REVELATIONS(s)? February 26, 2011, edited July 23, 2012..a response to Edward Fudge

Hi Edward(Edward's statements are at the end.)  I think you are so right about the kind of obsession the book of Revelation stirs in people. The model I would use is that these strong  negative, 'certainty' promising archetypes have the capacity to capture and possess the human mind. The folks you refer to have identified, primarily at an unconscious level, with the more negative symbols. They indeed are fascinated by them, have made them their religion.  This indicates that these symbols are very much alive and I'd say are in all of us. Others are drawn to the 'certainty'  promising archetypes that you describe in your closing.  These  correlate with what is also alive in us all... such as day dreams of perfect outcomes, victory, and vindication for all the troubles and fears of life.

It should be no surprise that such a 'Revelation'  of horrific images is seen coming in confessed 'visions' from an author described as all alone and in distress on a forsaken island. He is confronted with a torturing set of real world contradictions and threats. The recent movie  Black  Swan presents a human in similar psychological straights and similar dark images arise( The typical Western audience watches and believes them to be literal and primarily in her outer life.) in her inner struggle to deal with her conflicting natures. Edward, the title  given to this book 'The Revelation' also seems to be an over reach. For are not the gospels also 'revelations of Jesus Christ' and does not Paul's vision constitute a revelation of Jesus?   We should  beware of the archetypes and how they push for dominance in the world of archetypes that surface in our lives. It is a very real thing. They must be questioned by our seemingly weak Ego both for the outlandish  negatives they pour forth as well as their claim for final 'certainty.'  Real life can can be possessed away from us by these monstrous extremes.  Blessings, Jim

Archetypal Images From Book Of Revelation

Response to Second Try!  Dear Edward. Freud alerted us long ago that 'slips of the tongue' are no accident at all. They only speak a truth that we had not 'intended' to speak. So we should listen to them. I appreciate your willingness to apologize but unfortunately ones truth at any moment is for 'certain' part  of ones truth. May I suggest that when we are in the presence of one under the unconscious influence of an archetype we are usually  semi-consciously disturbed by it ourselves. When one of these folks you first describe comes at you loaded, and not realizing it, with a powerful but unconscious archetype it irritates you, frustrates you, and you have the uneasy awareness that nothing you can say and no reason you can give will bring them out from 'under the spell.'  They are unshakable, as unshakable as the archetype that has taken over.  They are possessed by its seductive power and are acting it out. In their mind they are only saying and believing what the Bible says. There it is in front of them.   So that is the reality you are speaking to in the original first paragraph.  And, I think, it is your truth and your experience  when you say the kinds of things you say  in which , to your credit, you acknowledge the overstatements and personal   fantasies such individuals are having. You are right to speak apologetically to them but I think you did mean it when you said it and there is good reason you did.

The more we are aware of being in the presence of one so possessed we are less likely to take on the responsibility of doing battle with their archetype...we never win anyway. And we are left later musing, 'Why in God's world did I say that?'  None of us ever gain anywhere near full control and awareness of the Unconscious, and the archetypes, both negative and positive, it continuously spins to us.  We can only, if we so chose, become more aware. The next time you hear or are in a heated argument remind yourself that one or both parties are  possessed 'again.' For example every unproductive couple argument is a battle of the archetypes being played out on the outside through two individuals.   We have  all  been there , some far more than others. There is nothing more humbling than to do battle with an archetype and lose. We at that moment  know we are not the captain of our own ship. It is a humbling awareness.

At such times we have much in common with Job near the end of his dealings with the powerful and raging Yahweh. Job knows he just may be right in his argument with Yahweh but he is not the most powerful of the two and he also knows that. His is not an easy consciousness to carry but it is an enlightened one. He has witnessed the unspeakable. His response at that point is pictured as 'covering his mouth with his hand.' And the apostle Paul reports having a 'vision' which he 'could share with no man.' Both of these describe experiences where a person 'saw' the unspeakable and decided it was best, for the present, to keep it to themselves. These are also positive examples of a person's Conscious-Ego being strong enough to 'contain the inner archetype' so it does not overwhelm the Ego and  possess the whole mind. It is a major spiritual/psychological victory when a person's ego is  nearly overwhelmed by such a religious archetype but the person's ego manages to not 'act it out in the outside world' or to become severely mentally ill from the encounter. (The Bible has many examples of encounters with  the Archetypal world of the Unconscious. We often fail to see and benefit from  that if we totally literalize the stories.)Would if that were usually the case when the archetypes arrive in human consciousness but it isn't. Usually some level of unconscious possession happens and we say at the least, 'Something has gotten into' such a person. Job nor Paul likely had any therapist or spiritual director in whom they  could confide their  secrets. One can only hope that any person having such an ordeal also be provided a faithful objective human confidant. That is surely what s/he will need.

