[Consciousness] [1REED] Jungian View on Changes in Consciousness

[Henry Reed]

Navigating a Breakpoint in HistoryWilliam Van Dusen WishardIntroduction
Truth is within ourselves; it takes no rise From outward things,
whate're you may believe. There is an inmost center in us all, Where
truth abides in fullness; and around, Wall upon wall, the gross flesh
hems it in, This perfect, clear perception – which is truth. A battling
and perverting carnal mesh Binds it, and makes all error: and, to KNOW,
Rather consists in opening out a way Whence the imprisoned splendor may
escape, Than in effecting an entry for a light Supposed to be
without… 'Tis time New hopes should animate the world, new light Should
dawn from new revealings… From "Paracelsus" Robert BrowningRobert
Browning's words describe a process that has repeated itselfnumerous
times throughout the ages. This essay will suggest that onceagain, the
world is in the midst of a similar unfolding.Such a development is at
the heart of much of the public anxiety inAmerica today; a concern
caused by our inability to understand theseismic upheaval the world is
experiencing. The media daily pummelsus with the effects of multiple
tectonic plate shifts taking place:from a relatively slow pace of
technical change, to an exponentialrate; from ultimate destructive
power held only by states, to suchpower held by individuals; from
economic development solely a nationalendeavor, to such development as
part of a global system; from themasculine/patriarchal epoch, to the
feminine instinct playing anincreasing role in shaping collective
attitudes.Those who have even a minimal acquaintance with Analytical
Psychologyand the life of C.G. Jung, however, are privileged to have a
broadercontext within which to understand the inherent meaning of
theseshifts. For one of Jung's great gifts to the world was
thedevelopment of understanding how the collective soul expresses
itsworldview, as well as how the psyche develops and matures over
time.History has seen several such shifts in orientation, periods of
abroadening out of the collective soul. Such
psychologicalreorientations have been times of uncertainty and
upheaval, times whenthe psychological subsoil out of which emerges all
value and meaningis ploughed up, ultimately leading to the emergence of
a completelynew historical epoch. We are in the midst of another
suchreorientation—a heightened activation of the Self (the
regulatingcenter f the psyche), which brings with it a new worldview,
abroadening out of the human personality. It is a time, as WalterTruett
Anderson has written, "of rebuilding all the foundations
ofcivilization." One of Jung's most succinct encapsulations of
thisprocess at work in our time was offered in 1956 when he noted
thatthere is "a mood of universal destruction and renewal that has set
itsmark on our age. This mood makes itself felt everywhere,
politically,socially, and philosophically. We are living in what the
Greekscalled the kairos—the right moment—for a 'metamorphosis of the
gods,'of the fundamental principles and symbols."This essay will
consider three aspects of the contemporary"psychological
reorientation"—globalization, the human-technologyinterface, and the
worldwide spiritual upheaval. But first, a briefglance at earlier
periods of reorientation, which offer perspective onthe contemporary
process.Breakpoints of HistoryWhen we look back over past millennia,
distinctly differentworldviews, expressions of the soul, stand out.
These worldviews wereconsiderably different than ours today. The Mythic
Age (circa 1200BCE), for example, clearly exhibited a pre-conscious
mind.Consciousness as we know it had not yet evolved. Indeed, as
ThomasCahill has written, the story of the Hebrew Bible is "the story
of anevolving consciousness, a consciousness that went through many
statesof development." One thinks of Moses experiencing "a flame of
firecoming from the bush," his "staff becoming a serpent," Yahweh as
a"pillar of fire," the "waters of Egypt turning into blood," and
the"parting of the Red Sea." Such symbolic descriptions are
expressionsof an elemental psychology in an earlier stage of
development, andstill bound to a certain extent by its identification
with itsenvironment and surroundings.At roughly the same time, the
battle of Troy (12th century BCE) when,as Homer described four
centuries later, Greek gods roamed thebattlefield instructing Achilles,
Hector or Odysseus to take this orthat particular action. That was not
a literary construct to enlivenHomer's Iliad; it was the way the Greek
psyche viewed reality. Again,an earlier psyche somewhat identified with
its surroundings, and whichsaw gods as "living presences."Several
centuries of psychic reorientation and maturation broughtforth the
Axial Age (700-400 BCE). The defining characteristic of theAxial Age,
according to the German philosopher Karl Jaspers who coinedthe
term "Axial Age," was the move out of the Mythic Age, into an
erawhen "man becomes conscious of Being as a whole, of himself and
hislimitations." Consciousness, Jaspers wrote, became "conscious
ofitself." This was the age of the birth of Buddhism, Taoism,
andZoroasterism. The great symbolic Hebrew stories and traditions
ofearlier centuries were collected together in the Pentateuch.Confucius
became the first person to articulate the Golden Rule as asocial ethic.
Science, philosophy, astronomy, cosmology were born, aswere the very
concepts of nature, truth, opinion, mind andconsciousness. History's
first scientific questions were asked,questions such as, what are the
basic elements of existence? Water?Fire? No one had ever before asked
such questions. Pythagorasarticulated the concept of "opposites," an
expression of the primeattribute of a developed consciousness—the power
of discernment anddiscrimination. By the end of the Axial Age, a new
orientation hademerged.Several centuries later a further reorientation
brought a disruptiveshift when the multiple Greco-Roman gods, which had
provided meaningfor the Greco-Roman world for a millennium, lost their
hold on theimagination and soul of the Greco-Roman world, and,
eventually,monotheistic Christianity became the official religion. More
on thisin a moment.Closer to our own time came another shift in
worldview—thepsychological shift from the Middle Ages of Dante and the
building ofChartres and the great cathedrals of Europe, to the
worldview ofPetrarch and the Renaissance. It was a monumental shift
from emphasison the vertical perspective—man's relation to a God in
heaven—to ahorizontal perspective—man's relationship to the natural
phenomena ofEarth. The historian Will Durant summarized this shift
saying, theRenaissance "replaced the supernatural with the natural as
the focusof human concern…" Edward F. Edinger noted that the God-image
(Self)was withdrawn from metaphysical projection, and became available
fordirect conscious experience. As Jung saw it, "Consciousness ceased
togrow upward, and grew instead in breadth of view,"
bothphilosophically and geographically. The age of exploration—both
ofearth and of the human body—began. "Meaning" was found less
throughspirit, as a metaphysics of matter and material causation grew
inauthority. It is perhaps symptomatic of this shift that this was
whenthe Faust legend—representing an enantiodromia—was born in the
Westernpsyche. Jung described this whole period as "an unexampled
revolutionin man's outlook."These shifts in orientation are offered
simply as examples of whatwe're experiencing today. The contemporary
psychologicalreorientation is perhaps divided into two overlapping
phases. On theone hand, disintegration, psychic rupture, and
destruction have becomenot only cultural motifs, but an inherent and
essential part of theprocess a culture and civilization must experience
if the birth of anew worldview is to take place. This is in keeping
with theprogression of the four symbolic phases of the Apocalypse
archetype,which manifests itself in the Revelation of new truth about
life'sorigin, development and potential; Judgment of existing beliefs
andinstitutions against the background of the new truth; Destruction
ofexisting beliefs and institutions that are no longer functionally
anexpression of the new truth; and Rebirth of belief, culture
andcivilized order in accord with the archetypal expression of the
newtruth. This sequence is a process embedded in the nature of
thearchetypal psyche.Such disintegration is simultaneous with a new and
greater integrationseeking expression. Humanity is seeking a more
common and completemanifestation of our relationship to our individual
self, to eachother, to the planet, and to the universe. In essence, the
embryonicform of something approaching a global consciousness is
evolving. AsLewis Mumford wrote in 1956, "Nothing less than a concept
of the wholeman—and of man achieving a consciousness of the cosmic and
historicwhole—is capable of doing justice to every type of personality,
everymode of culture, and every human potential." Mumford was talking
of"the creation of unified personalities, at home with every part
ofthemselves, and so equally at home with the whole family of man,
inall its magnificent diversity." Such a perspective is at the verycore
of the new orientation seeking birth.GlobalizationIn the 1940s, Sir
Fred Hoyle, the eminent British astronomer, noted:"Once a photograph of
Earth, taken from the outside, is available, anew idea as powerful as
any in history will be let loose."Increasingly, the defining reality of
our time has been learning howto cope with this "new idea"—the
awareness of the human community as asingle entity. As Brian Swimme has
written, we are incorporating theplanetary dimensions of life into the
fabric of our economics,politics, culture and international relations.
