Quest For a God
“It would be a regrettable mistake if anybody should take my observations a a kind of proof for the existence of God. They prove only the existence of an archetypal God-image, which to my mind is the most we can assert about God psychologically. But as it is a very important and influential archetype, its relatively frequent occurrence seems to be a noteworthy fact of any theologia naturalis. (Jung, CW 11, par. 102)
And yet, we do believe something no matter what we say or don’t say. Most pay little attention to belief or the archetype. Rather than think about it, most just let the churches and their priesthoods do the thinking for us. We have other, more important things to worry about such as our families, our jobs, or the physical needs that often become matters of life and death. It seems that the question of God only assaults us in youth, especially adolescence, and once we have turned the corner of midlife., and only then if we have done our “work” so as to have the time, energy and resources to tackle the question of God.
This quest for a God is as old as the human race. We have looked for him or her in the stars, in the animated world, in the sun and the moon. But rarely do we dare to look within for the presence of a God. We want our God to be more than the frail and fallible beings that we find ourselves to be. And so, we push God further and further from our centre of self. We build the most magnificent structures imaginable so that they can point towards this God at distance. We decorate our imaginings with the most precious of objects and materials we can find so that this God will not be associated with the baseness that we can see and feel of ourselves. And in the process, we lose God.
I lost God and now I must begin to look downward and inward in search of the wellsprings of the spirit which I know must be where I will find this God. This is my quest.
Succinct and stunning post.
365daysinthisbeautifullife
November 10, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Robert G. Longpré
November 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm
WE?
God seems to be a projection, not needed if life makes sense by direct expirience.
Because I AM naturally spiritual, I don’t “need” religion(or anti religion,or…other omnipotence dogma).
antiphonsgarden
November 10, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Yes, we. God is not really something about religion, it is about natural spiritualism in a person, which means you are not excluded. Please do not think God is limited to theologies and churches, for that is not what I am talking about, nor what Jung was talking about.
Welcome to this blog site.
Robert G. Longpré
November 10, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Thanks Robert,
Well, from the definition it reminds a deity. And even it is considered as one “aspect” of one self, I see the division.
I prefer the therm “self” myself who appears philosophically less religiously determinate.
We might mean the same, but in that linguistic mine field, I walk precisely to not engage into some hierarchy of values “inside” the human,like “higher soul”/”lower animal” neoplatonism.
antiphonsgarden
November 10, 2010 at 7:03 pm
I would encourage you to read some of Jung’s work in reference to “self” and “SELF.” Perhaps then words will not be so “charged.”
Robert G. Longpré
November 10, 2010 at 8:18 pm
I watched “Eat, Pray, Love” last night (not as good as the book!), but the lead finally realising that god was within her made me think again about this. And for me I came to the conclusion that it is actually the other way round. I am a part of the universe – a molecule of the whole, connected to the stars, space, earth, rocks, water, people animals etc. Therefore I am within the universe – within creation or god if that works as a term. I am it, it is me.
For some strange reason this made me feel really safe.
Lotus Eater
November 11, 2010 at 7:02 am
It makes me feel “whole” not and outsider looking in because I don’t have a faith, a religion. Thanks, Lotus.
Robert G. Longpré
November 11, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Everywhere I look, hear, taste, smell and feel
Inside and out – There is God
All is God
Yamabuki Zhou
November 11, 2010 at 8:08 am
Thanks, Yamabuki Zhou – This is my understanding as well – there is no God “out there” that is separate from self.
Robert G. Longpré
November 11, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Well, Jung was a visionary AND a man of his time, what explains his hierarchical dualist split between the self&Self.
I DON’T!
I can even tell, how HAD an experience of the “real thing” or who still needs to project it still on an almighty god. Beware,you might be very very surprise how less linear the whole quantum loop is.
Senses making sense without spiritual name dropping.
antiphonsgarden
November 11, 2010 at 7:08 pm
There is no “hierarchical” split
The one is the other. All is one – ONE. If you are “hearing” a split, then you are not understanding the ideas that Jung brings to us through his Collected Works.
Robert G. Longpré
November 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm
The use of 2 different therms self&Self or words like “god”are not innocent.Maybe its not me who avoids seeing that Jung is not a monolith of incarnated wisdom but an inspired inspiring human with paradoxes.
Obviously his great insightful awareness about the animus/anima didn’t prevent him from worldly issues in love matters.The bourgeois “handling” of it who followed in common with Freud,excluding the “disturbing” aspect, appears like a reflection of other patronising to the “good view” where the new “gods” remains untouched, even if the divergence upon the old dirty gods of Freud meeting the archetypal gods of Jung might prevent to see their own almost Oedipal/fin de siecle gods of psychoanalyse admiring/concurrency situation.
Enlightenment is each time a society shaking revolution, for the individum experiencing it as much as his environment.I respect each who shares his own perception of HIS experience of it, I don’t respect those imposing me dogmas how “it is supposed to be or not”.Once passed through that NATURAL state, one cant go back and please the crowd with limited thought cliches.
antiphonsgarden
November 11, 2010 at 10:25 pm