God is a function of the unconscious?

[highlander]

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."

 

[SillySapienne]

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.

 

[KDude]

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?

 

[sLiPpY]

Which came first, the God concept or the missionary?

 

[Totenkindly]

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.)

Which came first, the God concept or the missionary?

Nice.

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?

 

[KDude]

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

 

[Gerbah]

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?

 

[Totenkindly]

It's a good point.

What if the goal is something different, though -- not actually to understand the phenomenon but to relate to it?

 

[Gerbah]

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

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

If it doesn't make sense to you personally, then maybe you can try to imagine why other people MIGHT want to? It sounds like from your POV it makes no sense, but that's not the case for some other types of people.

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.

Usually people who believe in a God of some sort DO believe they understand it and have connected with it. They personalize the experience internally rather than possibly recognizing it as a part of themselves as per Jung above, because to them it feels like separate = living entity and then give flesh to the idea as per their particular religious doctrines.

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.

I think you are literalizing Jung's use of "God" here. remember, he's creating a bridge from a religious mindset to his ideas, so he's using God as a connective point -- what the religious people identify as God, Jung is now equating to some sort of inner facet. He is not really commenting on a tangible independent God, he's speaking metaphorically. When you use symbols, you do not have to understand all the details of them; they exist as complete images in their own right and you can't reduce them to further granularity.

And he's saying people mistake their internal unconscious libido or driving/life force as the active God component.

 

[Gerbah]

He is not really commenting on a tangible independent God, he's speaking metaphorically. When you use symbols, you do not have to understand all the details of them; they exist as complete images in their own right and you can't reduce them to further granularity.

And he's saying people mistake their internal unconscious libido or driving/life force as the active God component.

Oh ok, so "God" is seen as a symbol of a certain psychic drive. I didn't get that. I think see the structure of the POV better now.

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but are symbols generally used by Jung as indicators of psychic activity? I always did find Jung difficult to understand when I tried to read his own words and not commentaries by others. The symbols seemed somehow powerful and independent as I understood them, which wasn't very well.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh ok, so "God" is seen as a symbol of a certain psychic drive. I didn't get that. I think see the structure of the POV better now.

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but are symbols generally used by Jung as indicators of psychic activity? I always did find Jung difficult to understand when I tried to read his own words and not commentaries by others.

Jung is an extremely symbolic writer. It's one reason people sometimes argue over what he's trying to say (the symbols that were obvious to him are less clear to others) and why people often debate his type between INTP and INFJ... the latter has an Ni primary cog function, which thinks symbolically, even though Jung also seems to think systematically as an INTP does.

He tended to perceive everything in symbols and archetypal structures.

 

[Mole]

Magic and the Suspension of Disbelief

To believe in a book, to believe in a movie, and to believe in God, all we need to do is suspend our disbelief.

And we suspend our disbelief for a while by allowing our cognitive faculties to go to sleep. And so we allow ourselves to believe what is in the book or the movie or our religion.

And we allow our cognitive faculties such as judgement and analysis to go to sleep for a while to refresh ourselves. So that when we awake from our suspension of disbelief, we can see the world freshly, anew and more accurately.

The caveat is though that when we are in a state of suspended disbelief, we don't sign a contract or make a marriage proposal or make an important decision. No, we wait until we are fully awake before we sign a contract, propose marriage, or make an important decision.

But having said all that, all that remains is aesthetics.

Is it a beautiful book? Or is it a lovely movie? Or do I worship a beautiful God?

For just as what we eat today walks and talks tomorrow, we become what we read or watch or worship. It's like magic.

 

[Oberon]

I think Victor is a function of our collective subconscious.

What the he!! are we thinking?!?

 

[Totenkindly]

I think Victor is a function of our collective subconscious. What the he!! are we thinking?!?

You mean each of us has a piece of Victor deep inside?
Even Jung?
So that means... the ideas of Jung... that Victor is criticizing... actually came from Victor = ouroboros swallowing its own tail in the everlasting chase?

@Victor: Thank you for your post. I enjoyed it on its own merits, although I'm still trying to formulate the connection between it and this particular thread.

 

[Mole]

You mean each of us has a piece of Victor deep inside?
Even Jung?
So that means... the ideas of Jung... that Victor is criticizing... actually came from Victor = ouroboros swallowing its own tail in the everlasting chase?

@Victor: Thank you for your post. I enjoyed it on its own merits, although I'm still trying to formulate the connection between it and this particular thread.

Yes, this is the everlasting conversation - ouroboros manifest.

 

[yvonne]

i really can't grasp this. so if we had these "god parts" inside us, could "they" communicate? like a god part to a god part? lol... would they be connected somehow and would they be similar in each person?

 

[Mole]

i really can't grasp this. so if we had these "god parts" inside us, could "they" communicate? like a god part to a god part? lol... would they be connected somehow and would they be similar in each person?

Julian Jaynes deals with just this question in, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

It is a great book and an interesting hypothesis.

 

[milkyway2]

Yes. People say when they are on psychedelics that they feel like "another presence" is with them. Psychologists have found it to be this unconscious part of our brain. Also located on the right side. Really interesting..