Skip to content

“Solar” vs “Lunar” in Gender Dynamics, Integrity and Individuation

April 9, 2013

Recently read Beebe’s Integrity in Depth (Texas A & M University Press, 1992) (Yes, he had a print book out, from 21 years ago, but it’s not about the thing most of us are interested in getting in a book from him, his full archetype model; though he does mention the archetypes and functions a couple times).

On Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Integrity-Caro…/dp/1585444634

It’s a lot of deep Jungian concepts, and he mentions stuff like Tao. Being hard to begin digesting that stuff, I carried it around for four years, not feeling like sitting and reading it on the computer, and it was too big for the smartphone. But now, that I got my first tablet (Galaxy 7.7) in Jan. for my birthday (after walking cross town from being in the audience of The Chew; what a great day that was), I finally got around to reading it.

I thought it was interesting as it mentioned the virginity mythos in relation to “integrity”, and another concept I noticed was “sola” and “luna“, meaning of course, “sun” and “moon”, and which had often been linked to masculinity and femininity (like the image of the Woman in Revelation 12, standing on the moon, and clothed with the sun, the sun is supposed to be Christ, and the moon, something feminine such as “the bride” as it “reflects” the sun’s glory).

p91

Perhaps there is something one-sided about Jung’s masculinity. We can see a limitation of Jung’s own integration in his late formulation of sol and luna as the masculine and feminine principles. To draw upon a recent formulation by Howard Teich, Jung’s masculinity, both in his theory and in his personality, seems too one-sidedly solar. Teich has proposed that we should see solar and lunar, lights that have conditioned our view of gender, not as metaphors for the genders, but as perspectives in both masculinity and femininity. Rather than conflating masculine with solar, he has adduced clinical evidence to suggest that a whole masculinity will consist of both solar and lunar parts. By solar he means active and aggressive and by lunarreceptive and responsive. These parts appear alongside each other in many traditions as male twins. Teich feels that there is also a twinship for women involving solar and lunar femininity. In her poem “Integrity,” Adrienne Rich calls this pair “anger and tenderness, my selves.”

He then goes into how this was influenced by Jung’s childhood experience with some man trying to seduce him, which led to a phallic dream.

p95

Everyone feels a rigidity in Jung’s understanding of gender opposites. A reason Teich offers is that the masculine and feminine principles are not given their chance to develop polarities within themselves before they are asked to meet each other.
I think we would do well by integrity to take up Teich’s suggestion; solar and lunar opposites exist within each gender and naturally hold each other’s excesses in check, in the healthy regulation of the gender opposites. We might begin to move past homosexual panic in the way we relate to ourselves, recognizing lunar masculinity and solar femininity not as effeminacy or mannishness, but as complements to the solar masculinity and lunar femininity that Western patriarchy has emphasized.
Instead of training men to grow past their lunar masculinity and women to suppress their solar femininity in deference to men, we might help men balance solar and lunar masculinity, and women lunar and solar femininity, in the conscious leading of their lives.
These considerations should make us look more carefully at Jung’s conception of the union of male and female opposites as wholeness.

n44 from p96 quote (below); p151

Solar conscience “extracts laws and norms” from the archetype dominant in the conscious attitude of the individual and in the collective consciousness of the society at large, speaking generally “for custom, cultural habits, social laws and expectations and for a group ethic. . . . It has a particular gift for elevating such norms into ideals of a highly abstract nature, ideals such as truthfulness, justice, purity” (Murray Stein, “A Polarity in Conscience: Solar and Lunar Aspects,” Diploma thesis, C. G. Jung Institut-Zurich, 1973, pp. 22-24). Lunar conscience, by contrast “turns away from cultural and social dominants in the human environment as the source of the value-contents of conscience, to nature and instinct as their source, away from the steady certainties of right and wrong as laid down by the dominant archetype and codified in bodies of law, to the fluctuations of doubt in reflection and some odd paradoxes in certain ethical compulsions; away from a kind of conscience that would force the ego into the narrow trail of moral perfection, to a sort of conscience that insists on wholeness and completeness; away from a love of law, to a law of love” (Stein, p. 54).

p97

it appears that in our culture the anxieties attendant upon uniting male opposites are greater than those associated with the uniting of female opposites. We have assumed too long that this is a homosexual anxiety, greater in men than in women. It is really a moral anxiety, reflecting a failure on the part of solar masculinity to accept a brake on itself, and a failure on the part of lunar masculinity to honor its fear of solar masculinity by any other means than projection of that fear onto women.

p98

Men should take up this problem, not as so many think now, by activating the unclaimed portion of their solar potential that may still lie underground, but by allowing their very fear of that part of themselves to be their sign that another aspect of their maleness is in danger of violation. They should not rush Jung’s goal of uniting genders within. The anima will wait for them to complete this preliminary work of meeting their phallic power with appropriate vulnerability. The anima, and also women. As Jane Austen’s work signals, women have long been ready to unite the opposites within their gender. It is time for men to prepare to meet them with a similar integrity.

So all of this helps put a name on something that’s always been hard to describe, and also explain stuff I’ve been going through.

Since the anima is shaped by a man’s mother, and my mother is ISTJ, then that became the model of womanhood. She and others I know seem very lunar on the surface (caretaking, etc), yet have these strong solar elements that come out, such as a spunk that seems sexy, and a drive toward efficiency. They can become very cold, and this will be confusing to someone who falls for their lunar aspects.

My wife and I could never fully understand or explain the admitted appeal of a stronger, less “safe” woman (such as a “street girl”) to me and many other men. (The whole “men want the bitch” thing, yet I always knew I was too sensitive for them). But it’s connected with what Jungian author Robert Johnson calls “the unlived life“, and is made worse by entering midlife, and moving away from the “safety” of the lunar “mother” aspects of the anima; so the more “dangerous” solar aspects become more of a curiosity.
(I believe it also involves another of Beebe’s complexes, the “Opposing Personality”, which sort of mirrors the anima as the other contrasexual complex of the eight that associate with our Jungian typological functions).

Typologically, it so far seems connected with E/I and T/F. I and F will be more lunar (receptive), and E and T will be more solar (aggressive). J/P might be more P=lunar (receptive); J=solar (aggressive), but I see where it could also be P= pragmatic (solar), J=cooperative (lunar). Not sure if there is a definite complete type correlation like this. Will have to think of everyone whose type I know.

I imagine an ExTJ female might be most likely to seem completely solar. Think of Suze Orman, and now this explains to me why she could never carry the “virginal integrity” archetype I thought someone like her could qualify for, from being a “gold-star lesbian”, meaning never been with a man. She’s just too “rough”, “cold” and “aggressive”. It goes well with the whole “unconquered” sense that’s apart of the projections, but for me, there must be some evident lunar characteristics present, to carry this. (To have someone “carry” something, in Jungian terms, is basically about projection; especially the anima).

There is a whole “ironic” appeal of both “technical virginity” (in the hetero world) as well as “gold-star lesbianism”, which leads to much debate in online culture. The latter is a simple but unfortunate “ranking” term that makes non goldstars feel like they are being regarded as “less” than those who always knew their preference and avoided men. (There’s even a higher rank, “platinum star”, which have never dated or even kissed a boy, and lower ranks, “silver” and other metals such as bronze, which slept with one or more men before giving them up for good. [Basically, these would correspond to the “Kinsey Scale”, with gold and platinium as 6, silver as 5, bronze as 4, bisexual as 3, and straight as 0-2. I wonder why they didn’t just use that scale, which is official and far less offensive]. And on the flipside, the two higher stars are often harassed and told by some non-goldstars they can’t really know their true preference if they haven’t “tried both”. Either side ends up hurling the accusation of not being a true lesbian at the other).

And then the “star” status (as well as virginity) are connected by them to a “misogynistic heteronormative culture” that places an unfair and outmoded standard of “purity” on women, and at the same time, denies what sex is for non-straight people.
(Though as I’ll show next, it can be seen in a more positive way. Like men will often tell lesbians that their problem is that they just need a good enough man —often expressed in terms of a vulgar term for a body part. But such women are totally independent from men sexually, and this is what such men are reacting that way, against, in jealousy).

In any case, people seem evenly divided on the issue of who can be granted a “v-card”. It is a state hated by some (in a culture where something’s wrong with you if you’re not sexually active, and people will do anything to gain experience), but nevertheless still treasured by others. Orman once described her orientation status in terms of being a “55 year old virgin” (though she’s active with a female partner), and you have Christians making “purity pledges” while engaging in a bunch of other acts. This has even come to be named after a church: “saddlebacking” (A handy one word term, but one that’s very unfortunate, as I’m sure Warren does not/would not condone this practice. However, who can really control what all the youth in the church are doing?)
Meanwhile, a new term that eliminates the stigma and ambiguity of the old “virginity” term for first time sexual experience (of any sort, involving another person) has been devised, which is “sexual debut“.

This article: http://www.rise-of-womanhood.org/feminine-archetypes.html points out

The virgin feminine archetype…has no bearing on the sexual status or sexual behavior and sometimes is not even a celibate. These are women who choose to be unmarried or stay unmarried because of certain circumstances, but are independent, strong willed, and bold. Their sexuality is wholly in their hands. In a predominantly patriarchal setup, women who lived and reflected the Maiden or Virgin feminine archetype were often condemned and socially boycotted. In this day and age, if a woman chooses to follow her own heart and desires and those desires do not include marriage, motherhood, and other concerns traditionally deemed to be feminine, but chooses instead to live her life on her own terms, perhaps pursing her passions and career interests, it would be safe to say she is modeling the Maiden/Virgin archetype in her life.

