Readings: An Unwarranted Assumption?

X
In the penultimate chapter of his study Answer to Job [pp. 170-171], Carl G. Jung discusses the important role of the feminine archetype in the psychology of religion within the context of the 1950 a.d. papal declaration of the Assumption of the Virgin as Church dogma. After pointing out that "It does not matter at all that a physically impossible fact is asserted, because all religious assertions are physical impossibilities. If they were not so, they would...necessarily be treated in the text-books of natural science", Jung goes on to say:

The logic of the papal declaration cannot be surpassed, and it leaves Protestantism with the odium of being nothing but a man's religion which allows no metaphysical representation of woman. In this respect it is similar to Mithraism, and Mithraism found this prejudice very much to its detriment. Protestantism has obviously not given sufficient attention to the signs of the times which point to the equality of women. But this equality requires to be metaphysically anchored in the figure of a "divine" woman, the bride of Christ. Just as the person of Christ cannot be replaced by an organization, so the bride cannot be replaced by the Church. The feminine, like the masculine, demands an equally personal representation. [italics added]

Something to ponder here for both Catholics and Protestants.
X

Readings: Of Carl G. Jung and Inspiration

X
This post presents a brief excerpt from psychologist Carl Gustave Jung’s book, Answer to Job. More specifically, it is an except from the “Lectori Benevolo” preceding the main text, the purpose of which is to prepare the reader for the circumstance that, although he is about to begin reading a book written by a scientist and physician, he will be reading a book which takes ideas of transcendent metaphysics seriously:

The statements of the conscious mind may easily be snares and delusions, lies, or arbitrary opinions, but this is certainly not true of the statements of the soul: to begin with they always go over our heads because they point to realities that transcend consciousness. These entia are the archetypes of the collective unconscious, and they precipitate complexes of ideas in the form of mythological motifs. Ideas of this kind are never invented, but enter the field of inner perception as finished products, for instance in dreams. They are spontaneous phenomena which are not subject to our will, and we are therefore justified in ascribing to them a certain autonomy. They are to be regarded not only as objects but as subjects with laws of their own.

My reason for posting this particular excerpt is that it very much speaks to what I experience in the composition of poetry, the central ideas of which most frequently “enter the field of inner perception as finished products.” The transcendent is the source of all true creativity. It is the distinction between “creating” and “making,” between artist and artisan.
X

Reflections: The Insider, Part 2

X

So I climbed the stairs, up out of my basement study, and went to the big wall of bookshelves in the family room, pulling volumes by and about Carl G. Jung— four, five, six, seven… All of this to fulfill the intention expressed at the close of my previous post, to write on the subject of the Introvert vs. the World, as expressed in Jung’s theory of psychological types. But then I had a change of heart.

X
For one thing, I’ve already got so much reading lined up that I don’t want to undertake the review of Jung that the post I had contemplated putting together would entail.
For another thing, I just want to cut this short and move on to other interests.

X
What I am going to do, therefore, is first quote the paragraph on introversion from the Wikipedia article, “Extraversion and Introversion”. This is as good—and accurate—a general description of the type as any I found in a quick survey of the Jung books in my possession, and it covers all of the salient points that I had planned to discuss.

X
Next, I will put forth a little rant of my own devise on the nature of introversion. This is kind of poetic sketch, which says what I believe without laboring to heap up a mountain of words to support any of it: like it or lump it.

X

Finally, instead of directly quoting Jung himself, I will provide you with a really neat quote from Heinrich Heine’s Deutschland, which Jung used to preface his introduction to his own work, Psychological Types, or The Psychology of Individuation. This paragraph just blows me away. One could write on the ideas condensed within it for a lifetime. So, here goes. First, Wikipedia:
X

Introversion
X

Introversion is "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life". Introverts tend to be more reserved and less outspoken in large groups. They often take pleasure in solitary activities such as reading, writing, drawing, and using computers. The archetypal artist, writer, sculptor, composer, and inventer are all highly introverted. An introvert is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people, though they tend to enjoy interactions with close friends. They prefer to concentrate on a single activity at a time and like to observe situations before they participate. Introverts are easily overwhelmed by too much stimulation from social gatherings and engagement. They are more analytical before speaking.
X

Introversion is not the same as shyness. Introverts choose solitary over social activities by preference, whereas shy people avoid social encounters out of fear.

