User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 50

  1. #1
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,899

    Default God is a function of the unconscious?

    I was reading in "Psychological Types,", Jung's analysis of "The Relativity of the God-concept in Meister Eckhart", and thought some of the following was interesting. What do you think about some of this?

    "the God-image is the symbolic expression of a particular psychic state, or function, which is characterized by its absolute ascendency over the will of the subject and can therefore bring about or enforce actions and achievements that could never be done by conscious effort. This overpowering impetus to action or this inspiration that transcends conscious understanding, has its source in an accumulation of energy in the unconscious"

    "God is not even relative, but a function of the unconscious - the manifestation of a dissociated quantum of libido that has activated the God-image"

    "The aim of the great religions is expressed in the injunction "not of this world," and this implies the inward movement of libido into the unconsciousness"

    "the soul is a personification of the unconsciousness, where lies the treasure, the libido which is immersed in introversion and is allegorized as God's kingdom. This amounts to a permanent union with God, a living in his kingdom, in that the state where a preponderance of libido lies in the unconscious and determines conscious life. The libido concentrated in the conscious was formerly invested in objects, and this made the world seem all-powerful. God was then "outside," but now he works from within, as the hidden treasure conceived as God's kingdom."

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  2. #2
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Recent research on the "God Spot" has found that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex—which are distinctively developed in humans—and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates. The study found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum which were also the same ones used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God. The findings support the idea that the brain has evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improves the chances of survival and suggests the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so. This work was followed by a study where scientists tried to stimulate the temporal lobes with a rotating magnetic field. Michael Persinger, from Laurentian University in Ontario, found that he could artificially create the experience of religious feelings in 80% of volunteers.[44]
    Criticism of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I've been interested in this "God Spot" neurophysiological part/process of the brain and its potential explanatory basis for faith and moral and God beliefs.

    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  3. #3
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    what if i believe in god, and still don't care about it/him/her? what if the concept has little bearing on how i live/think? or what if i just don't like him?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sp/sx
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    Which came first, the God concept or the missionary?

  5. #5
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    what if i believe in god, and still don't care about it/him/her? what if the concept has little bearing on how i live/think? or what if i just don't like him?
    Then if God is real and you reject him, I guess you live with the consequences. (But you get to be autonomous.)

    Quote Originally Posted by sLiPpY View Post
    Which came first, the God concept or the missionary?
    Nice.

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander29 View Post
    I was reading in "Psychological Types,", Jung's analysis of "The Relativity of the God-concept in Meister Eckhart", and thought some of the following was interesting. What do you think about some of this?

    "the God-image is the symbolic expression of a particular psychic state, or function, which is characterized by its absolute ascendency over the will of the subject and can therefore bring about or enforce actions and achievements that could never be done by conscious effort. This overpowering impetus to action or this inspiration that transcends conscious understanding, has its source in an accumulation of energy in the unconscious"

    "God is not even relative, but a function of the unconscious - the manifestation of a dissociated quantum of libido that has activated the God-image"

    "The aim of the great religions is expressed in the injunction "not of this world," and this implies the inward movement of libido into the unconsciousness"

    "the soul is a personification of the unconsciousness, where lies the treasure, the libido which is immersed in introversion and is allegorized as God's kingdom. This amounts to a permanent union with God, a living in his kingdom, in that the state where a preponderance of libido lies in the unconscious and determines conscious life. The libido concentrated in the conscious was formerly invested in objects, and this made the world seem all-powerful. God was then "outside," but now he works from within, as the hidden treasure conceived as God's kingdom."
    I'm working hard to respond to this in some way, because it's interesting, but I am at a loss on where to go from here. Did you have a question in mind?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #6
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Then if God is real and you reject him, I guess you live with the consequences. (But you get to be autonomous.).
    I'd like to think God appreciates a little stubbornness.

    Anyhow I guess the real question behind my question is what does it mean if one doesn't have the same "brain" as those who thrive on religious experiences.. yet still finds God to be a plausible idea. It seems to me like the whole Richard Dawkins argument is only useful in debunking the religious experience. Not the concept of God itself.

    I haven't exactly examined what he says in detail though, so that's just a guess.

  7. #7
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I'd like to think God appreciates a little stubbornness.
    I'd like to as well.

    (Unfortunately, "God" means our opinions don't mean diddly.)

    Anyhow I guess the real question behind my question is what does it mean if one doesn't have the same "brain" as those who thrive on religious experiences.. yet still finds God to be a plausible idea. It seems to me like the whole Richard Dawkins argument is only useful in debunking the religious experience. Not the concept of God itself. I haven't exactly examined what he says in detail though, so that's just a guess.
    I've read a few of his books, but not recently enough to feel capable of discussing them with nuance. I'm just not sure how anyone can comment with 100% certainty on the "God" topic since by definition it lies outside perfect human perception. We can only discuss patterns we've witnessed and assign probabilities to them based on experience and event frequency.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #8
    Senior Member Gerbah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    433

    Default

    This sounds like a way of saying that since there is no God, you are your own God. And if you can manage to experience yourself as God, you will find your will power and self-love and actualise your potential as a person. So mankind's pursuit of God has always been a pursuit of himself.

    If a person thinks there is no God, then it is natural that their own self becomes the centre of the universe. What I don't understand though is if, according to this view, there is no objectively existing God, what is the value in calling such-and-such psychic function “God”? Are you not then comparing an existing phenomenon that you wish to understand to a fictive phenomenon? How does using terms like that help one to understand it?
    the shoheen ho of the wind of the west and the lulla lo of the soft sea billow - Alfred Graves

  9. #9
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    It's a good point.

    What if the goal is something different, though -- not actually to understand the phenomenon but to relate to it?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gerbah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Why would I want to relate to something I don't want to understand though?

    If I want to relate to something, it is desirable to me. If something is desirable to me, I want to relate to it, unite with it, know it, so understand it. Even if I don't understand it 100%, I've got some sort of idea as to what it is I am desiring.

    So if I want to relate to myself, I don't see how in all of that I end up allegorising my inner world as God's kingdom, when I am not supposed to even believe there is an objective God. That all that really matters is me. Just sounds sort of grandiose and delusional to me. Like, the only way you can really come to self-acceptance is if you blow up your self-image and self-importance into the image of "God". Then you're really "it", you're really "you". Though there is no God you believe in. Yet you are manifesting a desire to worship something. So you worship yourself. Just sounds kind of confused and messed up to me.
    the shoheen ho of the wind of the west and the lulla lo of the soft sea billow - Alfred Graves

Similar Threads

  1. compensatory aspect of the unconscious
    By INTP in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 12:41 PM
  2. jungian definition of the unconscious
    By INTP in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 10:58 AM
  3. Cognitive Functions of the Newborn Infant
    By SecondBest in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-05-2010, 09:25 PM
  4. [INTJ] Understanding the functions of the INTJ
    By ByTheTime in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-03-2009, 12:40 PM
  5. The Holy Grail of the Unconscious
    By Synarch in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 01:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO