Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7959Re: 7 Sermons to the Dead/Jung

Expand Messages
  • lady_caritas
    Jul 4 6:48 AM
      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Mike Leavitt <ac998@l...> wrote:
      > Hello lady_caritas
      > On 03-Jul-03, you wrote:
      > > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, "ron3702" <barroter@a...>
      > >> Anyone here read this one? I'm at the moment plowing through
      > >> 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
      > > 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
      > > would say to his friends: "I can't express myself," although he
      > > 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
      > > 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
      > Hope you don't mind lady_caritas.

      Oh, not at all, Mike. My goodness, you know a lot of people. ;-)
      Feel free to share with us anecdotes of interest anytime you'd like.

      > 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.
      > Regards
      > --
      > Mike Leavitt ac998@l...

      I would imagine there might always be some negative consequences in
      personal and professional relationships when admitting to gnostic
      views outside the mainstream. And the degree to which this happens
      can vary depending on the social and political climate. I have to
      give all these men that you mention credit for finding ways of
      communicating what was important to them for the benefit of other
      humans without completely destroying their professional credibility.

    • Show all 10 messages in this topic