And now, Rodak’s rant:
X

Extroverts make life on earth possible. Introverts make that life worth living.

Extroverts make things work: they organize; they build the hives and drive the drones to their tasks. Without extroverts, ours would be a world of solitary men, scavenging in virgin forests for roots, berries, and psychotropic herbs.

Those things which the introverts contribute to the lives of men are not susceptible, however, to such animal imagery. Bees and ants don’t compose music, recite poetry, or have visions of another world. While both hives and factories have their managers; while both ants and men have their soldiers; while both bees and men have their cooks, their nannies and their hod carriers, only men engender artists, philosophers, and visionaries. There are no prophets in the animal kingdom. And, although one must never discount the value of friendship, even the best of good dogs is only a friend, not a saint.

Finally, as promised, Heine, as quoted in Psychological Types:

Introduction

Plato and Aristotle! These are not merely two systems: they are also types of two distinct human natures, which from time immemorial, under every sort of cloak, stand more or less inimically opposed. But pre-eminently the whole medieval period was riven by this conflict, persisting even to the present day; moreover, this battle is the most essential content of the history of the Christian Church. Though under different names, always and essentially it is of Plato and Aristotle that we speak. Enthusiastic, mystical, Platonic natures reveal Christian ideas and their corresponding symbols from the bottomless depths of their souls. Practical, ordering Aristotelian natures build up from these ideas and symbols a solid system, a dogma and a cult. The Church eventually embraces both natures—one of them sheltering among the clergy, while the other finds refuge in monasticism; yet both incessantly at feud. ~ H. Heine, Deutschland

Thus endeth the thoughts of this introvert on the introversion that is both his gift and the cross he was given to bear through life.

X

Reflections: The Insider, Part 1

X

Perhaps some reader with an eye for detail has noticed that I’ve again changed my profile portrait. And maybe that person, being keenly attuned to such minute changes, has also noted that my self-description as “Rodak” has gone from “faceless clerk” to “introverted clerk.”

“Faceless” hasn’t really been accurate since I scrapped the portrait of haiku master, Bashō, for a series of self-portraits. So, in search of a new adjective to modify “clerk,” I settled on “introverted.” This choice of a modifier was dictated by the coming together of two items, each of which was recently uncovered in one of my fits of boxing backwards.

The first of these items, to take them in chronological order, according to when they were discovered and catalogued for my personal archive, is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test. The second is the drawing of a dream image about which I’ve posted below. These two items are linked by my interest in the work of Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, as mentioned in the post linked. Myers-Briggs is based on Jung’s theory of psychological types.

My Myers-Briggs classification is: INTJ. This indicates that my basic personality type is Introvert. This I had determined years ago, through my readings of Jung. The “N” indicates that I am iNtuitive (as opposed to “sensing). The “T” means that I am a Thinking type (as opposed to a “feeling” type). The “J” is for Judging (as opposed to “perceiving”).

The Myers-Briggs thing is usually deployed by creatures such as human resources managers as a device to find out why employee-X has become a problem to the organization by acting out his personal quirks and foibles. Myers-Briggs characterizes the INTJ individual thusly:

“Usually have original minds and great drive for their own ideas and purposes. In fields that appeal to them, they have a fine power to organize a job and carry it through with or without help. Skeptical, critical, independent, determined, sometimes stubborn. Must learn to yield less important points to win the most important.”

Right. And who gives a shit about all that? I’m not interested in knowing just how my particular cog best fits into the machine.

The Myers-Briggs list of introvert traits is a bit more interesting:

Introverts…
...like quiet for concentration
...have trouble remembering names and faces [I do fine with faces; names, not so much]
...can work on one project for a long time without interruption
...are interested in the ideas behind the job
...dislike telephone interruptions
...think before they act, sometimes without acting
...work alone contentedly
...may prefer communications to be in writing
...may prefer to learn by reading rather than talking or experiencing

Yikes. Most of that is spot-on, w/r/t your humble host. All of this, however, is still job/organization-oriented. I am not so very much interested in defining myself as an employee. So, forget Myers-Briggs. In a subsequent post, I’ll go straight to Jung, who has some things which interest me to say about introverts and their problematic and trying relationship to the world.