I guess you really misunderstood my use of the Wu Wei expression.Wu Wei is not a submission to instinct etc... It is active passivity. A paradox in itself. Like fishing in a way: you just wait and 'it' catches (you do not catch 'it') and then back to the world and cook the 'fish' and eat and drink you see... Or if I can put it that way it implies putting one's life in accordance with one's fate, which means action and power and the lot but as a consciously accepted consequence of the deep inner drive...
So "doing without willfulness" is ok with me.
Dear Roger,
Ok, that helps. I understand more clearly now . . . and I agree. Thanks.
Neither can I see the purpose of existence as non-existence. To me a full life is a life where what comes from deep is put written sculpted or whatever into flesh blood matter or whatever. And there is only one way: the go-between's...
Again, this makes sense to me.
I think my confusion derives from one important point (and it has nothing to do with your ideas . . . but with some of the other things I observed at Unus Mundus). Namely, I feel that the prescription you and I are both making in our own ways needs to be elaborated in a way that is as comprehendable as possible. I.e., something as close to the "scientific method" principle as such arcane, psychological topics can get. I like to see these difficult notions held up to a practical and logical evaluation. Perhaps, ultimately, we "know" these things that spark our theories and languages due to intuition and introspection.
From what I can sense, this is definitely the case with me. I have a valuating hunch and then I have to pursue it with language that is increasingly pared down by revision after revision of "sense-making". This "circumambulatio" process (good word, that) also puts more and more flesh on the bones of the intuition . . . hopefully allowing the intuition to be connecting to something practical and worthwhile.
So, my two concerns for those of us who try to talk about the things we are driven by and hope to communicate are that 1) we do our best to counteract the "Intuitive Fallacy", and 2) we pay special attention to the ways our ideas are being interpreted by others.
By "Intuitive Fallacy", I mean merely the tendency of us intuitives to accept pure intuition as truth . . . without exploring the ramifications of that intuition or trying to merge it with the practical. I don't see intuitions as whole. They are half-way gestures from the unconscious. I think we have to passively open ourselves up to this potential, but we also have to actively translate and make use of it. To me, this is the Middle Path.
And of course, intuitives hate to do this more than anything. It is much more likely that they worship and exalt such intuitions rather than applying them to the process of living. In my own Work, I have found the most active and profound responses from the Self (here I use the term perhaps in a way that means both what you and what Jung mean by it) have come as complements to my willingness to both go down to grasp it and to my drive to come back up and utilize it.
The more I give my constructive thought to my dreams, for instance, the more those dreams adopt language that makes sense to me in their effort to communicate. My dreams have increasingly used symbols, images, and concepts from my writing . . . which is for me an intimate interaction with the unconscious or Self. My dreams have never been critical or corrective of my efforts to address them and comprehend them in language that the ego can make sense of . . . if anything, quite the opposite. What I feel is an excitement in the Other because I am willing to devote so much time trying to commune with and facilitate it at the expense of whatever egoic prejudices might get in my way.
My Self has shown (in recent years) a distinct sense of respect for my efforts to meet it half way. This is never a glorification, and when I falter, it clearly states its disagreement. But there is an "understanding" between us that we are working for the same goals. Which is not terribly surprising as I have followed its advice on living as best I could for many years . . . even when it meant throwing away important aspects of my material life.
As for the second concern mentioned above, we both know that the things we are talking about, insomuch as they really are a kind of gnosis, are come to only through experiential pursuits. It is nice to find books and mentors or friends that accord or help orient us, but we have our own teachers within.
But it takes years of disciplined devotion to differentiate the ego from the Self and figure out what is driving our attitudes. Frankly, it always (still) comes as a surprise to me, but many people simply don't devote themselves to the Work extensively enough to be able to speak experientially about such arcana as the anima/animus work. Even in the Jungian community, these major archetypes remain so mystical that they are only addressed by theory and citations of other thinkers much of the time.
Although the intuitive framework is there (thanks especially to alchemical precedents), there is no agreed upon paradigm of the animi stages of individuation. Not only that, but there is no attempt (or at least resolution) among Jungians to try to find and understand a non-mystical, non-spiritual parallel for these archetypes . . . even though the Jungian dogma clearly states that they represent instinct. Yet, I haven't read any Jungians who try to understand these archetypes instinctually, i.e., as serving a biological, evolutionarily adaptive purpose. They are left to be merely abstract phantasms.
One might argue that they must be abstract . . . but then one cannot also argue that they are instinctual. There is a stumble in the Jungian logic here, and it falls into the Jungian shadow.
The point I mean to make is that Jungians have become too accepting of an abstract language for the contents and ways of the psyche . . . and therefore, they are inclined to project into these theories whatever they personally want them to mean. There is no "higher standard" as with the scientific method that evaluates the usefulness of such theories. But, in my opinion, such a standard needs to be constructed or else Jungian psychology has no intelligence from the Other guiding it anymore. It becomes an ego-only pursuit . . . and this tends to lead toward morphing into a cultic religion (much as Richard Noll decried, although not, I think, with complete understanding of what he was saying). A religion with dogmas and deities in which the pursuit of its ideas are only meant to promote a faith in those dogmas and deities, not a true process of investigation and testing.
So, I feel that anyone who wants to edit the Jungian dogma, especially those who want to push beyond it or push
it beyond where it is (as we both, I feel, do), needs to devote him or herself to constructing a language that is as difficult to misinterpret and dogmatize as possible. Of course, this is impossible . . . but the alchemical opus is impossible, too. It seems to me a worthy goal to strive for.
I believe that all theories need to exist in a context of scrutiny and debate. There needs to be an admission that, in our act of putting the understanding of the Self into the ego's language, there will never be perfection. We always have only the story . . . and we can only do our best to make the story "good" or functional. But the ego does not operate in the realm of the True. So the value of those philosophies we express in language cannot really be ascertained on a scale of Trueness. Instead, they must
work. They must prove their effectiveness and diverse applicability.
And when we have only our language to communicate such things to one another, personal testimonies to worth and veracity can never substitute for logical arguments and explanations.
In the ideas we create, there are dangers . . . sometimes overt, sometimes in the susceptibility to misinterpretation and misuse. We are, I feel, responsible for the effects of our words . . . and to no small degree we need to see the ultimate value of our words and ideas in the way others react to and use them.
A theoretical language is only ever a suggestion, even an act of theater. It is only as good as what it creates and communicates, it's "Taoist usefulness".
My personal desire is to find a language that can express and elaborate my intuitive and experiential ideas as clearly as possible. And I am used to befuddling people with my language. But I see this as largely my own fault. And I am a writer. I know the importance of revision. The audience/Other is the ultimate determiner of the worth of my ideas and expressions. If they misunderstand what I write, I have failed. If they understand and respond with constructive criticism, then I have stumbled upon riches. Either way, I must continue to revise and rethink.
I am therefor not inclined toward satisfaction. Just as the Self-as-Other compels me, so do actual other people compel me. I try to pursue the Work as though I and my guesswork are guinea pigs to be studied. I keep at it not to find bliss or contentment or truth or peace or God, but because I see its potential value in respect to knowledge and to others. In essence, I have worth as a cog of Eros. So if I want to dip my wheel in the water, I also need to connect the axle to something productive, to (as our dear Susanna dreamt) a generator. I am not a battery ore receptacle, but a
converter of energy. Here I am using "I" to mean the ego in general.
I feel that I have no right to commune with the Self if the current doesn't allow me to grind some grain in the material world. The Self is not
for me . . . I am for it.
Yours,
Matt