For the first time inhuman history, we are forging an awareness of our
existence thatembraces humanity as a whole. What is emerging is "a new
context fordiscussion of value, meaning, purpose or ultimacy of any
sort." Theshorthand for this process is "globalization."Mention
globalization and we immediately think of global economic andfinancial
integration, currency valuations, job
displacement/creation,intellectual property rights, and much more. Such
acronyms as IMF,NAFTA, WTO, as well as the World Bank come to mind. The
economicdimension of globalization is what most occupies the attention
ofbusiness leaders and government policy-makers.But the essence of
globalization—its very core—is the Self'sintensified activation, which
is expressed in an expansion ofindividual awareness of other peoples,
cultures and religions, greatlyfacilitated by technological advances in
communications and easytravel. This process began very slowly in the
16th century when, asnoted in Jung's comment above, consciousness
ceased to grow upward,and grew in breadth of view, thus increasing the
energy available tothe individual ego. This led to European exploration
andcolonialization of Africa, South America and Asia. In the
nineteenthcentury this process was accelerated with the technical shift
fromwind to steam driven trans-Atlantic ships, as well as with
theinvention of the telegraph and telephone, the first components of
whatis now the world's electronic information communication
system.Clearly, in the 20th century globalization moved at an
exponentialpace. Across the globe, as people become more familiar with
othermodes of thought and belief, and with other cultures and
religions,their allegiance to earlier forms of identity begins evolving
into anappreciation for, and identity with, a larger cultural and
politicalrealm.This process of a widening identity is not new to
Americans. Before1776, Americans didn't find their identity in
relationship to theUnited States (there was no United States), but in
relationship to thestate in which they lived—Virginia, Massachusetts or
Georgia. Afterthe establishment of the United States, people slowly
grounded theiridentity in a wider context, a new entity called the
United States ofAmerica. This widening process took time. Indeed, the
historianDaniel Borstin tells us it wasn't until nearly ninety years
later, atthe end of the Civil War that a distinctly American identity
emerged.Even today, sectionalism still vies with a sense of national
identity,which is fragmenting under the pressures of information
technology.In essence, all people are going through this same process,
albeit ona far wider and more diverse dimension. The pace of this
processvaries depending on numerous factors such as depth of culture
andtradition, the degree of technological development, linkages with
therest of the world, etc. But it is happening to all peoples, if for
noother reason than a nation can no longer develop economically on
itsown; economic development requires a nation to be linked to
theglobalized economic and financial system.For many in the Muslim
world, globalization, and the modernization itbrings with it, confronts
them with an excruciating choice. On theone hand, they want the
economic and technological—even some of thesocial and cultural—benefits
globalization brings. On the other hand,they are asking
themselves, "Will globalization, based on the Western,rationalistic,
consumerist, hedonistic ethos, ultimately mean the endof Islam? Yet,
how can we modernize without globalization?" Suchunknowns form a
significant part of the psychological dynamic
fuelingterrorism.Globalization means that, whether we're Parisian or
New Yorksophisticate, African Bushmen or Alaskan Inuit, we are all
beingforced into the same global, technological, postmodern,
digitalizedcontext of life. Some African chiefs jump a century of
telephonicdevelopment dependent on wire, as they advance from drum or
messenger,to the cell phone. The tribal leader in Papua stands with his
shieldand spear in a TV store bewildered as he stares at a scene
from"Baywatch" projecting images of he knows not what. Time, place
andhistoric contexts of life are disappearing as the instruments
ofglobalization force us into some unfamiliar frame of reference.It's
not only the Papuan or African whose identity and context of lifeare
being jumbled by globalization. Profound questions arise for allpeople
as globalization collapses the national, racial and religiousbarriers
that heretofore protected—and even defined—identity. "Who amI? Who is
my group? Do I even have a group any more? Is nationalallegiance still
primary in a globalized era? What does 'race' meanin a world where
people of all shades of skin color are increasinglyinter-marrying? What
is my sense of who I am when computerized globalinformation systems
merge all religions, philosophies, social theoriesand cultures into
a 'pick-and-mix' smorgasbord of identity?" Thewhole human race—whether
pre-modern, modern, or postmodern—is involvedin a vast learning
process.Over time, many people find their own sense of identity
widening asthey travel to other nations, meet people of unfamiliar
cultures, anddaily scan the world on the Internet. As cultures and
religionsinterpenetrate, the "broadening out process" enlarges
people'shorizons. Yet an inherent part of any archetypal expression of
thismaturing process is psychic reaction, in this case expressed in
whatcan only be called a "national fundamentalism." As David Ignatius
ofThe Washington Post notes, in some ways the current reassertion
ofnationalism is "a kind of geopolitical fundamentalism—in which
peoplecleave to old identities as a way of coping with the new stresses
ofglobalization."The Human-Technological InterfaceAt least since
Francis Bacon in the seventeenth century we have viewedthe purpose of
science and technology as being to improve the humancondition. As Bacon
put it, the "true and lawful end of the sciencesis that human life be
enriched by new discoveries and powers." Fourcenturies later, Einstein
echoed Bacon in a speech at Cal Tech:"Concern for man himself and his
fate must form the chief interest ofall technical endeavors."Human life
has indeed been enriched. Take America. During the lastcentury, the
real GDP, in constant dollars, increased by $48 trillion,much of this
wealth built on the marvels of technology.But along with technological
wonders, uncertainties arise. Thequestion today is whether we're
creating certain technologies not toimprove the human condition, but
for purposes that appear to be toreplace human meaning and significance
altogether. Consider thefollowing comments from some of the world's
leading scientists andtechnologists.Ray Kurzweil, recipient of ten
honorary Doctorates, honors from threeU.S. presidents, and is one of
the world's foremost authorities onartificial intelligence, predicts
that by mid-century you may betalking to someone who is of biological
origin, but whose mentalprocesses are a hybrid of the person's
biological thinking process andthe electronic process embedded in their
brain—the two processesworking intimately together. Adds
Kurzweil, "When machines arederived from human intelligence but are a
million times more capable,there won't be a clear distinction between
human and machineintelligence—there's going to be a merger." After
that, he says, wewill enhance our own intelligence by putting small
computers in ourbrains and introducing calculating machines into the
bloodstream…nanobots will go to the brain and interact with
biologicalneurons.In Kurzweil's view, what we are dealing with is not
a "constant" rateof technological change, but an "exponential" rate,
the accelerationof acceleration. The rate of technological change
doubles everydecade. At today's rate, Kurzweil says, the world will
experience onethousand times more technological change in the 21st
century than tookplace in the 20th century.Computer speeds will be
increased millions of times in the next threedecades, Kurzweil
predicts, thus taking us to a point where everythingis ratcheted up so
fast that the totality of life changes, and somenew context of
existence emerges that we can't even begin to imagineat this point.
