in a way, to create it by naming it.
The "feeling" of creating it by naming it does not mean that it is created by naming it. But let's take a closer look. The human psyche is perceived by individuals as something isolated and individual (if my leg hurts, it is I who hurt. If I am hungry it is I who am hungry. if I am unhappy it is I who am unhappy, if I feel alone, it is because I am alone). All this is simple and obvious. Thus 'we' 'think'. But there is something else: there is the fact that the universe - its very existence - is totally unthinkable. We do not say this because we "think" that the universe is unthinkable - which is a fairly trivial "thought" - but because the unthinkable has invaded us. This adventure is of a completely different order than mystical experiences or "numinous" images which invade psyches, because the unthinkable being unthought, is not accompanied by any perception, by any "experience, called spiritual"; in truth, it does not "happen" because, by ceasing to think the unthinkable, one ceases to "think" yourself and immediately, it is not "the supreme reality" which is revealed (the words '"Supreme reality" are still thought, and like all thought, are quantitative: there is no supreme except by comparison with what is not); no, what happens is an extraordinary ability to see the false, wherever it is and to detect it wherever it is hidden.
Now, it is certain that "thinking" is the very process by which the psyche strengthens its cocoon, and we have seen Jung, throughout his life, attentive to living his own character, as he presented himself to him - even, through the images transmitted to him by his dreams. During a trip to Africa, his dreams put him on alert, in this continent that is foreign to him. These dreams referred to my personal problems. The only thing I could conclude was that my European personality should, in all circumstances, be preserved intact.
Consciousness, locked up and never ceasing to shut itself up in itself, isolated and constantly ceasing to isolate itself from the cosmic breath, perceives it only through its structure, which is more and more closed. But who, among us, has not received, at least once in his life, a blow on the head - at the time of an accident - by perceiving it under the aspect of a glare? Have we, however, proclaimed that this dazzling is "numinous", and, in addition to stupidity, did we think that by qualifying it thus, we were proceeding to the "creation of the supreme"? The images generated by the "unconscious" psyche (this is the case to say) come, of course, from the blows that life strikes it, we will not dispute it. But since we don't know how many thousands of years, and especially since the emphasis is placed on the person, we keep believing that climbing these symbols could lead to reality. In doing so, we "think" the symbols, we "think" (without conceiving it) a divinity, and all this theology (Jung's Self is one) only has the effect of hardening the psychic shell, in a perpetuation of the past. We have arrived at what Jung, in many pages of considerations on a divinity - a certain Yahveh who had, he tells us, a great desire to incarnate - and on the imperious need that the psyche would have to manufacture a divine image of the feminine so as not to leave without companion, in heaven, the masculine imago dei of another god called Jesus, we have come to this: I hold the dogma of the Assumption for the most important religious event since the Reformation.
This dogma, as we know, was proclaimed by Pius XII in 1950. It consists in being forced to believe - if one is Catholic - that a woman "ascended into heaven in her body" two thousand years ago . Jung goes to great lengths to demonstrate how necessary this dogma is, in order to give the psyche the metaphysical image of woman, which he says he lacks. He implores the Protestant churches, too connected to the masculine, to complete their conception of the divinity by the addition of a goddess in heaven.
As for us, we cannot dissociate the promulgation of this dogma - necessary, perhaps, for the accomplishment of a myth belonging to psychic reality but objectively erroneous as far as reality is concerned - we cannot dissociate man who promulgated it, of the one whose time our trial is taking place. Lost in the fogs of myth, it was also important for Pius XII to believe that a virgin rose straight up (from a ground, probably in the shape of a flat disc) to a sky (above, obviously, where she lives in her earthly body (seated, of course, in a real armchair), in the company of two gods (a father and a son, the latter also in his earthly body), all this was also important for him to give his support (which was not lacking, whatever his advocates say) to Nazi Germany.
37. - Let us conclude.
We have tried, in as short a work as possible, to show what is the error of thought, when it claims to penetrate an area which is not its own. We have said that to think wrong in what is essential is to be an agent of regression and corruption. It remains for us to conclude by saying this: the deeply, totally, constantly religious mind is the one whose thought avoids error. There is his only task and that suffices, because where thought stops, the unthinkable, the uncreated, the immeasurable can give rise to a new, impolluous, healthy life.