According to lesbian feminist Marilyn Frye:

The word ‘virgin’ did not originally mean a woman whose vagina was untouched by any penis, but a free woman, one not betrothed, not bound to, not possessed by any man. It meant a female who is sexually and hence socially her own person. In any version of patriarchy, there are no Virgins in this sense. (The Willful Virgin, p.330) See also https://professorwhatif.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/what-if-we-used-the-word-%E2%80%98virgin-in-accordance-with-its-original-meaning/ “Historically, virgin was often used to mean ‘unmarried’ – as in not owned by a man. A virgin was thus property for the taking (sadly, not all too different from today…)”

Another site says “The truth that is hidden in this archetype is about power and control“. Their sexuality was worn “proudly and without shame. It was not given away or bartered or owned by their partners, it was wholly and solely within their dominion.”
So the same for women who have “held out” from coital “conquest” by men altogether, whether due to sexual preference or [for the time being] “waiting for the right one”.

All of this connects to what Beebe points out on p. 53, that “libido is free to flow, yet stays contained“. He discusses the Roman myth of Tuccia the Vestal Virgin, who proved her questioned virginity with a sieve that was able to contain water; “defying all the laws of nature”. (The water was believed to represent “libido”, and a container representing the continence or virtue of a woman, suffering no puncture or crack).
This really explains everything. By not being with or going all the way with a man, they have in fact “contained” something, even though they are clearly and fully sexual; with some amount of libido being free to flow.

(Though a closer analogy for them might be the opposite; of a pot that allows water to flow through its solid sides. That’s something unbroken that allows flow. The water looks like it’s not free, yet is, and the container doesn’t contain, yet is “unbroken”. This idea of “containment” depends on whether you’re focusing on [the physical “integrity” of] the container or [the practical freedom of] what is contained.
The sieve that contains water might correspond more to the married woman as well as the rape victim and the so-called “born again virgin”, who’ve been “punctured”, but the first two never lost virtue to begin with, and the other now seeks to live as though whole and thus regain virtue).

“Libido” is basically “life-giving energy“. It is usually associated with sex drive, but that is really just one part of it. (Its opposite is “mortido”, which is a “death instinct”. It also parallels the eastern concept of “Tao” [“nature”], while “integrity” is represented by another concept, called “te” [“moral intelligence”]).
Things that are new become tarnished with normal usage, which accompanies the flow of what we call “life” (even for inanimate objects). For them not to become tarnished or worn would run counter to nature.

Yet that is an ideal state, representing “Eden“. Something that can be lost in a split moment’s rash decision, and then is gone forever; totally unrecoverable. This is what, subconsciously, may make it an obsession or “fetish” (even if physically it doesn’t have much practical meaning as is the case here).
All of this is emblazoned on our “collective unconscious“, which are archetypal images shared by all of us. (When archetypes become personalized, they are “complexes”, which we project onto others).

So on p.76; he says that men are often “projecting their own need for anima integrity onto them as a wholesale demand for literal virginity and chastity; women were forced into embodying wholeness and continuity in their concrete physical lives, living out the anima ideal in ways that were stultifying for their individuation”. (And hence, this is precisely what those who scoff at the concepts of virginity and “gold-star” lesbianism are getting at!)

p51-52 adds “a symbol of ideal integrity”; “… an impossible image. It becomes a cruel double bind when it is imposed on women as a standard they should somehow embody in their sexual lives”.
p. 43 [Integrity’s] projection onto women as inhumanly high standards of virginity and chastity may be a telling sign of its lack of differentiation in the psychology of men of the [Middle Ages and Renaissance] times.”

This is what has led to this archetypal debate today; especially as some women learned how to play upon it, by holding back on one act of sex, (again, the thing that originally defined sexual “intercourse”; the “becoming one flesh” with a man), while yet enjoying others; allowing some amount of libido to flow (i.e. being sexual, enjoying it, and allowing someone else to enjoy their body in ways). And it excites men, who fantasize of being the one to conquer the woman who held back the innermost treasure from every other man, yet still manage to be “experienced” enough to give him a good time. (It’s usually a choice of one or the other). It would really show that he, as I discussed in an earlier article, “had what it takes as a man”.

This “paradox” (or in Jungian lingo; [apparent] “coniunctio” or union of opposites) is what makes it so spicy to many, and at the same time, so irritating and hypocritical (and likely envy-provoking, as you can tell from the tone of many naysayers) to others.

On the other hand, it’s also true, from a moral/emotional/spiritual perspective, that it is still becoming “one SOUL” or spirit, since those other acts being done are still intimate, involving “private parts” not shared with just anyone. (So all those young Christians doing it are still engaging in a form of “cheating”, and thus still breaking any “pledges” they may sign, since this is judged spiritually, and not just according to “the flesh”). So it still compromises a moral “integrity” even while it may retain a physical one; and in speaking of “integrity”, the non-physical (including “moral”) is what’s really being aimed at.

The “anima integrity” part of it I’m now identifying with, and trying to resolve, in the midst of “midlife crisis” that had been building up, through my frustrations with certain aspects of life, and particularly resentment for not having had a better teenage-hood, with dating (“knowing” the “other side” more) and other such carefree “fun”. (In utter frustration, I became a conservative Christian at 20, which greatly restricted what I could do with the opposite sex, and even who I could pursue, since we were not supposed to date unbelievers).

So last year I began reading people like Johnson and others, and trying to find out how to stop projecting “gold” onto womanhood. (“Gold” is what Johnson calls the good stuff we see in others, but not in ourselves). They’re really not supposed to carry it; not even the one you’re married to, ultimately. It will create expectations they cannot live up to, and thus disillusionments.
(So we end up both “shadow-boxing” with the negative things, and “shadow-dancing” with our “gold”, in others).

Having an anima; (and an “extraverted Feeling” anima at that!) that’s taken a terrible beating over the years; anima integrity seemed to be imaginally embodied in a “strong” and “untouched” woman; covering both solar and lunar aspects.
It stems from a desire for life (i.e. libido) to flow as normal, but still have better outcomes. Where Christians often tell you to wait for some other kind of world after this one, where everything will be made right, but then on the other hand, where everything will be different (like no sex, for one!); for some reason, there’s something about that which seems to leave one dry. And what it likely is, is that we do not associate “libido” with this otherworldly existence, even though we’re promised that is the “true” life.
Still, it is unknown to us, so it’s very hard for that to fill that space in our psyches. (So this “fallen” world of “survival of the fittest” is basically nature without integrity, and in traditional religion, this seems to be compensated by some future world that is all integrity without nature. ⦅And the traditional view of “Hell” is just its shadow, where nature is eternally split off and punished for its lack of integrity⦆. This ends up just as fractured ⦅split from primal wholeness⦆ as this current world, and why so few want to give this one up for that one, as religion urges).

So I identify with what these quotes about Jung:

p96

The wholeness Jung sought initially through the mother archetype, and later through the anima, denies the split within his own masculine nature, a split that I think he was finally too proud to recognize. Today we are able to see the effects of this split as a partial failure of integrity, obvious in his personal and political dealings with other men as well as in what he asked women to carry for him. As Teich implies, Jung’s failure to see the danger of not resolving first the opposites within the gender to which one belongs compromises his claim to understanding the integrity of personality as the coniunctio of developed gender principles. The moral consequences of any dissociation of either lunar or solar elements of personality are serious, for as Murray Stein was able to point out nearly twenty years ago, there is “a polarity in conscience” between “solar and lunar aspects.”44

As Stein demonstrated, patriarchal Western civilization is used to imagining these two styles of conscience sitting down together as father and mother debating how to discipline the children, and Jung’s idea of the coniunctio has made this parental colloquy into a conversation which we should all strive to achieve within. But if we are to realize an ideal of integrity that is appropriate to a post-patriarchal age, the masculine and feminine principles must each be allowed to become less monolithic by developing the dialogue of solar and lunar conscience within each principle. The gender principles need to find the opposites within themselves before they turn to meet each other.
It is just this sense of internal twinship, of a comfortable tension between a solar masculinity that is aggressive and a lunar masculinity that is receptive, that I miss in Jung. Indeed, as Teich has pointed out, Jung seems to project his lunar masculinity onto women, seeing them as natural receivers or containers. Teich’s formulation validates and helps me to understand a sense I have had that Jung had difficulty sustaining receptivity to the ideas of other men; he could not relinquish control enough to be more than illuminated by another man’s solar energy.

(Paralleling this, a person I was discussing Jung with pointed out that a woman’s animus should be connected with “eros“, like a man’s anima, instead of “logos“. Again, Jung was projecting patriarchical assumptions onto women, but this basically followed society of the time anyway.
Though Beebe points out “By eros Jung means neither sex nor relatedness in any casual sense, but rather the need to cultivate caring for the wholeness of others as well as of oneself.” (p.81) Jung was actually applying new names to virtues another writer called “care” (“the feminine principle of moral understanding”) and “justice” (implied by “the capacity to differentiate and discriminate” and “by which such discriminations can be made”), respectively.

Also, Johnson, Unlived Life, p. 199 mentions how a Greek myth says humans originally had four arms and four legs, carrying both male and female aspects, and were split, and the two parts have been trying to get back together ever since).

I’ve always felt that my solar masculinity never had the chance to fully develop. Not because of any homosexual molestation, but more indirectly, through life circumstances, especially with a condition such as AS, with all the problems it causes with people. Yet since life seemed, by the process of elimination, to be forcing me into a lunar (i.e. receptive) role, which I saw as “weak” and “feminine”, I’ve resisted that as well. (So what does that leave me with? Just trying to gain some sense of solar power in the way most possible; from behind a computer screen, like in arguing Christian doctrine and politics online for years; but it just leads to burnout).

So I need to find my own “gold” to own, but I just don’t know quite how to do it at this point. My wife suggests my writing (like this), but it seems to have only limited interest (as it’s long and over a lot of people’s heads, right?)

Anyhow, I thought the concept was very interesting, and explains more about the male/female dynamic, provides a much needed answer to a seemingly silly debate, and offers a direction in growth.

Ultimately, Beebe points out that (p71, 75) “For us, integrity is part of the genuine interest in others that [Jane] Austen called ‘amiability‘ and of the continuity of identity in caring that she called ‘constancy‘…which is for her (according to Maclntyre) ‘a virtue the possession of which is a prerequisite for the possession of other virtues.” (p80, this becomes feminine because it reflects basic trust of the mother archetype).
An example of both virtues is in Austen’s final book Persuasions, where the heroine Anne Elliot breaks off an engagement because of the expectations of the family (amiability), yet holds on to her love for him (constancy), and is thus able to marry him later, when circumstances have changed. These connect to eros and logos or care and justice. Because of this “ability to sense and lovingly contain the feelings of the members of her kinship group while continuing to honor her own emotional position; she is a model for a self-fulfillment which is ecologically sound.”

Advertisements
17 Comments
  1. With Christmas looming, and the music playing everywhere (and since throughout November, mind you), it brings to mind, one of the central figures, the “Virgin Mary”. The songs being a rare “traditional” place to hear such a sex-related word, until sex became talked about widespread. It’s brought to mind by Nat King Cole’s rendition of “I Saw Three Ships”. What was in those ships; all three, on Christmas Day in the morning? “The VIRGIN MARY, and Christ were there… on Christmas day in the morning“. (Ships? Where did they get that from?)

    Also, on “What Child is This?” (or “The Son of Mary” or “Greensleeves”) you have “the virgin sings her lullaby” (Which I noticed on the newer Vanessa Williams version from the 90’s, and never caught it on the old Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis or Harry Belafonte versions, where individual words are easy to miss they way they crooned them back them). Here, it means simply “young unmarried girl” (who we would assume or hope was automatically not sexually experienced, unlike today), who would have been singing for the newborn Christ, rather than referring to His mother Mary.

    I heard all the songs as a child, but never took any notice of that word. I heard of the state Virginia, of course, and then, the Virgin Islands. Both of these named after either Mary, or Elizabeth, the “Virgin Queen” of England. So by jr. high, the root word to me meant a native of VI, particularly with all the West Indians moving into the area at that time.
    So the first time I was ever asked if I was one, right there in jr. high; my answer was “No, I’m American”. When they said that was not what it meant, then, it was “no, I’m a Capricorn”. I was dumbfounded what this new word being tossed around meant (similar the a couple of years earlier, in grade school, when asked if I was gay, and being pretty happy-go-lucky in those carefree years, said “yes”. Then, when they tell me what it means, and sometime later, they ask if I’m a “homosapiens”, I shout “No, I’m not gay!”)

    Funny, the way these kids learn these new sexual words, and then make amusements out of them!

    Anyway, all of this continues to show a deep archetypal significance of this sexual state. Of course, some religious assumptions projected the fear of sex as evil into the Christmas story. He couldn’t be born by sex because He was holy, sex was filthy. But the true reason of not having a human father, aside from just being a miracle, also had to do with the royal lineage.
    So why did this state come to symbolize “purity”, then?

    Sex was created, as part of the physical creation, “very good”. But once man took of the knowledge of good and evil, he began to take on a sense of shame, leading to negative judgments of sex. Hence, “naked”.
    This is when various archetypes constellated. They were forced out of the garden, representing primal “innocence”, and would forever be trying to get back in. The universal archetypes would reflect this.

    So the Virgin Mother began to enter ancient religion, likely beginning with Nimrod and the legends formed around him. This would be such a supernatural miracle of unlikeliness. To be a mother is to promote life into the next generation. But it required “losing” something. The woman would have to come under possession (as wedlock was seen in the past) by a man, who would enter her (and usually breaking something in the process), and take a kind of “ownership” that would exclude all other men.

    It ideally was not supposed to come across like this. The act of physical union had taken on a negative connotation, in contrast to its creation as “very good”. Religion would then often project this onto nature and even God, by believing sex was bad, but a necessary evil, and one we couldn’t help indulge in due to the pleasure.

    So the Virgin Mother became the dumping ground for the collective complex of a purity or integrity that miraculously allowed “libido” (life giving energy) to flow.

    Many people trace this from Babylon, Egypt and other ancient religions, to Christ, and believe this proves He (or the doctrine built around him) was a fabrication from those earlier sources. But all this means is that God chose this primeval archetype as His means of fulfilling the redemption mankind was seeking through them.

    While Mary was originally presented in a matter-of-fact way in the New Testament as simply being “found with Child of the Holy Ghost” without sexual contact, and then the Gospel story moves on past her, to Christ (the center of the whole revelation), and the apostolic Church that would carry His message forth; the post-apostolic Church would come to place great emphasis on Mary; far more than the Scripture itself ever did. (Many will argue it was all there in apostolic time, but transmitted only “orally” as “tradition”. However there is no evidence the “tradition” referenced in a couple of places is any separate body of teaching like that, from what was written).

    Her virginity would be perpetuated to her whole lifetime (even though there is strong scriptural evidence she had other children by Joseph). They would even develop a doctrine that Christ was born without even “opening her up” (so to speak). So she was totally “mint condition” “down there” (this would imply attributing to the infant Christ’s body a supernatural quality that would call into question His full humanity, much like like those who claim He was a spirit, which He denied even after His resurrection).

    So a lot was placed on Mary by the later Catholic church, to the point of them mulling making her “Co-redemptrix” with Christ (she already pretty much has held the old previously pagan title of “Queen of Heaven”).

    By praying to her, or even to statues or images of her, the “purity” archetype that so alludes man, is effectively concretized.

    “High”-Protestantism held a high, though reduced position of her, but “low”-Protestantism, such as American fundamentalism and evangelicalism, aimed to place her back in her Biblical perspective, as a highly blessed woman, but not with all the divine qualities the Catholic church placed on her.

    With fundamentalism (and many sects), the devotion Catholics give to Mary, would instead be given to the [“true”] Church and its body of “true doctrine”.
    With the Catholics particularly, and high Protestants, it is as well, but believing themselves to be “the Kingdom” (of Christ), they’ve allowed themselves to become wed to the governments of “the world”, which these other groups identify as the spiritual “fornication” described in Rev.17. These smaller bodies aim to remain “pure”, to be presented as “a chaste virgin unto Christ”.(2 Corinthians 11:2)

    Many of them bypass Church history altogether, and surmise that rather than breaking off of the larger churches, their forebears existed alongside them (though often forced underground), as various small persecuted groups throughout the centuries. (This is basically called the “trail of blood” theory). So they hold that they never lost the purity of the original doctrines or polity, and will often be the ones insisting they hold the whole truth and every other group is wrong.

    They also have been strongest in upholding literal virginity for unmarried nonwidows, as the supreme virtue; one that most of their judgments of modern culture were based on. Society was “godly” until the 1960’s when the sexual revolution hit; now it is “wicked” and falling under God’s judgment. Not just fornication, adultery, pornography, and the increasingly “out of the closet” homosexuality, and legalized abortion (giving women more freedom to be “looser” when not ready for a child), but even the rhythms of jazz and rock music (and even the modified versions of these used in “contemporary Christian music”) are too “sensual” and leading to more sin, and thus bringing judgment down on America. (At least one guy actually attributed 9-11 to this right after it occurred!)

    New-evangelicalism modified itself from fundamentalism to be less exclusive, and thus does not have as strict a doctrine of the Church as a particular organization being “true”, and many have slacked off on doctrine, as you can hear some voices admonishing them.
    So I’m not even sure what new-evangelicalism (and charismaticism) hold in that place.
    Many have even slacked of on some of the sexual mores (hence, many teens being known to practice the “technical” virginity compromise mentioned above in the post, even while signing pledges. Hence the archetype is represented in this way, at least).

    In ancient Judaism, it was the Temple system. From the perspective of a more radical “universalistic” version of the “fulfilled” view, with the Jungian concept of a man’s “anima”, you can even understand Christ’s warning of them “losing their soul” in this way.
    (Hence, “women” used in prophecy as the religious institution in the first place. The virtuous woman being the faithful, and the non-virtuous one being one who has sold herself out to impure religion or political leadership. It was their using their influence on the Romans to persecute Christians, that constituted their status as the great harlot riding the “beast”).

    So where I used to be more critical of devotion to Mary, I see where it has some archetypal significance, as the need to concretize a deep longing in the collective psyche. I still won’t adopt that practice, as I believe it is too far outside of scriptural bounds. But it does show something else to be aware of.