This will bring the world, he says, to "a rupture inthe fabric of
history," to what he terms the "Omega Point."Kurzweil's use of "Omega
Point" emits familiar echoes of PierreTeilhard de Chardin, who coined
the term well over half a century ago.For Teilhard, the "Omega Point"
is that point in the future whentime, space and energy converge. It's a
time of super connectivity,organization and complexity when a new
context of existence for manwill emerge. For Teilhard, however,
the "Omega Point" would introducean era of the "spiritualization of
matter" as well as the "creativeunion" of all humanity.Whatever the
differences between Kurzweil's and Teilhard's use of theterm "Omega
Point," it's fair to ask whether both men have beeninfluenced by an
archetype of transcendence. Indeed, is the entire"post human" movement
(see following commentary) a projection of whatEdinger called "the
transformation fantasy"?Kurzweil is by no means alone in his pursuit of
the "post human"future. Marvin Minsky, co-founder of MIT's Artificial
IntelligenceLaboratory, writes, "Suppose that the robot had all the
virtues ofpeople and was smarter and understood things better. Then why
wouldwe want to prefer those grubby, old people? I don't see
anythingwrong with human life being devalued if we have something
better."Gregory Stock, Director of the Program on Medicine, Technology
andSociety at UCLA School of Medicine; his latest book:
RedesigningHumans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, suggests, "Within a
few years,traditional reproduction may begin to seem antiquated, if
notdownright irresponsible." Stock sees a time soon
emerging "whenhumans no longer exist . . . Progressive
self-transformation couldchange our descendents into something
sufficiently different from ourpresent selves to not be human in the
sense we use the term now."British Telecom's Ian Pearson predicts that
the completed human genomeproject will enable "a combination of man and
computer search toidentify the genes needed to produce a people of any
chosencharacteristics." Someone, somewhere, Pearson says, "will produce
anelite race of people, smart, agile and disease resistant."
Pearsoncalls such an optimized human "Homo Optimus."MIT's Sherry Turkel
sees the "reconfiguration of machines aspsychological objects and the
reconfiguration of people as livingmachines." James Hughes sees
the "right to a custom made child" asmerely the "natural extension of
our current discourse of productiverights." Hughes contends that
women "should be allowed the right tochoose the characteristics [of
their child] from a catalog.Perhaps Jaron Lanier, the person who coined
the term "virtual reality"and founder of the world's first virtual
reality company, bestassesses what's happening when he says, "Medical
science,neuroscience, computer science, genetics, biology—separately
andtogether, seem to be on the verge of abandoning the human
realmaltogether . . . it grows harder to imagine human beings remaining
atthe center of the process of science. Instead, science appears to
bein charge of its own process, probing and changing people in order
tofurther its own course, independent of human agency."Concludes Kevin
Kelly, former editor of Wired magazine and author ofOut of Control, "In
the great vacuum of meaning, in the silence ofunspoken values, in the
vacancy of something large to stand for,something bigger than oneself,
technology—for better or worse—willshape our society. Because values
and meaning are scarce today,technology will make our decisions for
us."Thus arrives what some scientific intellectuals call
the "Post-human Age."If this scenario materializes, it won't happen in
the next decade; itis something being developed for our grandchildren's
time.A few voices are being raised regarding the dangers of an
uncontrolledrush to technological bliss. Writes Bill Joy, co-founder of
SunMicrosystems and who The Economist magazine describes as
the "Edisonof the Internet," "I think it no exaggeration to say we are
on thecusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil
whosepossibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass
destructionbequeathed to the nation-states." Ray Kurzweil himself
suggests weonly have "a better than even chance of making it through"
thetechnological changes he sees coming.Sir Martin Rees, England's
Astronomer Royal, a Professor at CambridgeUniversity and one of the
world's foremost theoretical physicists,surveys current scientific
experiments and writes, "The 'downside'from twenty-first century
technology could be graver and moreintractable than the threat of
nuclear devastation that we have facedfor decades…I think the odds are
no better than fifty-fifty that ourpresent civilization on Earth will
survive to the end of the presentcentury." Such risks, Rees contends,
are the price that must be paidfor "personal freedoms and the pursuit
of scientific knowledge."While a full discussion of technology is
beyond the scope of any oneessay, it is worth commenting on the world's
first global electronicinformation system. Electronic information
systems have a fragmentingeffect, thus shattering the cohesion of
national myths, politicalphilosophies, social theories, cultural
styles, as well as religiousbeliefs. It's this fragmenting effect that
has helped create thewhole dissonance of our postmodern world in all
its forms. One resultis that we no longer collectively agree what
truths are"self-evident," or even what constitutes "truth." Thus we can
nolonger define the world in terms of what we "are," but only in
termsof what we have ceased to
be—"postindustrial," "post-Enlightenment,""post-ideological," "postnational"
or "postmodern."Yet still we must try to understand what has happened
to humanity thatwe stand at the point of potential self-annihilation.