Blessings good friend. Keep your sense of humor. . Jim

-

ONE 'REVELATION' IS ENOUGH

---

Click here for 100 popular topical links to 1100 past gracEmails.

---

A gracEmail subscriber says that he hears people refer to the last book of the Bible as "Revelation" and also as "Revelations." Which is correct? Does it really matter? If so, why?

* * *

I wish neither to over-generalize nor to be unkind, but it seems strikingly obvious that Christians who call the book "Revelations" very often fit a particular mold. They attend some evangelical church with decent regularity, think of themselves as serious observers of Last Things (eschatology), do not enjoy or attend Bible studies conducted in their own churches, but become nearly ecstatic over the latest book, conference, or movie that purports to explain the End-time creatures and other dramatic details from the Book of Revelation in terms of the latest-breaking international news.
The book is called “Revelation,” of course—not “Revelations,” as aficionados of the international news approach often call it. The difference involves more than a point of grammar. As the opening words of the Bible’s final book tell us, it is not a collection of assorted revelations or predictions of things to come. No, it is "the revelation of Jesus Christ,” which he sends to his followers in seven towns along the Roman postal route, that reaches all the way from Asia Minor (in modern Turkey) to the Imperial Capital of Rome in faraway Italy, 1300 miles to the West.
More than anything else, these believers need reminding and reassuring. They need someone to remind them exactly who Jesus is--the slaughtered Lamb, risen victorious, waiting at God’s right hand, returning to earth as Lion. They need reminding who Caesar is--certainly not “the Almighty,” as he claims, or even “Lord,” as citizens must periodically confess if they hope to experience their next birthday. These believers also need someone to reassure them that a day is coming when every living soul will know and confess the truth about both men. In short, believers need exactly what they get from this book—the Revelation . . . of Jesus Christ!
Let's Try Again....
A man once read a speech and a critic offered three objections: (1) you read it; (2) you didn't read it well; (3) it was not worth reading. I feel a little like that about the gracEmail a few hours ago which, as early respondents have pointed out, (1) was unkind, (2) was overstated, which (3) weakened the primary point that needed to be made.
I was unkind (please forgive me) and "got carried away" in the first paragraph's description of people who say "Revelations" instead of "Revelation." Many of them simply suffer a slip of the tongue or commit the verbal equivalent of a typographical error. We need to scratch the first paragraph.
The second paragraph made a good point ("Revelation" is "the revelation of Jesus Christ") but I overstated (please forgive me) in saying that "it is not a collection of assorted revelations or predictions of things to come." The opening words of the book go on to say that John is to write "things which must shortly come to pass." Revelation is primarily the revelation of Jesus Christ--but it also includes other revelations.
The above errors weakened my main point, which was correct, and which I stated in the rest of the second paragraph and all the third paragraph. The book is primarily "the revelation of Jesus Christ,” to believers "who need reminding and reassuring" about "exactly who Jesus is . . . [and] who Caesar is . . . [and] that a day is coming when every living soul will know and confess the truth about both men. In short, believers need exactly what they get from this book—the Revelation . . . of Jesus Christ!" Please forget my errors and overstatements--but do remember the main point!

Dream- Total Woman

Dream -Dec11, 2009 Total Woman  (edited July22, 2011)

A black woman's waste-up image is centered in a square. Adjacent to her in another square are twelve children. She takes much responsibility for these children and cares for and protects them with a full range of love. The Greek words for love the dream implies are all applicable to her love for these children. That love quality consists of Agape(unconditional care and commitment), phileo (a genuine liking of each child's presence and personality.) and Eros( A strong desire for the bodily presence and reality of each child, to touch, smell and hold.)

