This entry ·was not reproduced in LN.
On January 27, 1916, there was a presentation to the Association for Analytical Psychology by Adolf Keller concerning Theodore Flournoy’s “Une mystique moderne.”
Jung had two copies of this work, both of which ·were annotated.
In the discussion, Toni Wolff noted,
“In analysis one can also reach God through love and will, not by overpowering, as K. thinks.”
Jung replied, “In analysis we rather get prepared for it. If not, overpowering happens.”
Schneiter commented, “The unio mystica of the mystics is love,” and Jung commented, “The experience of the devil is missing.”
Emma Jung commented, “The concept of God does precisely not match a known image or an imago,” to which Jung replied, “That is already the case with the primitives (the God is not the father, but the Grandfather, etc.).
This shows that it is not a revaluation of the father and that it is only concept by proxy that could be replaced by any other.
God is everything that is and creates emotion.”
Further on in the discussion, Jung commented: “First God is felt traditionally, conventionally, then dynamically, then felt into humanity (as magical effect of the person) .
But this results in a God beyond good and evil.
It leads to the devil (as war) It is a primitive thought: everything alien is magical. Also medieval.
Mlle V shows us that she experiences God as a subjective dynamis, and between men it is the personal.
A God beyond good and evil questions the human relationship . . . a God beyond good and evil is not Christian either.
The Christian is only an etiquette.- If she was to continue consequently, she would come between the poles.
At the end she takes the view, according to which she turns into a Christ herself. This is already analytical.
The Christians become christiani, not christoi” (MAP, pp. 99ff.).
Jung’s comments concerning a God beyond good and evil converge with the conception of Abraxas that he was elaborating in these entries. ~The Black Books, Vol. V, Page 280, fn 417