    Then you have Islam, which chides the West for being so “earthly”-minded, like being afraid of death, where their Jihadists are readily willing to die.
    But their reward (what they’re basically encouraged or inspired by) is the 72 virgins in heaven. As I commented on my old WTC Memoirs page, can you get any more “earthly” than that? It’s supposed to be about “Heaven”, and therefore presumed to be “spiritual”, but it’s taking an earthly fetish and attempting to concretize it in another life in another realm.

    But thinking about it now, it’s really more than just an earthly fetish; and does have profound spiritual meaning. It’s just that that’s the wrong way to go about it. It would represent the gaining of one’s soul through one’s own efforts, where the Gospel makes it clear this is futile. You end up killing people for being sinners; but then you are just as much a sinner. (This is basically the “shadow” of Islamism being projected onto westerners. They are ultimately just as earthly and fallen, fighting over physical lands each person can only access in the few decades they walk the earth, in addition to the sexual fantasy beyond earth; yet can only see this “earthiness” in their “enemies”).
    But such works-righteousness always ignores one’s own sins. Just as long as you’re performing the right works, that’s what buys you pardon for everything else.

    • I at this point should mention the confusion I have seen, regarding what sexual consummation really is. You sometimes run across stories of either married people not able to consummate (which is particularly frustrating for those who “waited” for that one “special night”), or kids fooling around, who are then concerned as to whether they’ve gone too far, or could get pregnant. It usually goes “it didn’t/wouldn’t go ‘all the way in'”, or only “it went in only a little“, “half way in”, or “just the tip” (which is often also a game guys used to try to get further and further); and yet the girl would experience incredible pain. Some describe it as something like “hitting a wall”.

      I remember first hearing of this from a coworker at Alexander’s who had been a nurse, and mentioned some female who claimed the husband’s “sexual part” was “too big”.
      At that point, not knowing anything about sex in practice (but only seeing textbook illustrations of the female anatomy, and very basic descriptions of intercourse), I wondered how it would be so difficult. (For one thing, when first learning about this opening with a “mucous membrane” covering it; I imagined something like a pill bottle, with the protective seal over the opening that must be “unbroken” when bought in order the safe, but then “broken” to open it. I thought it would be weaker than that; it’s just “mucous” after all, and didn’t realize at that point that it must already have an opening for the menstruation to pass through. Since I heard this opening had so-called “lips” on the outside, that made it sound like a mouth. But it’s not a “hole” with hollow space inside; it’s a completely closed canal).

      The questions on Q&A sites revolve around “virginity”, with most answerers telling the couples trying to “preserve” it that they lost it, (“If it was ‘in‘, that’s ‘losing’ it”), but granting the couples trying to lose it that they haven’t lost it, (and of course, then giving all the typical steps on how to complete it —patience, relax, lube, etc.).
      Some also then use the occasion to reiterate how “virginity is just a misogynist social construct that is meaningless” (which as I discuss above, seems that way from it being an “abstract” [N] archetypal concept whose value does not lie in any “practical” [S] use, which again is why it won’t go away as these people wish). A few also from there point out correctly that the teens are still being sexually active, regardless of how far they got, and warn them about the still present risk of pregnancy and STD’s.

      The universal assumption is that the hymen is what was causing all the pain, especially when some people report blood (which also then usually becomes the natural confirmation to them or the question answerers that the “cherry was popped”). Then you get all the descriptions of perhaps it’s too thick, or it could have already been broken by other things; so it’s no indicator, etc. (It’s actually true that it more than likely stretches open rather than “popping”, which is painful, but not as much as what many of these people are reporting. Over time, it gradually wears away, which totally eliminates the whole “one-time and it’s gone” mythos). When I finally had my own “chastity until marriage” honeymoon, I thought it was clunky, but now hearing these other stories, appreciate it as pretty good. It was a relaxed environment, and patient (and me knowing that was important, from having read up on sex over the years, including Armstrong’s The Missing Dimension of Sex, which was pretty good as a manual on the anatomy and the honeymoon), in contrast to these kids doing it on the sneak, and rushing to complete the act, and either them or the other married people simply knowing nothing about the anatomy. Sometimes thinking I “missed out” on the excitement of the “forbiddenness” and “hiddenness” of teenage sex, I see now where it would have probably been like these stories, with not knowing what was happening, and it thus being frustrating.
      I would read or be told back then of how it was “horrible” for some kids, and I didn’t quite see how it could be so (beyond my fear of some experienced girl dissing an inexperienced guy, which is what made virginity an important thing to me to begin with). My father once said that as much as the young guys talked all this game, all they think it is, is just “sticking it in there” (which is of course what I thought also), but it’s really a lot more than that.

      I would along the way read of conditions such as “vaginismus”, where the muscles inside tighten up (leading to “dyspareunia” or painful difficulty in penetrating), but now it sounded like these people were not even getting in that far (i.e. “apareunia”). So then, I find out about another condition, vulvodynia or vestibulodynia, where the sides of the vulva outside the opening of the vaginal opening can be tight as well, as they are pushed together by the superficial pelvic floor muscles (the same ones we use to hold in going to the bathroom), which will be tense especially when nervous, and the area can be irritated or inflamed from fabrics, infections, thinning caused by birth control pills, or even too many nerves (Congenital Neuroproliferate Vestibulodynia). It’s also tender and can bleed from lacerations in the skin! (So now, you have to wonder about all those centuries when blood on the sheets was the sign that the woman was virtuous, thinking it was from a hymen being present and torn, and could even lead to punishment by death if absent).

      Those drawings are actually showing the vulva spread open (for the purpose of illustrating the different parts), and it looks like “there’s the hole, just go into it”, but you can’t really see the depth of the whole thing; it looks wide open and almost a flat surface in those illustrations, but it’s really 1-2 cm deep, and the “lips'” default position is closed, so it has to be pushed open by the tip at the same time as pushing in.
      This apparently is not always as easy as you would think. If dry, tense, and/or irritated, then it will be very painful (some describe it like a paper cut) and you might not even reach the hymen. (If you do, then, add to that its own resistance, with the closed passage and muscles behind it, and that will be the “wall” people experience, and you will have total apareunia). And not being able to see down there (while attempting entry), neither partner may know what exactly is going on.

      So the problem of the questions and answers is the questioners are describing penetration of the vulva, but calling it the “vagina”, and so the answerers assume the problem is with the vagina. It’s like something goes into a “slot”, so it’s “in”, and they don’t realize the two different compartments inside. (For the legal definitions used for rape, penetration of even just the vulva is considered “full [vaginal] penetration”, but of course, this is for the severity of the violation, as the perpetrator has no business anywhere near any part of the anatomy).

      Everyone with this problem or question should read this blog chronicling one woman’s resolution of the problem (with the last post announcing a child): http://unconsummated.blogspot.com/ This particular entry: http://unconsummated.blogspot.com/2012/04/misdiagnosis.html even has that standard illustration, showing where the pain was, and it was all entirely outside the opening (so she reveals there that it wasn’t the commonly assumed vaginismus, but rather vestibulodynia). In fact, when the doctor was able to get the vestibule open and test the hymen, there was actually no pain there! It was all the area before you even got to it!

      I address this, as it’s surprising how many people old enough to engage in sex know nothing about their bodies. (And introverted Thinking likes to set all the misinformation straight with what’s “true” or “correct”).

  2. In talking about this stuff so much I’ve gotten a bit into associating the anima specifically with the feminine, but the whole concept, as it was once explained to me:

    Its personification naturally takes shape as a contrasexual image, which represents “otherness,” but that doesn’t mean it consists of the feminine as such.

    Rather, the anima is essentially the inner counterpart of the persona. Just as the persona sits between the ego and the social collective, moving a man to enact the masculine role that adapts him to the outer world, the anima sits between the ego and the unconscious, moving a man to feel his portion in nature itself — everything he can’t control and possess. …the very givenness of life. Nature has no goals. Nature just is. It’s life and fate and death, all those things that can’t become fully conscious because they’re bigger than the ego can contain.

    Paul Watsky’s essay “Anima” http://www.jungatlanta.com/articles/Anima.pdf points out “Jung emphasizes the anima’s role as that factor in the male psyche responsible for the
    process of projection, not just for projections of and onto women—all projection”. (which would include the “shadow” projection we often do to our “enemies”).

    He cites analyst Polly Young-Eisendrath, who defines anima as a “gendered complex of not-I, as emotionally charged collections of images, habits, thoughts, actions and meanings that limit and define self.” (Gender & Soul, p. 151)

    He quotes Jung:

    The “animos” mist surrounding the man is made up chiefly of sentimentality and resentment…. The effect on the ego… is extremely difficult to eliminate. In the first place, it has extraordinary force and immediately endows the ego personality with an unshakable feeling of rightness and righteousness; and because in the second place, the reason for the effect is projected, that is, it appears to originate in objects and objective situations…. The archetype…fascinates and captures consciousness in an hypnotic way. Not infrequently this gives the ego an indistinct feeling of moral defeat, leading it to behave in an even more defensive, defiant and self-righteous manner. This inferiority feeling then closes the vicious circle and excludes all possibility of the reciprocal
    approbation essential for a relationship. (Spring, 1950, p. 7)

    He also quotes James Hillman:

    Depersonalizing the anima means what it says: seeing through the personal aspects of all personifications. It refers to that recognition that all the personal me-ness and self-important subjectivity derive from an archetype that is quite impersonal (Anima, pp. 125, 127)

    The ego feels threatened with annihilation. Including by the rest of the Psyche or larger Self, including the anima. (I imagine the annihilation feared is likely from assimilation).
    For me, this is especially pronounced for AS, where the sensory stimulations of emotions are poorly regulated, and thus feel worse, like catastrophic almost.
    So being told to accept life “as is” has always made me feel like I’m being annihilated. (Especially when I learned that not caring about others feelings was sorely wrong and to be chastised). And then the social problems basically derailed all prospects with the opposite sex. And not only my father, but also my mother would tell me “that’s life” (i.e. that I had to wait, and improve myself in the meantime, before I would be ‘acceptable’ to a girl).