Scenes flashed showing her making sure that each child was safe and was getting the attention, care and resources the he/she needed to grow and develop in body,soul and mind. This woman was shown as a nurturer, protector and model to the children.

And the dream showed her having an equally strong and developed interest in a love partner in her life. These same qualities of love were experienced deeply in her desire, need and care for an intimate life with an adult love partner. It was an amazing thing to see how the woman was capable of having such a rich deep and effective love for  children but did not exercise that at the expense of  her seeking to be nurtured herself by an intimate, committed, erotic relationship with her lover.

REFLECTION: It has been written and well documented that Western woman, under the influence of church orthodoxy, has been placed into a conflicting role by male patriarchal systems. She is considered either Madonna or whore, angel or witch. I can remember hearing discussions in my youth about girls by older males. They would describe the 'kind of girl' that they wanted to take out as being very erotic and sensuous but such a girl not being the 'kind of woman' they wanted to marry. In their mind a woman was not able to be both in every way. This attitude and double standard is unveiled in the expression of young males 'sowing wild oats' before they marry indicating that in marriage there will be no ' continually renewed real lusty erotic sexual experience.' This meant that for a woman to exercise her erotic  side put her at risk of being considered slutty, unreliable and loose; in short of being whore like. This split is alive in Christian tradition by the conflict between the nature of the 'virgin Mary' and the supposed prostitute 'Mary Magdalene.'

That contrast could be used in a healthy fashion if the two were to be united as a 'total woman.' If 'virgin' were interpreted in its ancient mythological meaning  a woman being her 'own self ' and not an attachment to a man(which has been nearly economically impossible for a woman to survive in most of Western history) we would move in the direction of this dream. Similarly if we used the more ancient meaning of 'purity' describing woman not as sexually inactive but as being loyal to her loves, 'true blue' and honest in her caring and relating to others. And if the Magdalene’s earthy erotic nature, such as imaged in the story of the woman washing Jesus' feet and drying them with her hair were fully endorsed in its erotic emotion involving Jesus. But the church failed to make this connection and viewed the two as 'opposites' to keep separated. Then they picked one, the virgin Mary, to be the spiritual example to follow. Orthodoxy gives woman no clear model with which to identify, especially since it chose to make physical virginity a sign of superior morality and woman's natural Erotic nature as the opposite of spiritual.

Women frequently have bought into this split of personality as being woman's true nature. This results in, even and maybe especially in marriage, her having to repress full parts of her capacity to love. She becomes primarily a 'homemaker' and 'child nurturer' and even 'second mother' to her husband. She represses and forfeits her deeply important Erotic nature. This is likely a key dynamic in the prevalence of unsatisfying marriage for both men and women. A thoughtful person learns these are not matters that respond to will power but involve the deep matters of the heart, thus unconscious factors. Both men and women have contributed, and Western patriarchal systems have insisted on it, to woman being split in her true nature, pressuring her to choose either the pure Madonna or the lusting whore. As a result she is not allowed to find and live out her total self and everyone ..... her, her partner, her children and her community, are the poorer for it.

Many women , especially as they become mothers, have been destined to live out their adult lives striving to the Madonna/mother role while some others are destined sometimes to play out literally the role of the adulteress or whore. All the instinctive archetypal parts of human life will be played out but they will be played out negatively if important parts of human nature are repressed or denied. The Christian book of the sixties called the Total Woman, in spite of its title, was actually selling women on forfeiting their genuine erotic nature and complying to the submissive , 'husband pleasing' role that has been approved traditionally. The church, with much help from interpretations of Paul, has been the primary source of such a view of woman in American culture. It's the interpretation of the Eden story where woman is first and indelibly pictured as the lustful origin of 'original sin' causing the downfall of both herself and Adam. This view of that story has thus been a key support of the ' Madonna or Whore' split view of women.

What is rarely examined, in the more modern conservative Christian claims of encouraging women to be more their erotic selves in marriage intimacy, is that the Erotic nature is not, and cannot be, a passive one. Love , especially Eros, is not passive. The Erotic, desiring , sexual nature is expressive and insists upon and clarifies to its lover what it wants and needs. It is only in the absence of Agape(trustworthiness) and Phileo(liking) that such Erotic self awareness and seeking becomes 'selfishness' or without commitment and mutually enhancing boundaries. Unfortunately because the N.T. does not use the Greek word Eros, typical Christian teaching has always placed a negative value on it, has treated it like a problem we'd be better off without; instead of perhaps a most important path to experiencing the Sacred. Such teaching has successfully separated sexuality from spirituality and everyone suffers for that mistake. The typical American, religious or not, has a hard time imagining the female lover in the 'Song of Songs' O.T. book and the 'virgin Mary' image as describing the same woman. This dream is suggesting just such a reality. Here again is an example of how some Bible stories can point us in ways very different from entrenched orthodoxy and ways so needed for human joy in our time.

The dream is presenting the 'whole real human woman.' She has and expresses this full range of love, both in her love of her lover and her love for others. I remain convinced that the development and honest expression of the Eros nature of women and men would result in an unparalleled expanded level of personal and collective joy and love in Western culture. I believe the present chaos in the 'love and marriage' scene, along with the 'women's movement' have been necessary important factors in the move toward the greater possibility of the 'Total Woman' upheld in this dream.

Note: This dream, though a man's, is about woman. The 'twelve children' image does not suggest these are her children. But displays that her care for others, including the 'children in our midst' as with the Jesus image, is full and whole(the number twelve and the 'squares.')  It should not be taken that this woman is the sole caregiver and parent of these children. The dream is not about men. But I should not forget that the same possibilities of the fullness of love are for men as well as for women. And that man is just as capable and needed at nurturing children as women. He too can expose himself to the vulnerability of intimate love by expressing his tender desires and needs for intimacy. It is likely, in fact, through his inner anima function, along with his relating to real women, that he can discover these 'feminine' capabilities that will bless his life as well as the others with whom he lives. Jim

BAPTISM

Hi Edward. I fully agree with everything you say. Going further, something more and valuable  is added if a person realizes that this ritual , like all widely practiced ones, is not only a product of Christianity.  I think it broadens its meaning and importance  to recognize that fact. It helps connect the Christian faith to other faiths and thus people across religions to each other. You know how the Church of Christ in our youth wanted to be 'unique and exclusive' so it chose to 'not know' that it legitimately and historically sprang from the larger Christian faith.  It's 'collective ego'  needed to think it arrived fresh on the scene by the conscious activity of rationally  copying the 'pattern'  believed seen in the N.T. documents.  Well, broader historic Christianity has some of that same kind of  desire and need for 'uniqueness and exclusiveness' as well. We got that need honestly from our parent religions, both  historic Christianity and  the Hebrew faith.

I think we can count on  the ritual of baptism being  either consciously copied and adapted by the Christian movement from other religions  or springing originally from an archetype of the 'Collective Unconscious.' Most likely it was a combination of both, aware of its previous practice and  being emotionally activated by the unconscious archetype that brings it.   The idea of baptism is so common across ancient cultures and cults. The archetype that spins baptism generates emotional images of being overwhelmed, drowned, buried hopelessly and then  rescued, resurrected and ushered  into a new perspective of life. It also comes from images of washing, cleansing and forgiveness. You see I sound just like you as I generate more and more images. Baptism comes with so many images and they are to be found all over the spectrum of humanity. It surely originates from such timeless archetypes as does the  Christian 'Lord's Supper' with it manifold meanings and various ways of being ritualized.

These rituals most certainly  did not begin as rational exercises that were  'thought up' or told in rational words by the 'voice of God' because they harmonized with the Christian story. They were at some point in their origin  fully unconscious, truly coming  from the source of all that is rightly called religious. The archetypes are deep in the human instinctual totally unconscious collective mind. Similarly as how  a bird builds its nest as its species always has or sings its particular song. To understand that  such a source, now called the 'Collective Unconscious', is the source of all religious ritual and myth is to get far closer to how such things have actually come to be.

