Sean McGrath needs to be heard more. He clarifies so much!

Every Christian that loves Jung must listen to this! Extraordinary!!❤

These interviews with McGrath are very valuable, because he is very clear-sighted. He is absolutely right that Jung underestimates theology. He just brushes it aside. McGrath says that Jungians don't attempt to integrate the evil of the Holocaust. He is right, with the exception of Greg Mogenson ("A Most Accursed Religion: When a Trauma Becomes God"). Mogenson sanctions the horrors of the modern time, arguing that it is a necessary transitional stage between the "lifeless" Christian religion and "soul-making". If this is the direction that Jungian psychology could take, then I suppose there's something wrong with the God image.

@centerofthecross

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Mats as always for your thoughtful feedback! Next week we’re releasing a conversation between McGrath and Donald Carveth on the question of conscience in Jungian psychology.

I am not an expert of the Scriptures nor Buddhism, but I agree with Momir Oljaca that there were some assumptions by McGrath which just seemed off. He stated many things about Buddhism and the one statement that I know is off was his statement that "...the Buddha did not believe in a God." My understanding is that Buddha's teaching and practice is to dissolve all thoughts and images that the ego (little self) creates, even the concept and image of a God, which other religious disciplines commonly do. Buddha didn't even want an icon or image created of him, although it's now a common decoration in many households today. I am in Jungian analysis myself for over two years, and have experienced, EXPERIENCED, an encounter with a higher authority, which I bow down to. I don't know if my dream encounter corresponds to any Christian Scriptural doctrines, but I just KNEW it's Divine authority. It seems that the psychology of Christianity (part of the collective unconsciousness) is and should be different than the ultimate truths in Scripture, much like the understanding of Jesus's parables changes as one's consciousness evolves upon and rereading them and life experiences.

Great interview, and a much needed counter-balance to the growing Jungianization of Christianity. I do have a few things I would like to hear Sean explicitly address after listening to this. First, there is no way to grasp privatio boni in a Christian sense without addressing the Aristotelian roots of "privation". Privation is not nothing. Privation is not "actual", but it really exists. It is an absence, yes, but still a *real* absence. So when Aquinas etc. say evil is a privatio boni, they are not saying its nothing, but that it has a distinct metaphysical reality. It doesn't seem like Jung grasped this important distinction, leading him to mistakenly suppose that privation means "non-existent". Is that accurate? Second, I think Sean might be misunderstanding the idea of shadow integration. He says "Jungian's aren't advocating committing crimes". This is true, but they are also not advocating *not* committing crimes either. They are not proscribing any kind of behavior. Jung said "the goal of life is not to be good, but to be whole." So Sean is right that Jung is describing a God that is beyond good and evil, where both light and dark are united in a complexio oppositorum, and it does require us to relativize not only our understanding of evil, but also good. The entire dance of good and evil, the movement they create together, is within God. It doesn't mean evil isn't evil from our perspective, and we have a very valid perspective as Jung argues in Answer to Job, but it does not mean that evil ought not exist, as Christian theology is forced to maintain. I believe Jung scores a point here against Christian philosophy. Evil is not a regrettable side-effect, but a necessary component of existence. And anything whose existence is necessary is divine, as Aquinas said. God is not diminished if he has evil contained within him, anymore than the world is diminished because lions eat gazelles, etc. Jung is demonstrating that our categories of good and evil are genuine psychological facts, but not metaphysically comprehensive. There is a perspective that is hidden from us where the evil we see is not tragic, not a mistake, but merely a type of movement, and yet it still does not negate the very real human experience of evil. To see from this view is to cease to be human, so we can only get at it through hints and impressions....Anyways, thanks for a great episode, looking forward to more!

@centerofthecross

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for taking the time to share this thoughtful reply. I will reach out to Sean and see if this is something he would want to respond to.

@seanmcgrath1465

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for this insightful reply. Point taken on privation. It is not pure nothing, but non-being. Still, a distinction needs to be made between pagan neo-Platonism and Christian neo-Platonism on this point. For Plotinus, evil is nothing to be resisted or repented, but simply a result of emanation, the last fading of being. For Aquinas, there are certain things that happen which ought not to happen, and someone is always responsible. The Christian theologian could never simply take up the pagan neo-Platonic answer to the problem of evil without qualification. See how Augustine struggles with this question in the Confessions. You are right, for a Christian evil must be rejected, cast out, but that is not 'repression'; it is moral judgment. 'Jungianism' is not Christian. Thanks again for listening. SJM

@centerofthecross

3 жыл бұрын

I guess you saw Sean's reply below. More on Sean here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_McGrath_(philosopher)

@anewmythos9021

3 жыл бұрын

@@seanmcgrath1465 "The Christian theologian could never simply take up the pagan neo-Platonic answer to the problem of evil without qualification." Right! Thank you for the reply Sean, this episode was wonderfully enlightening and sparked some very interesting ideas. I will be on the look out for more of your work. Take care!