    Since the anima is the face shown toward the larger Self, then this part of me felt like a helpless violated female whenever things wouldn’t go my way.
    The “hero” and “persona” were the masculine element facing the outside world, and it was as if they were assigned (by the ego) to valiantly protect that inner female from blows by the outside world, by fighting and defeating the dragons without, that sought to extinguish the ego or soul.
    When they couldn’t make these achievements, then it all the more proved I wasn’t “worthy” of the completing but distressed female element.
    This drives the passion of fighting for what ego believes in. (Beebe’s book closes on the Grimm story of the Three Army Surgeons, where the servant girl of an inn represents the anima, and the warrior she falls in love with represents the ego’s defenses, embodied by the Opposing Personality. The innkeeper I assume represents a person’s ego, and the surgeons represent the person’s therapist or analyst. They perform their “healing”, using their own [physical, in this case] organs to demonstrate, but these organs get stolen while the servant is distracted, leaving a door open. They then try to substitute the organs from other sources, using “ointment” [representing “Tao” or “nature” to graft them on] but find they are taking the characteristics of the animals or person they got them from.
    This analogy is ultimately about the “therapeutic relationship” (the inn “is like a temporary office where the surgeons set up shop” and the maid, soldier, and thieving cat “might be parts of the therapist which are out of control in the countertransference”), if he himself isn’t careful, or have enough integrity.
    But the point is, the anima needs to be have integrity in order to prevent something like that, and to create an ego-Self axis, instead of an ego-Shadow axis where it’s energizing shadowy defenses
    ).

    Even all my holiday nostalgia stems from being so young at events like the Thanksgiving Day parade or Rockefeller Center and feeling so small and insignificant amongst all the people, and perhaps even the lack of autonomy of being with my mother.
    The whole big world that looked so threatening, yet had a lot of pretty or fun looking distractions (which basically require power and status to gain the most out of).
    So ego sort of tries to “do it all over”, this time as an adult with more autonomy and control. (Especially with introverted Sensing as the tertiary or “puer aeternus” function).

    So here, the two divisions I made in the goal of life, survival and sex (or as I rename them here: https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/dividing-reality-between-the-concrete-and-the-abstract/#comment-1046 “Sustenance” and “Legacy”), find their common genesis.

    It would work this way for all men. Hence the references I see drawn with the Taliban and, militant religion (especially Islam) in general; like in Watsky’s paper. They are fighting for their (otherwise repressed i.e the oppression of women) anima, and the reward is its ultimate embodiment in the 72 virgins given to a valiant suicide Jihadist.

    For years, I was deeply resentful toward women, particularly the typical witty, spunky black woman role, because of feeling rejected by them as a teen, and then my mother even confirming this.
    But then I always admired them, or at least some of them, for their “solar” persona. (Even while I gravitated to more “safe” lunar personalities).

    So the thing with women is part of a larger attempt of ego to conquer the world. A world that keeps putting it back in “its place” at every turn.
    This just gets mixed up with the natural sex drive.

    • Even though Beebe’s interpretation of the “Three Army Surgeons” is about the “therapeutic relationship” of an analyst to his patient, I’m seeing where it can be applied otherwise.

      The Inn, again, is the “temporary office”, which is supposed to be a “sealed container” as “the emblem of the therapeutic relationship, which is built up with great care over time as the participants get to know and trust each other.” In such a case, “An idealizing transference is served by taking it seriously enough to get to know the object of it well, and a relationship that is built up by following the unconscious in this way has itself great integrity. Once achieved, the relationship can be the holding environment for the discovery of an even more radical integrity, which feels like the grace of God. In the tale, this radical integrity is mediated by the healing ointment.” However, these surgeons suffer from a “lack of attention to the honest building of a containing relationship before the risky work on integrity was attempted.” So, “a stage has been skipped, and the ointment does not truly serve the partners in the enterprise. It is clear that the relationship the surgeons primarily lack is to themselves. There are no patients in the story… Beyond the danger of taking the need for a containing environment so lightly is the fact that so many aspects of it function out of the surgeons’ awareness.”

      To recap the story, the surgeons arrive at the inn, and each one, respectively, cuts off a hand, his heart, and an eye, which they will then graft back onto their bodies with a healing ointment. However, the organs are to be kept in a larder until the morning. But the servant girl, being befuddled, from being in love with a soldier who is visiting, left a door open, and a cat came and stole the organs. The girl realizies this, and the solldier devises a plan to replace the organs with the hand of a thief who was being hung, a pig’s heart and the cat’s eye. The next day, it fools the surgeons who graft these things on with the ointment, until they notice they are taking the chracteristics of the beings whom these organs come from, whether stealing, running to garbage like a pig, or being blind during the day, but seeing mice in total darkness at night. (In the end, they demand money from the innkeeper).

      Hence, in Beebe’s interpretation, “No one makes an attempt to act with integrity; the surgeons’ body parts that are compromised are organs of te. (In the Ma-wang-tui manuscripts of the Tao Te Ching, the graph for te was composed of an eye and a heart.) The ointment is the Tao.”

      The servant girl, represents an “immature” anima. He draws an analogy to real war, which is a condition often welcomed by nations, as a “lesser of two evils” in restoring integrity, but where the “containment”, needed for this restoration is rarely if ever met, since it “almost always spreads beyond its designated boundaries and inflicts unintended sacrifices.”
      (He had also clarified that what causes the Opposing Personality, embodied by the soldier [or “warrior”] in this example, to become a contrasexual figure, is the anima energizing it, creating an “ego-shadow axis”. The anima is really supposed to connect to the Self rather than the Shadow, and I guess it would do that if it faithfully guarded the organs representing integrity).

      When the anima is not mature, a nation’s emotional tendency, like the maid’s in this tale, is to fall in love with the soldier and to fail to guard the organs of te. Then integrity is compromised, consciousness is devoured, and military ruthlessness has its say in shaping the new attitudes that appear. Compromises are enemies of integrity, even though at first they seem quite naturally to lock into place. In the tale these compromises of integrity are symbolized by the thief’s hand, the pig’s heart, and the cat’s eyes—what a therapist would describe as primitive greed, a morbid interest in the shadow, and paranoia. These are frequent moods of postwar disillusionment, but they follow any effort at integrity that has been poorly contained.

      Our army surgeons are forced to recognize parts of the thief, the pig, and the cat in themselves, and this difficult confrontation leads to a more conscious relationship to envy, shame, and anxiety. They also experience rage at the innkeeper’s failure to stand for the ideal of containment, and rage, as we have seen, is a step to the healthy self that can defend its integrity. Nevertheless, the would-be healers of integrity are left with a longing for wholeness. But even that is an improvement.
      Gone is the inflated reliance upon the power of Tao eventually to set things right. Instead, the chastened recognition of compromised integrity has produced a hunger for genuine healing.

      It was just recently, taking more note of “envy, shame and anxiety”, that rekindled interest in these concepts. He also says “For love of a soldier, the humane faculties depart, and a compromise of integrity occurs.”

      Again, the whole analogy was about a therapeutic relationship, but then he does say that this dynamic occurs with “any effort at integrity that has been poorly contained”. So I can see the innkeeper (which I assume to be the ego itself) replacing the surgeons, or that the surgeons represent our own faculties, in which we try to solve problems.
      So we have the same problem, of losing those organs of te through an immature anima. I can see I certanly deal with envy, shame and anxiety. Recall, https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/why-im-critical-of-christian-self-help-teaching-part-2/#comment-517 according to one set of definitions:
      Guilt – “I owe you”;
      Anger – “You owe me”;
      Greed – “I owe me”;
      Jealousy – “God owes me.”

      In Beebe’s interpretation, he mentions both “greed” and “envy” interchangeably, as represented by the thief’s hand. So it can be summed up as, as I had surmised, “life” owes me, whether God, others, or what I can gain and indulge in myself. Shame is essentially, “I owe life” (whether God or self in general). Here it paralells “morbid interest in the shadow” (which I’m still trying to figure out the exact connection). Then, there’s also anxiety (or paranoia), which can be seen as a sort of fear of punishment by those we “owe”; a fear of a consequence of something.

      So all of these represent a lack of “contentment” in one way or another. Contentment with what one has, or his “lot”, contentment with one’s character or standing, and contentment with the security of the current situation.
      (I have mentioned, that the immediate context of Philippians, 4:11: “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” actually would apply to the second example, regarding our shame [before God], than the first, as it is often used to address. From there, it should also take care of the last thing, anxiety, covering the commonly cited v6-7, which was regarding our standing with God, but similarly assumed to be any anxiety about life. Still, envy and anxiety about life are problems that should be overcome).