Vaclav Havelsuggests an imbalance in our underlying concept of a
technologicalsociety. Writes Havel: "Science as the basis of the
modernconception of the world is missing something…It fails to connect
withthe most intrinsic nature of reality, and with natural
humanexperience. It is now more a source of disintegration and doubt
thana source of integration and meaning. It produces what amounts to
astate of schizophrenia: Man as an observer is becoming
completelyalienated from himself as a being…The abyss between the
rational andthe spiritual, the external and the internal, the objective
and thesubjective, the technical and the moral, the universal and the
uniqueconstantly grows deeper…There appear to be no integrating forces,
nounified meaning, no true inner understanding of phenomena in
ourexperience of the world"Or, as Houston Smith writes, technology, and
its scientific source,are honored for what they can tell us about
nature, but as that is notall that exists, science and technology
cannot provide us with a validworldview. "The most it can show us is
half of the world, the halfwhere normative and intrinsic values,
existential and ultimatemeanings, teleologies, qualities, immaterial
realities, and beingsthat are superior to us do not appear. Where,
then, do we now turnfor an inclusive worldview?"Richard Tarnas,
professor of psychology and philosophy at theCalifornia Institute of
Integral Studies, and author of the highlyacclaimed The Passion of the
Western Mind and the soon-to-be-releasedCosmos and Psyche, suggests
that as scientists and technologistspursue their vision of
technological transcendence, "unconsciousfactors are ignored. It's just
these unconscious factors that willeventually disrupt the developmental
trajectory so confidentlypredicted by technologists." Tarnas then
offers a thoughtful commentabout the psychology behind the quest for
technological transcendence:"Purveyors of such future scenarios are
blissfully--and oftenmanically--unaware of the deeper psychological
impulses driving theirquest, the shadow side of their aspirations, and
the superficiality oftheir understanding of either evolution or
consciousness. When one isunconscious of so much, one can be certain
that one's plans will notgo according to schedule. A deeper knowledge
of history would tellthem that, but historical myopia is a
self-affirming attribute. Thisdoes not mean that their visions are
harmless, only that they aredistorted and, in that sense, likely to be
highly inaccurate--thoughnot without consequences."What Tarnas suggests
is illustrated in the career of Steven Shafer,formerly a professor at
Carnegie Mellon University. According to TheWashington Post, Microsoft
hired Shafer as a researcher. It seemsthat Professor Shafer was unhappy
at Carnegie Mellon, as he complainedthat "teaching steals from research
time." At Microsoft, however,Shafer appears happier. "To me," he
confided to the Post, "thiscorporation is my power tool. It's the tool
I wield to allow my ideasto shape the world." My power tool. What
better example of theinflated power drive. It brings to mind one of
Jung's most profoundinsights; that the opposite of love is not hate,
but power. "Wherelove stops," he wrote in 1957, "power begins, and
violence andhorror." Thus the archetype may not be so much
a "love-hate" as a"love-power" archetype.Freeman Dyson, one of
America's foremost theoretical physicists, andpresent at the first test
of a nuclear bomb, gives a graphic exampleof how power can inflate the
ego. Speaking in the documentary filmThe Day After Trinity, Dyson
said, "The glitter of nuclear weapons.It's irresistible if you come to
them as a scientist. To feel it'sthere in your hands, to release this
energy that fuels the stars, tolet it do your bidding. To perform these
miracles, to lift upmillions of tons of rock into the sky. It is
something that givespeople an illusion of illimitable power, and it is,
in some ways,responsible for all our troubles—this, what you might call
technicalarrogance that overcomes people when they see what they can do
withtheir minds."One effect of the computer and Internet, says Stephen
Talbott, editorof the online NetFuture, is that it represents
a "disembodiedrationality, which "tends to be abstracted form with
little depth ofhumanly felt content." In this sense, he says, the
computer is not"neutral." It expresses primarily one side of the human
character.It tends to express "surface," but not "interior."Is it
possible that Kurzweil and the scientists/technologists quotedabove
have developed a theory, a belief system based on what they areskilled
at doing, and what captures their minds? This then becomes akind
of "technological determinism," which, at best, is only a partialview
of reality, and which may turn out to be even more misleadingthan
Marx's "economic determinism."Jung, of course, was always leery of the
proliferation of technologyand what harm it might eventually cause. In
the abstract, he sawtechnology as "neither good nor bad, neither
harmful nor harmless."The danger, Jung wrote, "lies not in technology
but in thepossibilities awaiting discovery." Those possibilities are
now hereand are leading to what some scientists term the "Post-human
era."While Jung didn't live to see "the possibilities awaiting
discovery,"Edward Edinger, who died in 1998, did. On the one hand,
Edinger sawthe World Wide Web as "a material reflection of the growing
collectiveindividuation in the world that is taking place. There is a
worldwideimpetus to a new individuation. All the cultures will
eventually beassimilated into this new individuation." Edinger knew,
however, that"eventually" could be an extremely long time.On the other
hand, he thought "man has decided to subordinate himselfto his machine.
He has abdicated his own center of being, and he'shanded it over to his
machine." Edinger felt the modern ego is"infatuated with its tools.
We're totally preoccupied with 'means,'and 'ends' has been completely
lost. It's the ego dissociated fromany transpersonal dimension." As to
the "Post-human" impetus, Edingerhad a clear view: "The impulse to
succeed ourselves through technologyreflects the collective
unconscious' goal of destruction." ThusEdinger believed the vital
question for everyone is "Do I have arelationship with that life-giving
source in my unconscious?"In the long sweep of time, we must ask
whether we've created ascientific culture that is an immense complex of
technique andspecialization devoid of any guiding ethical framework.
The higheststandard appears to be efficiency; the defining ethic, "If
it can bedone, it will be done." It is as Kevin Kelly suggests: "We
havebecome as gods, and we might as well get good at it."What does it
mean to be a "god"?In the Introduction to the Penguin Classic edition
of the Iliad,Bernard Knox offers a description of what being a god
entails: "To bea god is to be totally absorbed in the exercise of one's
own power,the fulfillment of one's own nature, unchecked by any thought
ofothers except as obstacles to be overcome; it is to be incapable
ofself-questioning or self-criticism. But there are human beings who
arelike this. Pre-eminent in their particular sphere of power,
theyimpose their will on others with the confidence, the
unquestioningcertainty of their own right and worth that is
characteristic ofgods."Is this a description of that miniscule
percentage of the human race,the scientists and technologists, who
accelerate the pace andcharacter of change for everyone else on earth,
and who are alteringthe basics of human existence, while pursuing
the "technologicalimperative" regardless of the human cost?It's not as
if we haven't been warned—including by some of our mostprophetic
voices—about the consequences of overreaching. In aprescient comment,
Herman Kahn and Anthony Weiner concluded their 1967magnum opus by
observing that in the final decades of the twentiethcentury, "we shall
have the technological and economic power to changethe world radically,
but probably not get very much ability torestrain our strivings, let
alone understand or control the results ofthe changes we will be
making." Alvin Toffler noted in 1970 that by"blindly stepping up the
rate of change, the level of novelty, and theextent of choice, we are
thoughtlessly tampering with theenvironmental preconditions of
rationality." (Emphases added.)Centuries earlier, however, everything
in human myth and religionwarned about trying to become as the gods.
(See Icarus andFrankenstein.) These myths and stories caution that
there are limitsto both human knowledge and endeavor; that to go beyond
those limitsis self-destructive. No one knows exactly where such limits
might be.But if they don't include the effort to create some
technical/humanlife form supposedly superior to human beings, if they
don't includethe capacity to genetically reconfigure human nature, if
they don'tinclude the attempt to introduce a "post-human" civilization,
thenit's hard to imagine where such limits would be drawn.Myths emanate
from the deepest realm of the psyche, that level whichconnects us to
transcendent wisdom. The record of five thousand yearsof human
experience suggests that at the heart of life is a greatmystery that
does not yield to rational interpretation. This eternalmystery induces
a sense of wonder out of which all that humanity hasof religion, art
and science is born. The mystery is the giver ofthese gifts, and we
only lose the gifts when we grasp at the mysteryitself. Nature may not
permit man to defy that mystery, thattranscendent wisdom. In the words
of Francis Bacon, "God forbid thatwe should give out a dream of our own
imagination for a pattern of theworld…The subtlety of nature is greater
many times over than thesubtlety of the [human] senses and
understanding."The Spiritual ReorientationThe third issue at the heart
of the psychological reorientationmentioned at the outset is the
spiritual turbulence taking placeworldwide, albeit at differing rates
of speed.At the center of this turbulence is a staggering reality
that'sdifficult to grasp: We are living through nothing less than
aredefinition of the human relationship to God. Such a redefinitionhas
happened several times before in history, and it's always been
adisruptive and disorienting period.Such a thought—a change in the
human relationship to God—or to be moreprecise, to the God-image—is by
no means original with this essay.Throughout the twentieth century,
thoughtful people—Thomas Hardy, W.B.Yeats, Oswald Spengler, Arnold
Toynbee, C.G. Jung, Adlai Stevenson,Rollo May, Peter Drucker, Joseph
Campbell to name just a few—have, inone way or another, raised this
possibility.Most of the above-mentioned people spoke of this prospect
in terms ofChristianity and Western civilization. However, Joseph
Campbell, whowas possibly the world's foremost authority on the
psychological andsymbolic meaning of myths, clearly believed this
spiritualreorientation, this change in the God-image, is a worldwide
phenomena.In a 1962 New York speech, he observed, "The world is passing
throughperhaps the greatest spiritual metamorphosis in the history of
thehuman race." Campbell referred to the change he saw taking place
inthe spiritual attitudes of the Moslem, Hindu, Jewish and
Christianstudents he had been teaching at Sara Lawrence College over
some fourdecades. Jung clearly shared Campbell's views, and Jung's
seminalbook, Answer to Job, is probably the most authoritative
exposition ofthe psychological phenomena underlying such a shift.But as
the spiritual/psychological reorientation we're considering isclearly
most pronounced in the Christian world, it is from thatexperience
examples are drawn that may offer helpful perspective. Ifa change in
the human relationship to the God-image is in fact takingplace, it is
by no means the first time such a change has occurred.Jung suggests we
are, in fact, experiencing the sixth major change inthe Western
God-image.A change in the God-image is a cataclysmic development. The
God-imageis the primary expression by which humans orient themselves to
thebasic questions and mysteries of life—Why am I here? What happens
tome when I die? Does life have any meaning, and if so, how do I
findit? How should I live my life? In this sense, the God-image
shouldnot be confused with the word "God." They are totally
differentphenomena, and are not interchangeable. When the God-image
changes,it brings with it a cultural transformation in worldview. For
manypeople it literally is the end of their world as they have
interpretedit.Part of the last such shift was evident when the
Greco-Roman multiplegods of antiquity ceased to resonate in the depths
of the Greco-Romansoul. This was a time of prolonged disintegration and
disorientation.The cry, "Great Pan is dead" was heard throughout the
Greco-Romanworld. The Roman poet Lucretius observed that "in every home
doubtsarose which the mind was powerless to assuage." There was a loss
ofcollective meaning; a disappearance of what had represented
life'shighest value. The God-image that had informed the inner life
andculture of the Greco-Roman world for a thousand years lost
itscompelling force, especially for the leadership class. This led to
abreakdown of the historic psychic structures that had been the
sourceand container of Greco-Roman morals and beliefs. A collapse of
theethical and social guidelines underlying civilized order took
place.This breakdown was followed by the collapse of life's
physicalstructures—the Roman roads, aqueducts, farms, and even the
Roman army,which required "mercenaries" to maintain the Roman military
machine.Numerous cults, philosophies and religions vied for supremacy.
Overtime, "spirit" and "matter" were torn apart from the
psychologicalunity they had enjoyed in both the Old Testament and in
Greekmythology, and Christianity became all "spirit." Finally,
threecenturies after Jesus, Emperor Constantine proclaimed Christianity
theofficial religion of the Roman Empire. Even so, it was another
fiveor six centuries before "Christendom" reigned throughout Europe.
FromIreland to Italy, Europe underwent a wrenching transformation of
basicsymbols and meaning.When this reorientation took place, the
process was confined to arelatively small proportion of Earth's
population, basically toEurope, including Russia. If a similar process
is in fact happeningtoday, it's taking place on a worldwide basis, and
all the world'smajor religions are affected.One reason for suggesting
that the terms "God" and the "God-image"are different phenomena is that
even the Catholic Church has suggestedthat God is beyond the capacity
of human comprehension. In 1215, atthe Lateran Council in Rome, the
Catholic Church stated that God is"ineffable and unknowable." A few
decades later, Thomas Aquinas waswriting his magnum opus, Summa
Theologica. Aquinas never finishedSumma Theologica. He simply quit
writing. He stopped, he said,because "One can know God only when one
knows that God far surpassesanything that can be said or thought about
God." (Italics added.) InAquinas' view, God is beyond all thought, even
beyond all categoriesof thought. In other words, he's saying the
word "God" is a metaphorfor the Mystery of Eternal Being, for that
Unknowable Divine Immensitythat created all life.Jung's views about God
are clear. In a 1955 interview with theLondon Daily Mail, he said, "All
that I have learned has led me stepby step to an unshakable conviction
of the existence of God." In a1959 BBC interview, Jung was asked
whether he believes in God. Hereplied, "I know, I don't need to
believe. I know." He subsequentlyoutlined the psychological
experiences, the soul experiences, on whichthat understanding was
based. For Jung, it was not a matter of faith,but of experience.If in
fact God is "unknowable" in the cognitive sense, what is itwe're
referring to when we talk about God? The Book of Genesis givesa clue
when it says man is created in "the image of God." The "imageof
God"—the God-image. It's this God-image in the collective psychethat is
the cohesive force of every religion, and it's this God-image,in all
it's varying expressions, that has been changing. Jung'sresearch
suggests such a change is not only a cultural process, but isalso an
evolutionary process that includes both biological andpsychological
developments.As to what is responsible for a change in the God-image,
EdwardEdinger suggests two factors: first, the God-image contains
a "latentdynamic tendency" to evolve and develop; second, such
developmentpartially results from "the feedback it receives from
conscious egos."Thus Edinger posits that while the Self, the pivotal
archetype oforientation and significance, is always manifested to one
degree oranother, there are times in the history of a cultural
worldview whenthe Self becomes activated to a greater degree than
normal. Suchtimes represent the great spiritual/psychological
transition points ofhistory.Historically, religion has been the
central, life-forming, cohesiveforce of all great civilizations. It
constituted the formativedynamic and informing source of all our
institutions and moralprecepts. Every culture has originally been the
outward expression ofsome inner spiritual conviction. So it is not
surprising that when aparticular spiritual dispensation atrophies, the
culture andinstitutions, as well as the moral conventions derived from
thatreligious impulse, lose their cohesion and authority. This is
anarchetypal process that has played itself out several times in
humanhistory. This archetypal process is again working itself out as
issuggested by the "hollowing out" of at least five of the
foundationalareas of Western civilization, i.e., religion, culture, the
family,education and self-government.A Different ContextTo help gain
perspective on why a change in the God-image has beentaking place,
consider what life was like for the average personbetween two and three
thousand years ago, when our religions came intobeing. The average
person never traveled more than perhaps thirtymiles from their home in
their lifetime; they thought the earth wasflat; they lived in an
agricultural society, which means they had anorganic relationship to
earth and natural phenomena; their only sourceof education or
intellectual stimulation was the priest; there were nobooks, newspapers
or "news of the day"; they had no idea of what wasgoing on in the rest
of the world—indeed they didn't even know therewas a "rest of the
world;" the population of the entire world wassmaller than today's U.S.
population, so there were none of the"population pressures" we
experience; they knew nothing about theuniverse or the beginnings of
life on earth; and on and on one couldgo.Contrast that with the context
within which we live today. We can seebillions of miles into space, and
in so doing, we've made contact withradiation left over from the "big
bang" some 14 billion years ago;religions which were born and
flourished in total isolation from eachother are now intermingling,
thus offering everyone sort of a"do-it-yourself" potpourri of religious
mix; anyone with a computerhas access to all knowledge, philosophies,
religions, politicaltheories, and cultural expressions; we have become
as "gods" ourselveswith the power to destroy the earth, and perhaps
even knock the solarsystem out of balance; we shall soon have the
capability to create"designer babies," and perhaps eventually eliminate
the requirementfor the male sperm in the creation of human life; and
television, theInternet, the cell phone and easy plane travel have
virtuallyeliminated time and space, giving us all an instantaneous
electronicglobal reach. One could go on, but the point is clear.We live
in an age that in every way is totally different than thosetimes when
our spiritual expressions were given us. Our psychologicalorientation
is vastly different. We possess abilities and facecircumstances that
were simply unimaginable even five hundred yearsago, to say nothing of
two thousand or more years ago. So it would beunnatural if there were
not some change taking place in how manrelates to the God-image, and to
Transcendent Reality. As JosephCampbell put it, "Nothing really means
anything because the images ofall our religions refer to millennia
past." Everyone on earth—fromthe indigenous people of the Amazon basin,
to the "sophisticates" ofParis and New York, are being forced into a
new global, electronic,instant information, technological context of
life, which bears norelationship to that context of life when our
religions evolved.Thus the religious life across the world is in
turmoil. In India, thepassive belief that one must accept the
circumstances of thisincarnation of life in order to find greater peace
and happiness inthe next incarnation, this belief is giving way to the
realizationthat one can indeed change one's circumstances in "this
life." Thusthe age-old pattern of adapting to one's "proper role," as
defined bydharma, need no longer apply. And so Bangalore is crammed
with young"techies"—making salaries their parents could only dream
of—providing"back room" services for American companies via computer.
In Israel,secularism and Judaic fundamentalism vie for political
supremacy,while Islam could eventually become Israel's major religion
ifIsrael's Arab population continues its present growth rate. In
China,where Confucianism and ancestor worship have been such a
significantunderpinning of culture and spiritual heritage, the whole
structure offamily, family authority, and the moral discipline of
Confucianism, aswell as acceptance of the wisdom of one's elders, has
been atrophyingunder the influence of, first Communism, and more
recently,modernization, affluence and globalization. And while the Tao
(or the"Way") tickles the spiritual fancy of many Westerners, the
influenceof the Tao has long been waning in China as people search for
somemore "modern" meaning to life as the country ascends to the peaks
ofworld economic and military power.In Europe, "secular fundamentalism"
reigns, and a major concern of theCatholic Church is whether Islam will
ultimately become Europe'sdominant religion. In sub-Sahara Africa, they
long ago lost theirinstinctual native ways of relating to the "Divine
Unknown" asEuropeans imposed Christianity and Western rationalized
modes ofadministration and education on a people who instinctively
operated ona more non-rational decision-making basis. Right now,
Christianity isgrowing rapidly in Africa, but it remains to be seen how
deeply this"foreign" religion becomes embedded in the African psyche.
And invirtually every Muslim country, significant debate of
Islam,democracy, modernity and globalization is under way.A Copernican
RevolutionBut Jung has pointed to something even deeper going on. The
evidenceindicates we are in the midst of a Copernican revolution of
thepsyche/soul, and it's generating the same disorientation,
bewildermentand conflict that followed the original Copernican
revolution in thesixteenth century.At its deepest level, religion is
the language of the soul, the centerof which is the Self, the archetype
that functions as the God-image.What the world is confronted with in
the so-called "clash ofcivilizations" is, at a deeper level, the
conflict of differentGod-images, or, in psychological terms, different
expressions of theSelf. That is the heart of every religious conflict.
It is a splitin humanity's God-image.At the center of this split is the
psychological reality that, as oneanalyst puts it, what we perceive
as "God-phenomena" are in point offact "Self-phenomena." Behind such a
statement is a totally new factof history: for the first time, as a
result of Jung's discoveries, wehave come to understand some of the
psychological reality of the humaninterpretation of the Divinity; a
reality based not on the actualexistence of the Divine Unknowable
Creator of the universe, but on ourperception of that Unknowable. That
perception, by definition, is notthe Unknowable Creator itself, but is
the God-image as rendered by theSelf. The split in the God-image is,
psychologically, a split inhumanity's collective Self. Historically,
this split has been causedby many factors, including geography and
environment, varying humancharacteristics, cultural and religious
development, as well as thenature of evolution and emergence. But over
the past two or threecenturies, the split has been intensified by
activation of theApocalypse archetype mentioned earlier.What we may be
facing now is the effort of this split Self, thisdivided God-image, to
seek a greater degree of unity and wholeness,even while the destructive
phase of the Apocalypse archetypecontinues. Given the unfolding of some
sort of global stage in humanaffairs which has been emerging over the
past several centuries, sucha move towards a greater unity in the Self,
in the God-image, wouldnot only be natural, but is essential if
humanity is successfully torealize the vital new life this unfolding
offers. This does notnecessarily mean any particular God-image must be
lost; rather that ascultures and individuals, we must move to a higher
level ofconsciousness at the same time as the differing God-images
mature andare reinterpreted to express themselves in a broader, deeper
and moreorganic unity. In this sense, a God-image need not be static;
it isresponsive to the demands of evolution of the human condition,
newcircumstances, and the evolving needs of the human soul.Part of the
maturation of the God-image is the need forreinterpretation of
spiritual scripture. Scripture is the expressionof an earlier
consciousness just as it emerged from the mists of theMythic Age. In
this sense, besides its spiritual significance that isan expression of
the transcendent dimension, scripture is as well apsychological
manifestation. As was said above, religion is thelanguage of the soul,
and as the soul (psyche) seeks a greatermaturity of expression,
traditional scripture must be reinterpreted interms that resonate in
the depths of the contemporary human spirit.This reinterpretation is
far more than a matter of language, of justre-writing the scripture in
modern language. It involves taking theoriginal scriptural expressions,
breaking them out of the archaic,pre-modern context in which they are
embedded, and expressing them interms that resonate with the
contemporary psyche.Edward Edinger has in fact done this to a certain
extent, and hiscollected works on this subject mark a historic
beginning of amonumental task. Take, for example, Edinger's
reinterpretation of thebiblical passage we know of as the Lord's
Prayer. He notes that it isdivided into seven petitions, and is "a
formula for maintaining aconnection between the ego and the Self." He
suggests that the phrase"Hallowed be thy name," means I must remember
the transpersonal sacreddimension of life. "That is what the ego is
reminding itself—toremember that life is not just secular, it has a
transpersonaldimension," writes Edinger. The phrase, "Thy kingdom
come," suggeststhat the ego is announcing that it recognizes that the
rule of theSelf should prevail. "Forgive us our trespasses," emphasizes
thenature of the ego's sin against the Self.We began this essay with a
glance at earlier seminal shifts in humanperception and orientation
that involved a heightened constellation ofthe Self. We are once again
experiencing an accelerated activation ofthe Self that is seen in a
broadening out of the human personality,and in a widening individual
identity. Given that religion is thelanguage of the soul, the psyche,
one is hard pressed to remember anytime in the past half century when
there has been as much publicdiscussion in the world about religion as
there is today. From apsychological standpoint, what we're witnessing
is the Self searchingfor a greater maturation and wholeness.The
Fundamentalist PhenomenonAn inherent aspect of any archetypal
expression of the maturingprocess is reaction, in this case expressed
in the more rigidmanifestation of religious fundamentalism's resistance
to such a newmaturation. Various people are inclined to equate
fundamentalism withradicalism, even terrorism. This is a distinction
that can be bothfalse and harmful. For many people, fundamentalism
simply meansadhering to the fundamentals, the basics, of a given
religiousexpression, whether Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Christian.Whether
moderate or fanatical, however, fundamentalism poses differentreactions
to the psychological reorientation under way. This is dueto the
numinous nature of the archetypal experience, which yields avariety of
expressions. If the numinous experience is consciouslyintegrated, then
individuation takes place, strengthening the"ego-Self axis." If,
however, one's ego identifies with thenuminosity of the experience,
then inflation takes place and thechance for individuation is
minimized. The ego then expresses itselfin a certain dogmatic rigidity.
It identifies with a psychologicallyarchaic belief system residing in
the collective unconscious, ratherthan moving forward and engaging
individuation and its process ofincreasing consciousness. The
individual then feels he has assumedthe spiritual "high ground." Thus,
all fundamentalisms tend to dividethe world between "us" and "them,"
between the "saved" and "damned,"between "those who are with us"
and "those who are against us." Forinflation has diminished the room
for acceptance of the "other."One characteristic of fundamentalism is
the literal interpretation ofscripture, whether the Bible, the Koran,
or Bhagavad-Gita, rather thana symbolic interpretation, which, for
example, is how St. Augustineinterpreted scripture such as the book of
Revelation and itsdescription of the Apocalypse. This is a critical
distinction, asmany people are inclined to interpret the book of
Revelationliterally. This difference between literalism and symbolism
is oneelement at the core of the difference between fundamentalists
and"traditionalists."A basic psychological law says every psychic
condition existssimultaneously with its opposite. So the maturation and
broadeningout, the evolution towards a more whole and complete
God-image takingplace in the collective psyche, brings with it a
regressive movementtowards an archaic reaching back for a more familiar
expression of theGod-image. Essentially, religious fundamentalism
reaches back forthought-patterns that originated at least two thousand
years ago, thatwere expressed in a manner relevant to the psychological
need anddevelopment of that time, but which fail to resonate with much
ofcontemporary society—especially in the "creative minority" which
setsthe tone and culture of any society. Indeed, the present-day
psycheis actually seeking to reformulate such thought-patterns as it
seeksmaturation and a higher state of consciousness.But the more energy
acquired by the embodiment of the "new," the morefiercely its opposite
clutches to the safer and more familiar "old."In other words, the
maturation to a new and more complete God-image,and the fundamentalist
reaction are two sides of the same coin. As hedesperately strives to
keep the old faith, the fundamentalist clingsto the certainty of the
very spiritual symbols that have lost theircollective numinosity and
are thus in need of reinterpretation.That the whole world should be
experiencing thisspiritual/psychological reorientation
simultaneously—even if atdiffering rates—is not surprising, as
Analytical Psychology suggeststhat the structure of the psyche is the
same for all peopleeverywhere, even though the psyche has manifested
itself in differentcultural and spiritual inflections over the
millennia. In this sense,the psyche is comparable to the human body,
which has evolved intodifferent sizes, features and colors, but in its
essential attributesis basically the same everywhere.The
Terrorism/Religion RelationshipPart of the contemporary psychological
reorientation is the questionof why there appear to be two completely
different ways in whichMuslims react to their perception of America,
globalization andWestern civilization? All Muslims, generally speaking,
appear toshare a similar assessment of what they perceive to be
thematerialism, secularism and general spiritual disintegration of
Europeand the United States. One section of Muslim
society—aminority—reacts to this perception by being prepared to
sacrificetheir lives in order to kill as many of the "infidel" as
possible.These are the so-called "terrorists." Another section of
Muslimsociety, which perhaps could be described as "traditionalists,"
andwhich shares the same assessments of the West as held by
theterrorists, responds by diplomacy, cultural interchange,
politicalaction, editorial commentary, and dialogue. Why this
completelydifferent response to shared or similar assessments? Are we
askingthis question, and do we evaluate the significance it implies?One
hypothesis in answer to this question could be that the
terroristprocesses his reaction to perceived ills directly from the
unconsciousportion of his psyche. It is an instinctual reaction.
AnalyticalPsychology has helped us realize that the unconscious is raw
nature,and as such, it has no moral structure. The traditionalist, on
theother hand, processes his reaction through his consciousness,
andconsciousness does contain a moral structure. As is pointed out
inEdinger's book, Archetype of the Apocalypse, "The psychological
rootof terrorism is a fanatical resentment – a quasi-psychotic
hatredoriginating in the depths of the archetypal psyche and
thereforecarried by religious (archetypal) energies…. Articulate
terroristsgenerally express themselves in religious (archetypal)
terminology.The enemy is seen as the Principle of Objective Evil
(Devil) and theterrorist perceives himself as the 'heroic' agent of
divine orObjective Justice (God). This is an archetypal inflation of
demonicproportions, which temporarily grants the individual almost
superhumanenergy and effectiveness." (For a graphic example of this,
see Timemagazine, "Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber." July 4,
2005)Edinger then goes on to say, "We need a new category to
understandthis new phenomenon. These individuals are not criminals and
are notmadmen although they have some qualities of both. Let's call
themzealots. Zealots are possessed by transpersonal, archetypal
dynamismsderiving from the collective unconscious. Their goal is a
collectiveone, not a personal one. The criminal seeks his own personal
gain;not so the zealot. In the name of a transpersonal, collective
value –a religion, an ethnic or national identity, a 'patriotic'
vision, etc.– they sacrifice their personal life in the service of
their 'god.'Although idiosyncratic and perverse, this is fundamentally
a religiousphenomenon that derives from the archetypal, collective
unconscious."What Edinger is highlighting applies to more than
terrorism in theMiddle East. It plays a part in many of the "religious"
conflicts inthe world today—Chechen Muslims v. Orthodox Russians, Jews
v. Muslimsin Palestine, Orthodox Serbians v. Muslims in the Balkans,
Hindus v.Muslims in Kashmir. In all of these conflicts, there is at
least asignificant element of what Edinger describes
as "transpersonal,archetypal dynamisms deriving from the collective
unconscious." Noassessment of the terrorist phenomenon is complete
without includingEdinger's general analysis.Shadow ProjectionCritical
to understanding the role the unconscious plays in all we'vediscussed
is to study our "shadow", both in its individual andcollective
expressions. One analyst suggested that if we want to knowwhat our
personal shadow looks like, just draw up a list of thecharacteristics
we least like in other people. That list willrepresent our shadow, the
repressed qualities our ego-defensemechanism denies in ourselves, and
thus projects onto other people ornations. The psychiatrist Anthony
Stevens writes that the shadow"underlies all kinds of prejudice against
those belonging toidentifiable groups other than our own, and is at the
bottom of allmassacres, pogroms and wars." In this way, he says, "we
deny our own'badness' and project it on to others…" (Emphasis added)The
most heinous example of collective "shadow projection" in our timewas
Hitler's ability to induce a sizable portion of the German peopleto
project its shadow onto the Jewish people. On a considerably
lesscatastrophic basis, shadow projection was more recently represented
byIran's use of the term "Great Satan" in describing the U.S., and
theU.S. retort of "Axis of evil," both of which locates the
evil "outthere" somewhere, and relieves Iran and the U.S. of
considering theirown evil. Stevens suggests that what makes phrases
such as these sodevastating is that they can "activate the archetype of
evil" whichthen gets "projected onto the 'enemy' in addition to the
projection ofour personal shadow."The question arises as to whether we
Americans are capable of or arewilling to confront our own "shadow" in
an objective manner, with novalue judgment reinforced by any emotional
attachment. Seeing the"American shadow," while not difficult, takes
moral courage, as itmeans confronting the source of malevolence in
ourselves, which isuncomfortable, to say the least. Just as the shadow
is integral toindividual existence, so it's part of a nation's
collectivepersonality. Examples abound: the brutality of Native
Americangenocide, of slavery and modern day racism; the arrogance of
the "UglyAmerican" abroad; an excessive "power-lust" for knowledge and
thedomination of nature—expressed in the amorality of the sciences,
andin the unreflecting exploitation of technology by business;
theselfishness of our maximization of growth and progress regardless
ofthe cost; our unbalanced way of thinking reflected in
environmentaldegradation; the greed and disregard of consequences that
lead to ouroil addiction; and the absence of love for our children that
toleratesour daily TV menu of violence, sex and death, to offer but a
fewexamples. These are all individual and shared shadow aspects that,
inour collective denial, we refuse to confront—at our and the
world'speril. As Marie-Louise von Franz put it, "I think that if more
peopledo not make the effort to reflect and take back their
[shadow]projections, and take the opposites within themselves, there
will be atotal destruction."Edinger gives helpful insight on
understanding one's shadow. "We mustask ourselves," he writes, "Whom do
I hate? Which groups or factionsdo I fight against? Whoever or whatever
they are, they are a part ofme. I am bound to that which I hate, as
surely as I am bound to thatwhich I love. Psychologically, the
important thing is where one'slibido is lodged, not whether one is for
or against a given thing."(Italics added)Marie-Louise von Franz
comments on Jung's reaction to the accumulationof collective shadow
projection: "Jung saw this present-dayculmination of evil as typical of
the historic catastrophes that tendto accompany the great transitions
from one age to another… Jung alsodid not have a simple answer, but he
was convinced that everyindividual who undertook to come to terms with
the evil in himselfwould make a more effective contribution toward the
salvation of theworld than idealistic external machinations would. Here
we aretalking about more than just insight into one's personal shadow;
weare speaking also of a struggle with the dark side of God, which
thehuman being cannot face but must, as Job did." Perhaps Jung's
mostsuccinct prescription for confronting the shadow was, "One does
notbecome enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making
thedarkness [the shadow] conscious." That is the heart
of"individuation," Jung's term for achieving the most
completedevelopment of individual personality. That is certainly a task
anyindividual can undertake.Summing UpTo sum up, as we look towards the
coming decades, we cannot escape thefact that some great phase of the
human experience is dying, whilesome new stage seeks to take shape. We
daily watch and experience thetrauma of this historic shift expressing
itself in cascading worldevents, in our changing institutions and human
relationships, and inthe ethos of destruction that has become such a
cultural motif. Atthe deepest level, what we're experiencing is a sign
of humanity'scollective soul passing through the throes of a
reorientation, a deathand rebirth. We shouldn't be surprised, as it's
happened before inhistory, albeit on a more limited geographical basis.
But now thewhole human family is experiencing such a critical moment.
Andalthough we have no map of the wider historical space into which
theworld is moving, the process itself reflects some new hope, some
newcontext of life coming to birth. Like all births it's painful.We all
are living between two ages. There's a new epoch of broaderand deeper
meaning struggling to take shape for all humankind. Whatwe're
experiencing is a broadening out of the human personality to anew
orientation that brings with it a sense of the whole person, aswell as
that person's relationship to the whole of humanity. It's anenlargement
of personality and perspective bringing with it a moreinclusive and
complete transcendent expression. This is the expansionof consciousness
so urgently needed. It's a process of innertransformation and rebirth.
It's that larger and greater personalitymaturing within us. With all
our problems and possibilities, thefuture depends on how we—each in his
or her own unique way—tap intothe eternal renewing dynamic that dwells
in the deepest reaches of thehuman soul.Such a moment of intense
possibility is, as well, a moment of gravedanger. The question that
hangs over humanity is whether we shallwake to this process and engage
it in time, or continue blindly downthe road of past orientations and
perspectives. It is unrealistic toexpect what we've been discussing to
come to fruition in the lifetimeof anyone reading this essay, for
history suggests changes inworldview and consciousness take time to
grow and mature. But ifenough people—especially in America and
Europe—realize what'shappening, and internalize the symbolic meaning of
the neworientation, then perhaps we might avoid the worst, and
contribute tothe new level of consciousness and moral maturity a new
epoch ofhistory is demanding.(c) William Van Dusen Wishard 2005. All
rights reserved.WorldTrends Research: www.worldtrendsresearch.com

--
Posted By Henry Reed to 1REED at 6/26/2007 11:44:00 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ls.net/pipermail/consciousness/attachments/20070626/f2a2ce12/attachment-0001.htm