Carl Jung: Anyone who is conscious of his guiding principle.
Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche
I have returned at this point in the discussion to my previous hypothesis of a higher consciousness because the problem we are concerned with here, namely the life-ruling power of the spirit, is connected with processes outside ego-consciousness.
A little further back I mentioned in passing that an idea which lacks emotional force can never become a life-ruling factor.
I also said it was a matter of fate what kind of attitude or “spirit” would develop, in order to emphasize that the conscious mind is not in a position to create an autonomous complex at will.
It is not autonomous unless it comes upon us forcibly, and visibly proves its superiority to the conscious will. It, too, is one of those disturbances that arise out of the dark regions.
When I said earlier that an idea must evoke a response from the emotions, I meant an unconscious readiness which, because of its affective nature, springs from deeper levels that are quite inaccessible to consciousness.
Thus, our conscious reason can never destroy the roots of nervous symptoms; for this emotional processes are needed, which even have the power to influence the sympathetic nervous system.
We could equally well say that when the wider consciousness sees fit, a compelling idea is put before the ego-consciousness as an unconditional command.
Anyone who is conscious of his guiding principle knows with what indisputable authority it rules his life.
But generally consciousness is too preoccupied with the attainment of some beckoning goal to consider the nature of the spirit that determines its course. ~Carl Jung, CW 8, Para 642
Carl Jung: To be fully Conscious is Possible
Dr. Jung: To be fully conscious is quite possible.
Mrs. Crowley: But what I do not understand is the idea of that complete self identity, identity just with yourself, because it seems to me that you are simply in another layer where you are completely surrounded by another stream-only on another level–so that you cannot but disidentify. You are still an instrument or part of the stream, you are still part of a vast layer of non-understanding.
Dr. Jung: Naturally. You must always be, otherwise you would be God himself. The point is that you should assimilate yourself and not project half of yourself into other people or institutions. Of course you are far from being perfect, or perfectly conscious. When you are integrated you are perhaps as unconscious as you ever were, only you no longer project yourself; that is the difference.
One should never think that man can reach perfection, he can only aim at completion–not to be perfect but to be complete. That would be the necessity and the indispensable condition if there were any question of perfection at all. For how can you perfect a thing if it is not complete? Make it complete first and see what it is then. But to make it complete is already a mountain of a task, and by the time you arrive at absolute completion, you find that you are already dead, so you never even reach that preliminary condition for perfection yourself.
Completion is not perfection: to make a building perfect one must first construct it, and a thing which is not even half finished cannot be perfected. First make it complete: then polish it up if you have time and breath left. But usually one’s whole life is eaten up on the effort at completion. ~Carl Jung, Visions Seminar, Page 589-590
Carl Jung’s First Conscious Trauma
The Difference Between “Natural” and “Conscious” Individuation
The difference between the “natural” individuation process, which runs its course unconsciously, and the one which is consciously realized, is tremendous.
In the first case consciousness nowhere intervenes; the end remains as dark as the beginning.
In the second case so much darkness comes to light that the personality is permeated with light, and consciousness necessarily gains in scope and insight.
The encounter between conscious and unconscious has to ensure that the light which shines in the darkness is not only comprehended by the darkness, but comprehends it.
The filiiis solis et lunae is the symbol of the union of opposites as well as the catalyst of their union.
It is the alpha and omega of the process, the mediator and intermedins.
“It has a thousand names,” say the alchemists, meaning that the source from which the individuation process rises and the goal towards which it aims is nameless, ineffable.
It is only through the psyche that we can establish that God acts upon us, but we are unable to distinguish whether these actions emanate from God or from the unconscious.
We cannot tell whether God and the unconscious are two different entities.
Both are border-line concepts for transcendental contents.
But empirically it can be established, with a sufficient degree of probability, that there is in the unconscious an archetype of wholeness which manifests itself spontaneously in dreams, etc., and a tendency, independent of the conscious will, to relate other archetypes to this centre.
Consequently, it does not seem improbable that the archetype of wholeness occupies as such a central position which approximates it to the God-image.
The similarity is further borne out by the peculiar fact that the archetype produces a symbolism which has always characterized and expressed the Deity.
These facts make possible a certain qualification of our above thesis concerning the indistinguishableness of God and the unconsci0us.
Strictly speaking, the God image does not coincide with the unconscious as such, but with a special content of it, namely the archetype of the self.
It is this archetype from which we can no longer distinguish the God image empirically. We can arbitrarily postulate a difference between these two entities, but that does not help us at all.
On the contrary, it only helps us to separate man from God, and prevents God from becoming man.
Faith is certainly right when it impresses on man’s mind and heart how infinitely far away and inaccessible God is; but it also teaches his nearness, his immediate presence, and it is just this nearness which has to be empirically real if it is not to lose all significance.
Only that which acts upon me do I recognize as real and actual.
But that which has no effect upon me might as well not exist.
The religious need longs for wholeness, and therefore lays hold of the images of wholeness offered by the unconsci0us, which, independently of the conscious mind, rise up from the depths of our psychic nature. ~Carl Jung, CW 11, Para 756