      So the anima then is apparently what allows these problems to surface in life. This would go along with Watsky’s mention (cited in above comment) of the anima’s role as that factor responsible for the process of all projection.

      I can see in my own life, that my reaction to things is what triggers all three conditions. It all boils down to fear of consequences. This right away creates anxiety, and also shame, when I do something, and then get the sense that I’m really “deserving” whatever negative consequence may come from it, and then I envy the power of others who either make or benefit from the rules, or are in a position were they have more leverage to not suffer the same consequences. I admit, this is what has fired up my reaction to political conservativism (which often appeals to the laws of nature as to why power should be imbalanced as it is, with the sufferers as to blame for their own plight. Of course, as I’ve also said, this betrays their total reliance on “Tao”, with no real integrity beyond what they feign through moralistic rhetoric lobbed at others).

      As I had pointed out here https://erictb.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/systems-vs-individuals-and-the-balance-of-power-and-the-role-of-meaning in Beebe’s terms, this development (“relativization of the ego” with its defenses, basically) is all connected with “integrity”. The purpose of integrity is supposedly to deal with the issue of “character” represented by the archetype known as the “Demonic” (which is a particular ego state, that perceives and defends us against destruction). To follow nature purely (without “integrity”), in which we act out the drive for survival it produces, also constellates the Demonic Personality Complex, which represents the ego’s fear of destruction, which then all the more fires up our drive for survival, and protecting us with distortions, leading to a vicious cycle.

      So Beebe says the purpose of integrity [“in depth”] is to deal with this, and make it more supportive. This is done by the establishment of a real relationship between dominant and inferior function (which of course, is what the anima/animus takes up), which creates a tension of opposites between capacity and incapacity and thus relatives the ego’s identification with just its superior aspect. This creates a genuine humility which enables the ego to want to learn from the Self rather than assume it (the ego) has all the answers. So, (as he himself explained to me) relativization of the ego’s claim to know how to cope with the challenges to life is essential for allowing the compensations of the Self to emerge, and for the person to feel that they are actually needed. And Part of integrity is accepting one’s “portion.” This is obviously what the envy, shame and anxiety are all about.

      • This might be how the story fits everyone:

        •Three surgeons aim to show off their ability to cut off hands, heart and eyes and graft them back in with ointment

        Man, takes on the “knowledge of good and evil”, from the primeval temptation to “become as God” (hence, the quasi-“magical” power)

        •They arrive at the inn and meet the innkeeper

        This “Fallen” state is embodied in every born “ego”

        •The servant girl is in love with a soldier and forgets to close the door the organs are stored in

        Our anima/animus (also connected with the “inferiority complex”) energizes the “Opposing Personality” (or “Warrior”/”Amazon” archetype), creating an ego-shadow axis, instead of supporting the integrity of the Self.

        •The cat steals the organs

        In our reactions to life (through anxiety, which is the cat’s nature), we lose our contentment (hands), purity (heart) and spiritual sight (eyes)

        •The soldier gets the replacement organs: a thief’s hands (that want to steal), a pig’s heart (that leads you to run to “where the garbage is deepest”) and the cat’s eyes (That can’t see anything in the day, but see in gtreat detail at night).

        The Opposing Personality “backs up” the ego’s agenda, leading to envy, shameful behavior and feelings of shame (which are connected to “the shadow”, to answer my question, which is objectionable stuff we nomally reject and deny), and then anxiety (hypersensitive sight, after being “blind” to the situations that got you there).

  3. From Watsky paper, citing Hillman:

    Anima-consciousness favors a protective mimicry, an attachment to something or someone else to which it is echo. Here we see the wood nymphs that belong to trees, the souls which hover over waters, speak from dells and caves, or sing from the sea–rocks and whirlpools–and, most vividly, the succubus….

    Anima is the reflective partner, she it is who provides the moment of reflection in the midst of what is naturally given. She is the psychic factor in nature, an idea formulated in the last century as “animism.” We feel this moment of reflection in the contrary emotions that anima phenomena constellate: the fascination plus danger, the awe plus desire, the submission to her as fate plus suspicion, the intense awareness that this way lie both my life and my death. Without these soul-stirring emotions, there would be no significance in the natural places and human affairs to which she is attached. But, life, fate, and death cannot become ‘conscious,’ so that with her is constellated a consciousness of our fundamental unconsciousness. In other words, consciousness of this archetypal structure is never far from unconsciousness. Its primary attachment is to the state of nature, to all things that simply are–life, fate, death–and which can only be reflected but never separated from their impenetrable opacity. Anima stays close to this field of the natural unconscious mind. (Hillman, Anima, pp 23, 25)

    Ann Belford Ulanov’s “Anima…forms a bridge, across which the contents of the Self come to address the ego. These questions seem to issue from an other-personified as an anima…figure-who says, in effect: You must deal with me, respond to me, even if it is to reject me, but here I am and you cannot escape.” (Gender and Soul, p. 25)

    According to Emma Jung:
    The anima makes certain demands upon a man. She is a psychic factor that insists on being considered, not neglected as is the general tendency, since a man naturally likes to identify himself with his masculinity…. What matters to a woman is the personal relation, and this is true also of the anima. Her tendency is to entangle a man in such relationships, but she can also serve him well in giving them shape–that is she can do so after the feminine element has been incorporated into consciousness. As long as this element works autonomously, it disturbs relations or makes them impossible. (Two Essays, p. 81)

    Mrs. Jung’s homey language refers to a crucial, rare, and somewhat hard-to-grasp aspect of individuation that Jung called “the relativization of the ego,” referring to a type of self-awareness whereby one recognizes that one’s conscious sense of identity is but one component of the psyche. Where she acts on men as their internal other, the anima can mediate the discovery. This is how she serves, in Ulanov’s term, as the bridge to the unconscious. Our achievement of any new awareness imposes on us, Jung would assert, a moral obligation to use what we now know–which, In the present case, means to continue relating to the anima. A first step might be to pay attention to our projections

    The techniques Schellenbaum recommends are familiar staples of classical Jungian therapy–active imagination, dreamwork, drawing, painting, modeling–aimed at conducting a dialogue with the anima, paying special attention to the feeling-tone of the encounter:
    An aggressive affect…will neither be devalued nor denied. Instead, judgment-free questions will be put: What do you want to say to me? What neglected aspect of my self seeks expression in you? Is there some necessary delimitation that you want to force from me? Are you signaling some life task that needs tackling? Or, what in my life would you like to destroy? A particular attitude or relationship, or a particular behavior of mine? Such a dialogue with the anima should, according to Jung, last as long as required for a subjective feeling of peace and satisfaction to set in…. The basic attitude of the mature anima, active receptivity, stimulates the pouring forth of images. (Gender and Soul, p. 60, 62)

    Boyd-MacMillan James Loder, Mystical Spirituality and James Hillman p249

    Hillman depicts ego-relativization process as uncovering layers of images for which heroic ego is not responsible. He uses Jung’s “withdrawal of projections”. Person differentiates between ego and what has been projected onto it. At first, the ego is strengthened, since *it* has decided to do this, but is eventually relativized as it is recognized as one of many images.

    [wonder if this might include projections onto the anima, or projection of a distortion of the anima onto the ego when things aren’t going right; hence feeling like a helpless female]

    Robinson Conscience and Jung’s Moral Vision: From Id to Thou p.81

    When the ego sees itself as sui generis, there is a tendency to seek significance or meaning for one’s life through an accumulation of possessions–broadly understood–and the pursuit of goals that support this self-inflated attitude. The result of these hollow pursuits is that “we demand that the world grant us recognition for qualities which we regard as personal possessions: our talent and our beauty”.
    Yet these false possessions do not constitute what is essential and enduring but rather are limited–and thus limiting. These endeavors may translate into a life in which position, marriage reputation, outward success, and money “are sought and attained, and set leave the individual unhappy” and eventually, “neurotic”.

    Rimbach Retirement: Life’s Mount Everest p107

    delusions of an inflated ego “derive from a state of ego-self identity which assumes oneself is the center of the universe and hence attaches private significance to outer events which are in fact totally indifferent to one’s existence”. Symptoms of inflation include spells of anger (force or coersion), power motivation, intellectual rigidity (private truth or opinion equated with universal truth), and lust (pure pleasure). “Any desire that considers its own fulfillment the central value,” claims Edinger, “transcends the reality limits of the ego and hence is assuming attributes of the transpersonal powers”.

    “Reality-Limit” sounds like a pretty straightforward term, but I’m seeing it is really an eastern concept, connected with nirvana or perfection. http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/streng.htm. So I’m not sure if I’m taking it the right way here, but it would seem to fit together with Job’s story.

    The “knowledge too wonderful for me” would basically be “beyond ego’s reality limit”, and hence Job represents an inflated ego, in questioning fate (which in Jungian terms, lies in the domain of the Self). Fate as we see is often included with “life” and “death” as the things too big for the ego, and lying totally in the unconscious. Just like what the person cited in the above post had described to me: “Nature just is. It’s life and fate and death, all those things that can’t become fully conscious because they’re bigger than the ego can contain”.
    (“Fate” can be understood as the entire set of cause and effect factors as they come together for a particular outcome. It all seems “random” to us, but each element of every event can be traced. Just not by any of us, because we cannot possibly know all the factors that will lead to an event like an accident, including the forces creating the trajectories involved. Like what makes the person swerve one lane over instead of just a foot, and how much a substance or fatigue may have affected his reaction time, and then what made you be in his path at that moment).

