Comments on: The Creation of Consiousness: II http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/01/11/the-creation-of-consiousness-ii/ Leaping Point: Take a flying leap and see where you land Wed, 16 May 2012 12:41:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ken http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/01/11/the-creation-of-consiousness-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2562 Ken Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:46:05 +0000 http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/01/11/the-creation-of-consiousness-ii/#comment-2562 Mark, Thanks for the InnerExplorations link. I'll definitely check it out. Are you aware of the "C.G. Jung Society of St. Louis"? Their website is http://www.cgjungstl.org/ and they have some pretty cool programs going on this year. I'm involved in the "Kansas City Friends of Jung." I think you're on the right track with equating becoming conscious and original sin. I want to investigate it more and I'm hoping to blog through a couple more Edinger books and perhaps even tackle Jung's "Answer to Job." That's a VERY interesting read. I'm pretty sure that the Jungian idea of Eden is a state of unconsciousness, i.e. not differentiated. It is similar to the state of a newborn who has no conception of "me" and "you"; it's all "me." I do hope you'll continue reading and commenting as I work through this book and others. Thanks! Ken Mark,

Thanks for the InnerExplorations link. I’ll definitely check it out.

Are you aware of the “C.G. Jung Society of St. Louis”? Their website is http://www.cgjungstl.org/ and they have some pretty cool programs going on this year. I’m involved in the “Kansas City Friends of Jung.”

I think you’re on the right track with equating becoming conscious and original sin. I want to investigate it more and I’m hoping to blog through a couple more Edinger books and perhaps even tackle Jung’s “Answer to Job.” That’s a VERY interesting read.

I’m pretty sure that the Jungian idea of Eden is a state of unconsciousness, i.e. not differentiated. It is similar to the state of a newborn who has no conception of “me” and “you”; it’s all “me.”

I do hope you’ll continue reading and commenting as I work through this book and others.

Thanks!

Ken

]]> By: Mark Burgess http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/01/11/the-creation-of-consiousness-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2558 Mark Burgess Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:43:21 +0000 http://punctum-saliens.org/2008/01/11/the-creation-of-consiousness-ii/#comment-2558 Thank you! I find this idea fascinating. I am also trying to get my head around the idea that the development of consciousness in humans, whatever its teleological purpose may be, is what religion calls "original sin"... the following puts it quite well: "Original sin, for example, can be understood as the emergence of ego-consciousness from the depths of the maternal waters of the unconscious. And this separation from the primeval undifferentiated paradise is filled with feelings of guilt and loss and so is called original sin." Jungian and Catholic? Chapter 8: Archetypes and the Development of Dogma, http://www.innerexplorations.com/catjc/jc8.htm I have an idea that (religious) conservatives have this terrible feeling about original sin, that somehow it is actually a sin in the sense that they have done something wrong, and they yearn to go back to a time "before". Of course, that's not possible because that would be going back down the evolutionary path to before we developed consciousness. You can also look at this as the development of an individual person's consciousness as the person develops in utero. In either case, the perceived harshness and corrupt nature of the world in which we live makes conservative people develop a sort of "nostalgia" for the time when they were at one with God, before they were differentiated. They are longing for the warm and fuzzy comfort of the womb. If Jung is right, then this would directly contradict the purpose for which we have been created. We need to look forward, not back, and continue to develop our consciousness if we are to participate in creation the way God intends. Thank you! I find this idea fascinating. I am also trying to get my head around the idea that the development of consciousness in humans, whatever its teleological purpose may be, is what religion calls “original sin”… the following puts it quite well:

“Original sin, for example, can be understood as the emergence of ego-consciousness from the depths of the maternal waters of the unconscious. And this separation from the primeval undifferentiated paradise is filled with feelings of guilt and loss and so is called original sin.”

Jungian and Catholic? Chapter 8: Archetypes and the Development of Dogma, http://www.innerexplorations.com/catjc/jc8.htm

I have an idea that (religious) conservatives have this terrible feeling about original sin, that somehow it is actually a sin in the sense that they have done something wrong, and they yearn to go back to a time “before”. Of course, that’s not possible because that would be going back down the evolutionary path to before we developed consciousness. You can also look at this as the development of an individual person’s consciousness as the person develops in utero.

In either case, the perceived harshness and corrupt nature of the world in which we live makes conservative people develop a sort of “nostalgia” for the time when they were at one with God, before they were differentiated. They are longing for the warm and fuzzy comfort of the womb.

If Jung is right, then this would directly contradict the purpose for which we have been created. We need to look forward, not back, and continue to develop our consciousness if we are to participate in creation the way God intends.

]]>