@anewmythos9021

3 жыл бұрын

@@centerofthecross Thank you sir! Excellent stuff, your podcast is fantastic, thanks for your work.

As far as I can see, Jung has understood Christ far better than McGrath understands Jung.

@centerofthecross

2 жыл бұрын

Could you elaborate?

@momiroljaca

2 жыл бұрын

@@centerofthecross McGrath is approaching Jung intellectually, but he's lacking the experience that is needed to understand the reality behind Jung's ideas. Jung is not a theorist, he's a behaviorist, he's talking about the objective Psyche. If you lack the experience of psychic reality, you're just juggling with empty words, as McGrath is doing. For example, in another video McGrath argues that Christ is not an archetype, from which it is evident that he does not understand what an archetype is (and even who Christ really is). To say that Christ is an archetype doesn't mean that Christ is not real. The archetypes are not only real, but we could say that archetypes are more real than we are because archetypes are the source of life's energies. And the central archetype - Christ - is the source of life itself and of all reality, known and unknown (conscious and unconscious). This is strongly backed up in many places in the Scriptures, for example when Jesus is talking about himself as a vine (John 15, 5), and all the Christology of St. Paul is based on this revelation of Christ as the source from which we all came into existence. For the purpose of argumentation, I will repeat here the key quotations of St. Paul that I have already put under the other video: "...and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH WHOM all things were created and THROUGH WHOM we live." (1 Cor 8, 6) "Christ is the visible likeness of the invisible God. He is the first-born Son, superior to all created things. For THROUGH HIM God created everything in heaven and on earth, the seen and the unseen things, including spiritual powers, lords, rulers, and authorities. God created the whole universe THROUGH HIM and FOR HIM." (Col 1, 15-16) And this is all well known to Jung. From this central McGrath's oversight, many others emerge, but it would take me too much space and time to elaborate on each one of them. Unfortunately, I'm not a native English speaker and I struggle a lot to formulate my thoughts in English.

@centerofthecross

2 жыл бұрын

@@momiroljaca thank you for taking the time to so thoughtfully articulate your own perspective on this. I don't agree that McGrath approaches Jung merely intellectually, he himself studied at the Jung Institute and have a deep understanding of these matters. I will share your response with him as his not so active on youtube.

@momiroljaca

2 жыл бұрын

@@centerofthecross I feel the urge to add this because it is important. The process of individuation is a crucial part of God's plan of salvation (which is a still going process). To use the well-known Christian metaphor, God is fishing our souls out from the mud of the unconscious ("the belly of the Leviathan") using His Son as bait. In fact, the process of individuation is a process of elevation and transformation of fallen (unconscious) souls, wounded by sin and deceived by Satan, which by the Grace of God are redeemed, called to awaken, to rise, and move toward the light - Christ (the Self). If this "call to awakening" is not recognized and consciously accepted, it manifests as neurosis. On the other hand, as we approach Christ (the Self), our consciousness became more and more illuminated by Christ's consciousness. Therefore, the process of individuation is, simultaneously, the process of becoming conscious of 1) our divine origin, 2) our fallen state, 3) our redemption by God's Grace, 4) God's restoring His kingdom on earth. It is important to be aware that this is all God's work, He's in charge, He's the one who manages the process. Jung always emphasizes that the process of individuation is a natural process, you can't force it or stop it by will, you can only submit to it. Because it's driven by the Holy Spirit. That's also the reason why Jung regarded destiny as "a highly important psychological fact". He knew who the master of the winds is. We participate in this God's Magnum Opus by our "fiat" and by making the contents of the unconscious psyche conscious. By doing this, we're transformed ("The truth will set you free." John 8, 32). As our consciousness approach and connect to Christ's consciousness, we become awakened and able to hear God's voice and to accordingly align with His will. By living God's will, we become "the light of the world" that shines and illuminates others and helps them to reach the light. And Jung was a perfect example of this.