    Life, fate and death are what Job was grappling with. The narrative does portray simply God and Satan as being behind it, but this is not usually revealed, and when we try to speculate on it, we always get it wrong.
    So his “friends” aimed to correct him, but they were just as much inflated, in speculating on him being punished for sin. Likewise Christians who say stuff like “God is testing you”. Basically “assigning a private meaning” to the events of the person’s life.

    One group of people appealed to the Law (God is punishing you for sin), but the truth that would be ultimately revealed was that “by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified”, and nor would it guarantee health and prosperity in the world; and the other takes various New Testament passages on the sufferings of the early church and applies them to everyone. Both views end up playing upon man’s deficiency. Man is a lawbreaking sinner, who deserves pain for one purpose or another: either punishment (Law for the unconverted sinner) or “Trials to make us grow” (Which would presumably be “grace” for the redeemed).

    Christ had paid for man’s deficiency, so both of these positions essentially deny His work and thus represent Satan’s accusations.
    They do make for a nice quick “pat answer” to give the sufferer, and as many teachers today have learned, it also sells to a world trying to deal with pain. (To wit, all the books on “how to achieve victory over problems” or “the abundant life” understood as a state of being able to cope or not let life get you down, through attitude adjustment. Anyone like Job, who doesn’t “get with the program” then gets judged as perhaps “denying the power”).

    Though what strikes me is that if knowing why (regarding fate) is beyond the reality limit, the actual temporal suffering of the stuff that makes us question in the first place (i.e. the effects of fate) is obviously not beyond the limit, and this seems unfair. Hence, the popularity of the above mentioned teachings.

    While I know good and well my portion in nature is pretty small (as is every other ego, though it doesn’t look like it when I see some others profiting and apparently thriving in the world), I seem to operate on the premise that it SHOULD be bigger. That the way everyone else, (including God) does things is wrong, and get upset and depressed (Johnson: “depression compensates for inflation”) when the concrete reality fails to line up with this (thus “putting ego back in its place”)
    My sense of my portion in nature was already damaged because of my Asperger’s social problems, and then my father essentially rubbing it in by constantly setting me apart from the “functioning” world. So it seems my rejecting of my portion in nature was to compensate for this.

    I see they say the goal is to “depersonalize” the anima according to an “impersonal divine background”. This is where I start questioning some of this. It sounds like they’re saying for sure that the divine is impersonal.
    Though the fact that God apparently can’t be experienced outside a subjective “faith” makes it sound like this is right. (Subjectively, I can conjure up any idea). But still, (objectively) we can’t know. Unless by “personal” they mean an individual person.

    Or that the alternative to “personal” is something totally unfamiliar. God does say “whom shall you liken me” (Isaiah 40:25), which is a rhetorical question whose unanswerability is its whole point (like the ones He asked Job), and when we describe Him as “personal”, which is a term not even used in scripture, but rather based on our own deductive reasoning, we are in fact presuming to answer that question. “To whom shall you liken Me?” – “Why, to a PERSON; that’s who!”
    Still, this “otherworldly” reality is scary, when held as the alternative to this painful world}

    AS seems to be what causes me to desire the structure (predictability/familiarity) of both concrete validation and the abstract “stories” of the “private significance” of indifferent events.

    It seems letting go of ego just leaves us in a world where other inflated egos (who seem to be favored by the circumstances, allowing them to credit themselves so much) then dominate, affecting us. Perhaps this is why others who embark on these kinds of paths leave and become monks. Who can stay in this world that provokes ego, and yet the key to wholeness and health is relativizing it?

  4. Trying to understand what the collective unconscious (that ego is supposed to be relativized in favor of) really is. Jumping this part of the topic back to here:
    https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/a-quantum-explanation-of-the-soul/#comment-1214

  5. Continuing to digest this stuff,

    Here is a table breaking down Tao vs te, as I understand it from Beebe’s exposition, and extending them to the Gospel:

    Nature (Tao)
    [the natural outgrowing of the universe]
    Integrity (te)
    [what we bring to our participation]
    Survival
    favor of power
    “laws” of give & take
    Reproduction
    sexual drive

    Care (eros)
    amiability
    constancy
    Justice (logos)
    Enforcement of
    “give and take”
    “flesh” “spirit”
    Law (universe; sin&death) Grace

    Te is “the integrity we bring to our participation in Tao; the active expression of Tao, resulting from an individual living and cultivating the Tao.”
    (Hence, “self-help” principles in the form of coping strategies involving changing our attitude, and that the individual is the one always given the onus to change, almost never the “system” or even individuals with power. It’s a total “bottom up” process, but to me, it looks like top down would be more effective, but there’s no way to get all the people on top to “move” differently than they are. This was what I described as a greater “inertia”, which is a natural principle, even in the physical cosmos).

    Perhaps this could tie into an explanation of [my long standing question of] why we find ourselves thrust into a world that looks like it’s all “nature” (no God moderating the deeds of the powerful), yet we are supposed to assume there is a divine standard of integrity and not just act out of nature in kind (and hence, to be “Tuccia’s Sieve”; suffering the “piercings” of life, but not letting the water flow through as would come naturally).

    Still, we believe in the equality of all men, so accepting what amounts to a kind of de-facto “superiority” of some, (who manage to gain advantage; even if we argue that it doesn’t really matter), just doesn’t sit well. (i.e. like how in economic rhetoric, defenders of the rich will say “they are just better than you at producing value”, and the same can be said in other areas involving competition, like social; why some guys get girls quicker, etc. All of these issues covering the balance of power in life. Even if one assures this does not determine true “personal worth”, and thus “superiority”, it in practice is a kind of superiority, where we must defer and accept life as it is, and they have more leverage to gain what they want).

    Overall, it still seems the universal message is a favoring of power. Even if we argue that they’ll “get theirs in the end” (like in the afterlife or whatever). We still have to live with these people now, and the more power they have, the less likely they’ll be put in the place where they have to surrender ego to survive, like the rest of us are being counseled.

    To look at what has made life more difficult for me (especially in light of much of the counsel often given by the world) as I’ve noticed over the years, in terms of the functional perspectives:

    Equilibrium: no justice, no correct answers (T)
    Transcendental/existential: the couterintuitiveness/irrationality of “fate” (purpose of events; “[not] meant to be”; randomnity vs divine “testing”, etc). (N)
    Emotional: feelings dismissed (“that’s life, let it go, stop whining, nobody cares about your feelings, don’t be offended— just swallow the tough talk and learn from it, you don’t produce enough value, so just become a better person”, etc.) (F)
    Practical: living with the losses (S)

    Much of self-help is basically about coming to terms with the first three, assuming that will make you cope with the last one (which is really the starting point, of course). I guess, for me, my difficulty with that is a combination of AS, plus S (Sensing function) simply being tertiary; and thus connected with the complexes (ego states) of the Puer (which feels vulnerable and helpless sometimes), and the Trickster (by which I feel totally bound).

    Thus, I have noted, I’m supposed to “accept” a “fate” (even if it’s really God behind the scenes working all things for some purpose) that places others at an advantage, while those people themselves deny fate and say it is their own “character” that caused their success (and others’ lack of character that leads to their failure or struggle).

    This is the heart of the battle between the active legalism of Job’s friends, and the passive legalism of Job (i.e. acknowledging that these “laws of success” expressed by the other side, embodied in the “friends” are true, but protesting that he has held up his end of the deal, and is thus being cheated, and therefore God is unjust).

    God’s “answer” is pure “tao” (nature): “Where were you when I made the heavens and the earth?” and listing all the wonders of nature, showing He is in control of it. (The World Bible points out that the Chinese translation of John 1:1 even substitutes “Tao” for “Logos”; i.e. “the Word”!)
    Job was reacting to what amounted to “Tao”, since even though his calamities were portrayed as God “allowing” Satan to “do” the stuff to him; it was all stuff that frequently occurs in nature, and according to the timing of “fate”; both purely natural (such as weather and disease) or manmade (such as marauding bands of thieves and murderers). He did not know what was behind these things, just as we today (who might read Job and other scriptures and surmise explanations of our own circumstances from them) don’t know.

    While he may have been reacting to nature, what he questioned was the other side of the equation; [God’s] integrity.
    So Elihu’s answer (which prefaced God’s answer) is what covers the “te” side of things, at least as far as the “justice” part of it; that God is just, and the wicked will die, and the righteous prevail. (And he later goes into a bit of nature as well).

    Since we don’t see justice meted out like this in our own world today, many are left to conclude it really must refer to heaven and hell after this life. (And that all die is taken to mean simply that “pain is temporary”; as the consolation).
    But it really shows the age of Law, and in which in reality, all men are wicked and would perish. So what’s missing [from revelation] at this point is grace; the “care” aspect of integrity.

    So in God’s own response, the focus was power, rather than “te” (integrity: care + justice), while the “justice” part was what both Job and his friends were arguing over (the friends defending that aspect of God’s integrity with the assumption that suffering is evidence of personal sin; and Elihu just defending God’s justice in general), but counting on that was futile, as man’s fallen state renders him unable to truly fulfill the standards of justice. (Hence, Job being corrected, and the friends needing atonement for “not speaking of Me correctly”. And the friends did start off with [unspoken] care, but it quickly turned into justice).

