Interestingly, there are many similarities between Augustine and Jung. Both say that a vague image of God exists in the soul. According to Augustine, the mind of God harbours archetypes (Platonic Ideas). In Jung they reside in the collective unconscious. Both reject utopianism and say that life will always remain a struggle. Augustine says that, ever since the Fall, men suffer mentally and long after lost wholeness. Accordingly, the Church has a therapeutic role to play. It coincides with Jung's view. Whereas Jungian thought revolves around the unconscious Augustine has a concept of the boundless palaces of memory:
"And I come to the fields and spacious palaces of my memory, where are the treasures of innumerable images, brought into it from things of all sorts perceived by the senses. [...] Great is this force of memory, excessive great, O my God; a large and boundless chamber! who ever sounded the bottom thereof?" ("Confessions", Ch. VIII)
Most importantly, both emphasize that man must retrieve from memory past sins and anchor them in consciousness, equal to confession. In this way one receives forgiveness and is liberated from one's demons. To Augustine, the interior journey into memory is essential for the expansion of the soul. It shall serve to give space for God. Of course, psychoanalysis does not have the concept of sin. But it is an analogous concept, considering that Augustine defines sin as anything that destroys the soul and corrupts a functional wholeness. It could be bad experiences.
One could say that Jung goes in the footsteps of Augustine. Maybe he didn't want to admit that he is deeply rooted in Christianity. Thus, his critical stance could be due to Oedipal aggression towards "Father Christianity" (almost equatable with Augustine). Where Jung and Augustine differ is on the nature of evil and 'privatio boni'. This was the Oedipal sword with which he stabbed the Father. I show on my homepage that Jung is wrong about evil.
Today we know that there is no such thing as a mental unconscious. So, if Jungians want to retain the archetypes, they would have to abandon science and fall back on Augustinian theism. Arguably, Jungian psychology never belonged to science, anyway.
Thank you as always for your thoughtful perspectives and contributions Mats. I find especially your linking of Augustine to the psychoanalytic project fascinating.
"Most importantly, both emphasize that man must retrieve from memory past sins and anchor them in consciousness, equal to confession. In this way one receives forgiveness and is liberated from one's demons".
Above resonates with my own experience of the clinical room.
Loved the conversation! I was struck by the question - what is the benefit of Christ being seen as an archetype and what is the challenge? This seems to be the crux, really, when it comes to joining Jungian ideas to Christianity. Jung was such a deep thinker and often very difficult to understand. I have even thought to myself, I'm not sure some people, those who are more conscientious and analytical, will be able to grasp the full scope of Jungs ideas (I mean this on a neurological level). For as analytical as Jung was, to categorize and make practical his psychology, in order for him to tap into the level of abstractness extant within unconscious thoughts he would have had to have just as much access to that hemisphere of the the brain which can only sense intuitively, without the possibility of words to describe or categorize the invisible force of spirit and feeling. I believe this is what he meant when he spoke of keeping personal secrets, since they are simply known and undescribable. It may not be possible for many of us to drift that close to the Spirit, just as we can no longer really enter back into the mind of a primitive who is always captured by the Spirit. We have exorcized or left hemispheres for too long now, all we can see is body (category) and no longer Spirit! So to see Christ as archetype, we may think this is the same effort to categorize Him as the Church tends to only focus on His historical human-ness. But the Christ archetype, if I'm understanding Jung correctly, is an amalgamation of the process of combining opposites. which I believe, seems to be infinitely alive and infinitely vast. So, as Aion had pointed out, Christ begins with a point of recognizing "content" in the sign of the Fish, then leads to the water bearer who guides the disciples to the upper room. The contents then meld together.... Trying to envision this chemistry is almost too much, or too abstract. But the whole story of Christ, death and resurrection, joining Spirit with Logos.... It's nearly too much to take in! If anyone can begin to get a glimpse of this, they may see ever so slightly the same way Jung saw. But this is not exclusively a Jungian perspective! He was simply trying to describe something he was observing, something of a profound nature far above and beyond himself! In the end, becoming whole wasn't even the whole answer, just a personal experience that proved the whole answer was there! So, he did not have to believe it was there, from experience, he knew it was there!
Interestingly, there are many similarities between Augustine and Jung. Both say that a vague image of God exists in the soul. According to Augustine, the mind of God harbours archetypes (Platonic Ideas). In Jung they reside in the collective unconscious. Both reject utopianism and say that life will always remain a struggle. Augustine says that, ever since the Fall, men suffer mentally and long after lost wholeness. Accordingly, the Church has a therapeutic role to play. It coincides with Jung's view. Whereas Jungian thought revolves around the unconscious Augustine has a concept of the boundless palaces of memory:
"And I come to the fields and spacious palaces of my memory, where are the treasures of innumerable images, brought into it from things of all sorts perceived by the senses. [...] Great is this force of memory, excessive great, O my God; a large and boundless chamber! who ever sounded the bottom thereof?" ("Confessions", Ch. VIII)
Most importantly, both emphasize that man must retrieve from memory past sins and anchor them in consciousness, equal to confession. In this way one receives forgiveness and is liberated from one's demons. To Augustine, the interior journey into memory is essential for the expansion of the soul. It shall serve to give space for God. Of course, psychoanalysis does not have the concept of sin. But it is an analogous concept, considering that Augustine defines sin as anything that destroys the soul and corrupts a functional wholeness. It could be bad experiences.
One could say that Jung goes in the footsteps of Augustine. Maybe he didn't want to admit that he is deeply rooted in Christianity. Thus, his critical stance could be due to Oedipal aggression towards "Father Christianity" (almost equatable with Augustine). Where Jung and Augustine differ is on the nature of evil and 'privatio boni'. This was the Oedipal sword with which he stabbed the Father. I show on my homepage that Jung is wrong about evil.
Today we know that there is no such thing as a mental unconscious. So, if Jungians want to retain the archetypes, they would have to abandon science and fall back on Augustinian theism. Arguably, Jungian psychology never belonged to science, anyway.
Thank you as always for your thoughtful perspectives and contributions Mats. I find especially your linking of Augustine to the psychoanalytic project fascinating.
"Most importantly, both emphasize that man must retrieve from memory past sins and anchor them in consciousness, equal to confession. In this way one receives forgiveness and is liberated from one's demons".
Above resonates with my own experience of the clinical room.
John Gale: "Did Augustine foreshadow psychoanalysis?" https://philarchive.org/archive/GALDAF-3
Loved the conversation! I was struck by the question - what is the benefit of Christ being seen as an archetype and what is the challenge? This seems to be the crux, really, when it comes to joining Jungian ideas to Christianity. Jung was such a deep thinker and often very difficult to understand. I have even thought to myself, I'm not sure some people, those who are more conscientious and analytical, will be able to grasp the full scope of Jungs ideas (I mean this on a neurological level). For as analytical as Jung was, to categorize and make practical his psychology, in order for him to tap into the level of abstractness extant within unconscious thoughts he would have had to have just as much access to that hemisphere of the the brain which can only sense intuitively, without the possibility of words to describe or categorize the invisible force of spirit and feeling. I believe this is what he meant when he spoke of keeping personal secrets, since they are simply known and undescribable. It may not be possible for many of us to drift that close to the Spirit, just as we can no longer really enter back into the mind of a primitive who is always captured by the Spirit. We have exorcized or left hemispheres for too long now, all we can see is body (category) and no longer Spirit! So to see Christ as archetype, we may think this is the same effort to categorize Him as the Church tends to only focus on His historical human-ness. But the Christ archetype, if I'm understanding Jung correctly, is an amalgamation of the process of combining opposites. which I believe, seems to be infinitely alive and infinitely vast. So, as Aion had pointed out, Christ begins with a point of recognizing "content" in the sign of the Fish, then leads to the water bearer who guides the disciples to the upper room. The contents then meld together.... Trying to envision this chemistry is almost too much, or too abstract. But the whole story of Christ, death and resurrection, joining Spirit with Logos.... It's nearly too much to take in! If anyone can begin to get a glimpse of this, they may see ever so slightly the same way Jung saw. But this is not exclusively a Jungian perspective! He was simply trying to describe something he was observing, something of a profound nature far above and beyond himself! In the end, becoming whole wasn't even the whole answer, just a personal experience that proved the whole answer was there! So, he did not have to believe it was there, from experience, he knew it was there!