7951Re: 7 Sermons to the Dead/Jung
- Jul 3, 2003Hello lady_caritas
On 03-Jul-03, you wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "ron3702" <barroter@a...> wrote:
>> Anyone here read this one? I'm at the moment plowing through this
>> dense piece of work. Quite a bit to digest it is.
> Hi, Ron. Yes, it certainly is that.
> Here are some interesting comments from an interview with Gilles
> Quispel (close friend of C. G. Jung) by Christopher Farmer (_Gnosis
> Magazine_ #1 Fall/Winter 1985, p. 29):
> Farmer: Whereas the ancient gnostics took the alternative of the
> Unknown Father seriously, Jung certainly did not.
> Quispel: Jung was not an atheist, so he did not, nor was he a pan-
> psychologist, but he did have a very personal concept of God. As he
> would say to his friends: "I can't express myself," although he did
> once in the _Septem Sermones ad Mortuos_ (1916). And you will see
> him, in all his later works, trying to formulate what he had
> experienced then, in 1915, in a scholarly way. But he was furious,
> for example, when Martin Buber identified him with the gnostics,
> because he thought that his purpose and experience was different.
> And I think he was right. For him, light and darkness and that whole
> grim oceanic feeling which man has come from, is a real issue:
> making light out of darkness the alchemical process.
Chris is an old friend of mine, and I forwarded this message to him.
Hope you don't mind lady_caritas. Of course being identified as a
Gnostic could have had very negative consequences for Jung in that
day and age, though I think he was more alchemist than gnostic
anyway. Now Quispel was really a gnostic, whether he admitted it
publicly or not. A couple of short conversations with him at the
Panarion Conference at Mt. St. Mary's in the '70s convinced me of
that. And Scholem was really a Qabalist too, and very personable,
though he never admitted that publicly either.
Mike Leavitt ac998@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>