    When people appeal to “that’s life” or “the strong survive”, or “I gotta do what I gotta do”, or even “pull up your bootstraps and make yourself the kind of person who produces value for others; then you’ll have more” (usually in justifying some injustice, in the form of bullying or dishonesty, or abuse of power, or the fickleness of people and who they look up to, etc.), they are appealing purely to nature, —without integrity. (Integrity is unique to humans, and while our instincts may line up with “the law of the jungle” like that, to just go on that alone, without integrity, is to be just an “animal”).

    When the Church sets itself up as an institution that must make money to survive (and pay the leaders, so they can “live”), then it too is operating off of nature more than integrity, and the result is people ultimately becoming “numbers”, and faulty number-increasing “growth” tactics; whether stoking up fear on one end, or watering the Gospel down to entertainment or a “prosperity” message on the other end, becoming the main drive.

    Basically, the message, from the Church that employs a number of many tactics or techniques to draw a lot of people and grows, to the “jock” or “jerk”, etc. that wins all the girls, to the corporation or entertainer that produces a product, and makes millions, and people will give up all their money to these enterprises, and the products may not even be that good in the long run, but they will still justify them, while scolding and even begrudging some poor person for supposedly wanting “freebies” they didn’t earn; the whole “produce value and then you will be rewarded” dynamic is pure “LAW.
    It’s a “secular”, naturalistic law, mind you, but still just as much “law” as its religious counterpart: produce ‘value’ for God by keeping His “Law” (believe in Him, “spend time with” Him [in Church worship and personal devotion], “trust Him” in difficulties, “grow” [in ‘character’] for Him, behave well for Him [as defined by the Commandments], save souls for Him, do [numerous other] good works for Him, etc) and you will be (or at least “prove yourselves”) “saved”.

    I’ve found, in battling or struggling with these things over the years, that when their defenders rationalize them, it would always use basically, logical “nature” (“the church and its leaders have to survive too”, “strong confident males will be better protectors, to propagate the species”, “capitalist leaders have so much responsibility, and so should be rewarded for it”, “God/Jesus did so much for you, now you don’t seriously think you can have His favor with nothing on your part”, etc), it would be very hard to answer. It does seem to “make sense”. Yet, something still seemed to be missing from the equation.

    The common denominator of all of it, is the symmetry of give and take; basically, a trade. (This was easy for me to recognize, through my dominant introverted Thinking perspective, which looks for what is “correct” according to properties such as symmetry, which I learn individually rather than some logical consensus, i.e. in the environment. The world often goes for the consensus, and thus seeming to not make sense).

    This, as taught so extensively by Paul, is all apart of pure “nature”. Even the “divine Law” part of it, for while the Law is good, holy and spiritual, it still has to be attempted to be kept by us, who are carnal, sold under sin.

    The Church, ironically as much as it’s colored by nature, still came to see nature as itself what was “fallen” (and in need of replacement with a literal, physical “New Heavens and New Earth”, which many are still waiting for). But it actually remained “good” as God created it. (And this ultimately was the message of God to Job, who obviously came to despair of the physical world and his deflated place in it).
    It was man who lost integrity (state of being “untouched”; in this case, spiritually) when we took on the knowledge of good and evil. (We then projected that lack of integrity onto the physical creation. We see one animal devouring another, even one galaxy devouring another, and we see our own acts of cruelty to other humans in that, and conclude that it’s “evil” and needing to be replaced).

    I guess a lot of the frustration and disillusionment we suffer (including expectations about God intervening) is that we look for integrity in the universe, but it is supposed to be what we bring to the universe, not what we get from it. (Carl Sagan even supposedly figured at one point, if we ever do find intelligent life in the universe, it will be the same old stuff as us. Even if they have a higher intelligence that makes them rise above some of our problems; they still will have developed in a violent universe where any life forms must be “fit” enough to survive amidst laws that make it easy to snuff their life out).

    That I guess is why so many religions and philosophies point “within”. Modern evangelicalism portrays God as external, but the movement (and especially the charismatic element that is having wide influence) has been coming under criticism from Reformed types and others, for being so (in practice) focused “within”, itself, instead of a more “corporate” sacramental focus.
    I would say the criticism has a lot of good points, for the inner focus comes from contextualizing scriptures on suffering and “growth” (to our contemporary experience, when they were addressing issues the first century Church was facing), which then happens to fit right into the “self-help” for the “abundant life” modern man seeks, and paralleling the other religions and philosophies. The Gospel is not about inner strength or growth to cope with life; it’s about the forgiveness of the condemnation of the Law man had brought himself under through trying to take on good and evil through his efforts.

    So grace is God’s ethic of “care” (including the patience of “constancy”).

  6. Nature is good (Gen. 1), but we “sin” when we appeal to it where we should be manifesting integrity. This itself may even be the very act of taking on the “knowledge of good and evil”. We’re saying we know we’re “good”, and essentially blaming nature, in one way or another (either affirming it as good, and our actions good along with it, or saying it’s bad [i.e. “fallen”], and makes us act the way we do, even though we ideally wish we didn’t, and are trying not to, as in the common understanding of “repenting”).
    The way to know whether a pure nature approach is justified, is what Jesus [paraphrasing Hillel] said: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt.7:12); aka the “Golden Rule”; which Jesus described as actually summing up the entire Law!

    To take an example from world politics, both capitalism and communism are Nature at its most feral. Survival of the fittest (i.e. most “powerful”). “control them before they control [and destroy] you”. The only difference was the means of control. (a network of powerful “institutions”, either “government” chartered, or “private” enterprise).
    Both sides construct extensive rhetoric appealing purely to Nature, as if that automatically justifies all their actions, and thus by itself [as it were] synthesizes “integrity”. (i.e. justifying them).

  7. In the area of current race issues, “te” says that we should all be equal, and blacks should not have to be “extra good” (which is like a virtual admission of some form of inferiority).
    But then whites, including cops and others are operating off of Tao (nature), when they approach the black community with fear and hypervigilance (leading to a focus on their “violence”, which for the cops will make them more likely to shoot, even when not really necessary).
    The black youths committing crimes (and then blaming white “racism”) are also following nature. (i.e. the cause and effect dynamic that has led to the current cycles of poverty and crime for many).

    So we can [essentially] demand they develop the integrity to not color the whole race or “community” with the images of these young criminals and thus stop shooting black kids, but we have to realize that we cannot make people develop integrity, so it’s more realistic to expect them to keep following nature.
    So we can try more to develop integrity and not act solely on nature.

    Otherwise, when both sides follow pure nature, then the outcome will be set by nature, and nature favors the powerful. Meaning, we’re ultimately not going to “win”. The cops (as well as corporate interests, etc.) have more power. Even with some advocating our causes in the seats of power (i.e. liberal govt.) there can still always be backlash, and as long as people keep acting the way they do, new generations can always be swayed to the old sentiments.

    Just think of the “soft” kid in the street, and how we tell him, no matter how “unfair” it is, “it’s a ‘jungle’ out there”, and the “strong” survive. They get the respect from the tougher kids, win the girls, etc. “That’s just the way it is” (i.e. “nature”)
    Well the entire black community is in the same position in America. The people doing this stuff in the street can’t keep saying “l don’t care what the white man thinks; it’s his fault I’m killing other brothas in the hood” and expect them to stop shooting and demonizing us.

  8. A perfect example of Tao is the legal industry. At some point, people began suing for every perceived wrong. My previous job being in court records, I was amazed at the volume of case files per year, and just for NY County (Manhattan) alone. After my first year there, they had to switch from five digit file numbers, to six digits.
    All of this increasingly rampant litigiousness forced businesses and governments (like especially on my current job, the transportation field) to create new, stricter rules, to cover themselves in case of an accident or legal dispute. Everyone tries to cover themselves this way, and if there’s an incident, the agency will say that they had the rules in place, and the worker violated them. So they are covered, and it all falls onto the little guy.

    Meanwhile, all the added rules, regulations and standards get to the point where it becomes hard to “breathe” in the world. It raises stress and fear, and has further created what I call an “Ice Age” mentality of hypervigilance. (Yet people with the right connections still manage to get by, at least for awhile).
    Yet while life gets rougher and more complicated for everyone else, the lawyers naturally profit off of this. They even come along and encourage companies to claim their “rights” (Like NYC Transit’s familiar subway route bullets, which seemed to be “public” for a long time, but at some point were copyrighted. That’s why some businesses or other venues trying to create the look of the subway have to change the colors).

    This is another instance where it’s easy to villify lawyers, but then you can’t really, because the first thing that happens to us, most of us will run straight to them ourselves.

    So they have put themselves in a place where their service will be valued, no matter what, which is like the number one rule of success, and why even in political discourse, the highly paid entrepreneurs are always lauded.

    So basically they’ve “mastered” “nature”, and are thus “rewarded” by it. “Integrity” is only something they will develop, at their discretion, if they want to be extra “nice”.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. “Solar” vs “Lunar” in Gender Dynamics and Individuation | ChristianBookBarn.com
  2. Solar vs Lunar
  3. The Other Side of the Puer: the Senex | "ERIPEDIA"
  4. Duggar controversy and the battle over who has “morals” and can judge “morality” | "ERIPEDIA"
  5. Next Step: the Transgender Debate | "ERIPEDIA"
  6. Book Review: Beebe “Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type” | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: