Punctum Saliens

But the collective unconscious is a very irrational factor, and our rational consciousness cannot dictate to it how it should make its appearance. Of course, if left entirely to itself, its activation can be very destructive; it can, for instance, be a psychosis. Therefore, man’s relation to the collective unconscious has always been regulated; there is a characteristic form by which the archetypal images are expressed. For the collective unconscious is a function that always operates, and man has to keep in touch with it. His psychic and spiritual health is dependent on the co-operation of the impersonal images. Therefore man has always had his religions.

What are religions? Religions are psychotherepeutic systems.

C.G. Jung, Analytical Psychology: Its Theory & Practice

Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubt. You can study that in the history of the Church. Always in those times when the Church begins to waver the style becomes fanatical, or fanatical sects spring up, because the secret doubt has to be quenched. When one is really convinced, one is perfectly calm and can discuss one’s beliefs as a personal point of view without any particular resentment.

C.G. Jung, Analytical Psychology: Its Theory & Practice

Jung states the new myth more succinctly in Psychology and Religion: West and East where he says:

Existence is only real when it is conscious to somebody. That is why the Creator needs conscious man even though, from sheer unconsciousness, he would like to prevent him from becoming conscious.

and

Whoever knows God has an effect on him.

Edinger states the basic idea as “the purpose of human life is the creation of consciousness” and then acknowledges that talking about consciousness is a difficult task. In the next chapter, Edinger clarifies that his approach to consciousness (and the inevitable tie-in with epistemology) is “not philosophical but psychological-empirical” and this should be kept in mind throughout.

Edinger calls consciousness a “psychic material” and this must be understood in light of Jung’s conception of the psyche. As Jacobi explains in An Introduction to the Psychology of C.G. Jung, the psyche is something “not less real than the body” and “[t]hough it cannot be touched, it can be directly and fully experienced and observed. It is a world of its own, governed by laws, structured, and endowed with its own means of expression.”

So, our purpose is to create consciousness and this creation is the process of individuation — the process whereby psychic contents (complexes and archetypal images) “become actualized and substantial” … “when they enter an individual’s conscious awareness and become an accepted item of that individual’s personal responsibility.” This process involves the “encounter of opposites” such as subject and object or myself and the “other.”

The encounter of opposites is a big part of Jung’s psychology and he points to a long history of mythical ideas and to alchemy (which was not really about turning literal lead into literal gold just as Moby Dick was not really about a literal whale and its literal pursuer) as evidence of how pervasive this idea is in human history. Psychologically, the creation of consciousness — the process of individuation — involves being confronted by the unconscious with the contrary when the ego identifies with one of a pair of opposites. This confrontation happens over and over and over again and we find ourselves tossed “back and forth between opposing moods and attitudes.” But, the one who deliberately seeks out these encounters — who deliberately tries to resolve inner and outer conflict by coming to terms with the opposite and experience both, opposing, viewpoints simultaneously — is creating a new increment of consciousness.

The key, as the alchemical myth tells us, is the union of opposites, the coniunctio.

Contrary to the implications of the erotic imagery, the coniunctio of opposites is not generally a pleasant process. More often it is felt as a crucification. The cross represents the union of horizontal and vertical, two contrary directional movements. To be nailed to such a conflict can be a scarcely endurable agony.

The word pastor comes from the Latin word for shepherd. There are a lot of shepherds in the Bible. Jesus called himself “The Good Shepherd” and told a parable about a shepherd. Shepherds were there when Jesus was born. The 23rd Psalm says that “The Lord is my shepherd” and God calls himself a shepherd in Ezekiel. David was a shepherd before he killed Goliath and Abel (the “good” son) was a shepherd.

A shepherd takes care of the sheep. He leads them here and there to find food and water. He looks for the lost sheep and returns them to the fold. He puts his own life on the line for the sheep; defending them from the lion and the wolf. The shepherd knows his sheep; the sheep know their shepherd and will follow only him. The shepherd keeps his sheep and the goats separate; the sheep on the right, goats on the left.

The job of the pastor is, as you might expect from the etymology of the word, similar to that of the shepherd. He takes care of his sheep — i.e. his congregation. He leads them through the Bible to find nourishment and refreshment. He puts his metaphorical life on the line to protect them from the evil predators Satan, the humanist, and the religious pluralist. The pastor knows his sheep and they whole-heartedly — one may dare say blindly — follow him. He religiously affirms and reaffirms his congregation’s sheep-ness while pointing out the world’s goat-ness.

But there is another aspect which is often overlooked and which, I think, makes the metaphor that much more apt. Sheep are dumb. The Bible always describes sheep without a shepherd in a most negative way. They are “scattered” and “food for every beast” (Ezekiel 34:5), “wandering” and “afflicted” (Zechariah 10:2), “distressed and downcast” (Matthew 9:36). The sheep cannot survive on their own. They absolutely need a shepherd and are absolutely dependent on him. For he, and he alone, can feed them and save them from getting eaten alive. Now this dependence (dare I say addiction?) gives the pastor/shepherd a tremendous amount of authority over what his flock does and thinks. He decides what they eat and drink; he decides where they can go and can’t go; he is responsible for their complete wellbeing. They know his voice and follow no other. The shepherd basically has absolute power over his flock and we all know what absolute power does. If this sounds like I’m talking about Waco or Jonestown, I’m not — although these were extreme examples of what I am talking about. But the Koreshes and Joneses of the cult world aside, there is more coercion and manipulation in Sunday church in Anytown, USA, than one may think.

Ok, before you get all upset, I’m not talking about every pastor and every church and every congregation member. But, how often do you really think about what your pastor says? How often do you disagree with him/her? If you never do, let me suggest you think about this a little harder. Do you agree simply because you always agree with your pastor? Do you think it’s possible to always agree with someone — especially when it comes to religion? My wife and I have a lot in common but we don’t agree on everything.

I think a lot of people think they are thinking for themselves. They read the Bible and try to figure out what God is telling them. But many times they come up with exactly the same result as what their pastor preaches from the pulpit. Now, this may be construed as confirmation that they agree with their pastor. It may also be construed as “leading the witness”, coercion, or worse.

I have long hair. Even though my father denies that it’s an issue … it is. It’s obvious to me that it is. Even my niece, when she was five or six, told me “my Mom says that it’s a sin for a man to have long hair.” Out of the mouths of babes! So, I looked it up in the Bible.

She was right. Sort of.

I Corinthians 11:14

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him

So, it’s not an outright sin; it’s just a dishonor. Not sure what “the wages of dishonor” are. Anyone know? But anyway, it’s right there in black and white. Paul wrote it. Men should not have long hair.

But two things bother me. First, what’s this about nature teaching us? I mean, if we look at nature, we see that the male of many species is the more colorful and has the bigger plummage or longer hair. So, how does that teach us about a man having long hair?

Second, let’s look at the context. What else does Paul say? It’s a little hard for me to understand since I think he asks several rhetorical questions but I’m pretty sure he says that if a woman does not have long hair then she should cover her head while praying or prophesying. And this is because the woman is the glory of man and originated from man and was created for the man’s sake. Hey, that’s Paul talking not me.

So, how can my Dad complain about my long hair while my Mom has short hair and does not cover her head when she prays? My sister used to cover her head but I guess it’s not in fashion any more.

Hopefully, while I’m burning in hell for all eternity God will be kind enough to answer these questions for me.