If one wishes to think that an external God at some  specific point rationally told someone to baptize, in  a sense that is psychologically/spiritually true. But that is a misleading, less complicated and less accurate way of imagining its beginning. Such rituals come from the distant prehistoric times of the human experience. They were first practiced extremely crudely and without any conscious reasoning attached to it. Like one tribe of  Native Americans who still spit on their hand and hold it to the sun every morning. They 'understand' that the sun would not make its trip across the sky if it were not for their faithfully giving it this greeting. I use this example not to belittle the ritual, quite the opposite. But we can now all be enriched by grasping the notion that our formal religious rituals had very similar beginnings.  Only later was the activity formulated by human consciousness, given rational and often artistic and beautifully poetic words(Such creative achievement becomes the basis of culture and science.) Over long time rituals finally become  'explained' to new generations as a very rational thing to do. Unfortunately when it reaches this last, and totally rational, stage it has generally lost much of its original emotional appeal and numinous experience as something that supports ones sense of being connected to God. Such ritual processes have happened in various human religions across the full spectrum of place and time. There is 'nothing new under the sun.' This is what C.G. Jung refers to when he says, 'All Humans are religious by nature."

If one is drawn to the notion that it would be good to believe all humanity is so connected and  that  God is seen as equally present and relating  to us all, then the  concept of the 'Collective Unconscious' becomes a gladly received treasure and  explanation of the  spiritual development of the psyche of humankind.  Our ancient religions offer no such explanation of such development for they came before this kind of awareness was possible except for the very few.  Such ancient ritual came from the activity of the archetypes before humans had any capacity to envision a model of the 'Collective Unconscious'. So each religion was taken,as it surely seemed to be by its founders, as a direct expression of a ' one and only '  religion and the complete 'voice of God.'  The archetypes make that strong of an impression on human consciousness when they spontaneously arise from the collective unconscious. (This is how I can explain, without diminishing it's authority and my astonishment and overwhelming,  what I experienced in mid August of '85 and following.)

There is no sound reason for us to still understand the history of religion in such a non-psychological, thus primarily unconscious, and supposedly rational way.  Tragically  that way of understanding it  all is now leading us to the brink of  humans being  strongly driven to reject and even annihilate others of different religions and human life styles. This hostility has now spread  in our day to  persons holding different political views. It leads to unconsciously hating those considered to be the 'other' life,religion or party. This is an extremely dangerous situation. The threatening 'burial' symbol of baptism can suddenly become quite real and to the point.

The irrationality of our Congress not being able to get a vote on raising the debt ceiling is not driven by rational thought, the way each side wants to be seen. This can better be explained by archetypal emotional possession. Hopefully, in the mix, there are enough  sound  minds to somehow bring order out of this psychological chaos before the most vulnerable among us suffer unnecessarily. Think of what other needs for sound governing decisions may get caught in this same kind of problem in the future! In our day it is already absolutely necessary for creation's survival  for 'semi-conscious and unconscious factors' to be always considered during individual and community  changes. The threatening 'burial' symbol of baptism can suddenly become quite real and to the point.

If our more self interested Ego driven  need is to believe that 'we' are actually heirs to  something 'unique and exclusive' in some way that implies 'our' ritual is more God connected and approved than another's , then the  idea of the 'Collective Unconscious'  strikes us as something to fear and  strongly reject as 'nonsense.' I realize this is presently the reaction to such an idea by much of humanity. This reaction is  in spite of very strong empirical  evidence, and more importantly, a pressing human need for such a unifying principle of spiritual/psychological development. Blessings, Jim May 18 , 2010(edited July 21, 2011)

On Tue, 18 May 2010 19:00:00 -0400 "Edward Fudge" <edward@edwardfudge.com> writes:

gracEmail® Edward Fudg  BAPTISM'S MANY MODES

---

Click here to view any of 1100 past gracEmails on 100 popular topics.

---

A gracEmail subscriber asks, "Does water baptism in the New Testament involve sprinkling, pouring or immersion?"

* * *

As New Testament writers describe the process of conversion, they include all three of those actions in the picture. Jesus himself ordained water baptism as the principal visible expression of initial faith. Indeed, gospel baptism is significant, for it sign-ifies many blessings which the believer enjoys freely by God's grace. One blessing is the forgiveness of sins and a clean conscience before God, which Scripture pictures as God sprinkling the believer with Jesus' atoning blood (Heb 10:22; 1 Peter 1:2; Ezek. 36:25-27). Another blessing is God's lavish pouring out the Holy Spirit -- his personal, powerful Presence and that of the Risen Jesus Christ -- on the believer (Acts 2:33; Titus 3:5-6; Joel 2:28-32).

I personally conclude that water baptism itself, done most meaningfully, involves full immersion in water. Evidence pointing to this conclusion is of many types: historical (first-century Jews practiced such ritual washings and proselyte baptism), archaeological (the land of Israel is dotted with ruins of stone baptisteries known as mikvas), narrative (immersion most naturally fits biblical stories of actual baptisms recorded in John 3:23 and in Acts 8:38), linguistic (total dunking displays the undisputed original meaning of the Greek word baptizo), as well as theological, psychological and cultural (immersion embodies New Testament imagery of rebirth, washing and resurrection). Immersion is also an ecumenical practice. For, while Christians disagree regarding the propriety of other methods, they all regard this form to be a scriptural and appropriate mode.

All three, I say, therefore -- all three. Immersed in water, sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit poured out in generous abundance! In this passive act of baptism, one comes in faith, formally and ritually, to the crucified and risen Savior to celebrate the gift of grace -- a gift to which the believer can never contribute, and which he or she will never merit, earn or deserve.
_______________

Copyright 2010 by Edward Fudge. Permission hereby given to reproduce, reprint or forward this gracEmail, but only in its entirety, without change and without financial profit.

INDIVIDUALITY CAN EMBRACE THE WORLD

When speaking of inner experiences I had especially the year beginning in mid-August of 1985, some ask me, " Jim, what did you learn?" This essay is an effort to give some of  the answer to that question from an intellectual standpoint and hopefully in an understandable way.

                               INDIVIDUALITY CAN EMBRACE THE WORLD

This essay is an attempt to bring together the implications of some of my experiences of what Carl Jung described as direct experience of the 'Collective Unconscious' nearly overwhelming consciousness. This began and was strongest for me in mid-August 1985. This kind of experience parallels the dynamics of classic accounts of 'religious' type conversion ranging from that of Peter and Paul in the New Testament, that of Scrooge in A Christmas Carol and the children in the movie ET. Such stories of uncommonly intense human inner experience are recorded as many other historic and literary examples through the ages.

                                  EGO-CONSCIOUSNESS ---- INDIVIDUALISM

I think we are near the end of a long era of increased value being placed on what can be called Individualism. Individualism is a mind set, a perception and value system where the central experience of consciousness, called the Ego, is considered the center of personality. Persons are taught to think, feel and act from the personal Ego. Especially in the West a highest value is placed on the meaning of this ,taken for granted, experiencing of the world and life. Ego is that reality which a person typically means when they say, 'I' or 'me.' We have not been encouraged to think of ourselves as potentially being something more or different than our direct sense of 'me', our personal ego.

The content of the individual Ego consists primarily of ones conscious awareness of the present and all remembered past experiences, both inner and outer. This changes with age. Through such an Ego we each continually compare incoming experience, thought and feeling with what we remember from our own past. We experience this Ego as ,'mine' and we have a vested interest in adding to it, expanding it and caring for it. This is the agreed purpose of most formal education. People who are somewhat psychologically aware, a number that has been significantly growing in the past century, are generally convinced they need to protect the Ego, to strengthen it against the assaults of ideas, beliefs, feelings and fantasies that it continually comes up against from the outside world and from ones inner world. Even if a person does not have a strong catalog of values, such as a formal religion, he/she still highly values the personal Ego and is aware that it is under assault by beliefs, ideologies and peer pressures to conform to someone else's wishes, plans or truth. A basic assumption is the stronger and more conscious the ego can be the more it can help one to be in control of one's personal and public life. So in the West every person has been well taught to live out of their own personal Ego. I also include in this situation those persons who believe there is an absolute truth or permanent revelation from 'out of this world' that has been defined for that person and his/her religious group as the absolute Voice of God. Such a common religious resource is also a part of a person's conscious Ego. Religious, family and other social group training are important parts of one's experience and thus part of the fabric of his/her Ego. These along with other remembered interpretations of life, ideas and feelings are part of one's Ego anchored in their conscious personal/collective past.

To live out of one's Ego is to always live in one way or another 'against the world' at large. To a predominant extent the wider world and all that is outside of 'our' personal Ego is viewed as something to 'stand against' , to 'control' as much as possible, and to 'protect' oneself from. Such attitudes are evidence that a person is constantly living from an 'Individualism' frame of reference. I would guess most Western people would recognize this pattern of Ego based Individualism in how s/he lives daily life.

The development of a stronger personal Ego seems to have 'had' to happen for human consciousness to develop in its content and strengths over the past millennia. The individual's sense of a personal Ego has greatly expanded over the past 300 years with the focus on the 'objective' world emphasized in the 'Age of reason' and by a growing scientific view of the world. Some of the parallel movements in culture along with this development of Ego strength are cultural patriarchy, a sense of 'subduing' and controlling and 'using' the earth/world to enhance the Ego's sense of power/security. The Ego in us has a 'me and mine' bottom line. That 'me and mine' generally includes ones family and various communities one embraces and in which s/he feels included. But, it does not look favorably to the 'whole' and to the 'All.' Other parallels with the development of this Ego Individualism are strongly held emotional values related to family, tribe, group and nationalism. Multiculturalism easily falls into this pattern as well. In the Individualism of our Western culture one side of a large number of 'opposites' have been more valued in support of this Ego. These include 'the particular over the whole'. 'thinking over feeling', 'masculine over feminine', 'control over acceptance', 'material over the spiritual', 'taking from over contributing to', 'status quo over change', 'producing over being' and seeing oneself, others and the particulars of nature as ' separate objects ' of creation rather than parts of a living whole.

This Individualism enacted by living from the Ego is always working hard to take the past into the future rather than being open to the future as a continually unfolding 'new creation.' There has been, I think, a growing frustration happening in the Western individual and collective psyche as this way of viewing and living from the Ego has become less effective in creating a meaningful, satisfying and hopeful way of life. More specifically Individualism no longer creates the expected experience of life which is tied strongly to the past. The more individuals and culture try to apply the past to the future, the only way the Ego knows how to live, the less it leads to life being meaningful and of 'one piece.' This has been increasingly experienced in private, family, and public life. It is at the basis of the national 'political and social polarity' most everyone is frustratingly aware of. This lack of 'one piece' refers to a growing awareness that life lived through the Ego creates the reality that the 'objects and persons' of the world are more and more separate, isolated, self limited and 'individualistic.' Living from the Ego has also led to the situation where democratic government has grown less able to provide practical oversight and regulation for financial systems, disaster response, and use of the military. More and more people are seeing that human 'leadership' ,as the Ego perceives it, no matter the sincerity or intelligence is unable to be effective. Another way that Individualism has come into its own is often proudly referred to as the American spirit of 'rugged individualism.' This phrase captures the essence of the Individualism I am describing. The phrase purposely pits the individual against the world and its parts. The growing fear that the 'American Dream' is increasingly less attainable for most is another way Americans are presently face to face with the dark side of bravado Individualism.

Jacob Wrestles With Angel of the Lord. Bonnat 1876

This critique of Individualism developed by humans living out of an ever strengthening Ego is not intended as a moral judgment on us as individuals or as a culture. It is simply a statement of where we are, an explanation for why so many of the institutions and systems of the past are no longer working effectively as ways for humans to picture a hopeful way of living. It is a matter of human psychological and spiritual development, a necessary development of the past that now has turned negative and incomplete for the present needs of society. I am suggesting that Individualism has now become an ineffective mode and place from which to live our lives.

 I am not disparaging the well developed Western Ego. In fact it must always remain in tact and serve as a gateway questioner of the material that wells up from the much broader Collective Unconscious. When the Ego breaks down in this function then the severest kind of mental illness happens. Such dangerous times for an individual would be similar to what is described as the 'temptations of Jesus' and Jacob's 'wrestling with the angel.' Each of these encounters is presented as necessary preparation for the fullest living out the destiny of these two individual lives. The personal Ego must function as a critical onlooker and questioner but it must realize that it is not the center or most extensive aspect of the human personality. Only the 'Self' can be recognized as that and then can only be partially realized.

As I try to 'get a feel' for living and experiencing from a place, other than individualism, I find it is most natural to drift quickly back to some form of Individualism perspective of living. I suspect this to be the case for most any reasonably informed American who would try to 'move on' from such an individualistic approach to life. This means if such a 'mode of living' is to change it will require conscious effort and ' strong new perceptions' on the part of individual person. Religiously, this 'new perception' may be referred to metaphorically as 'new birth', 'repentance' , 'new creation' or even the 'mind of Christ.'

                                       'INDIVIDUALITY'- 'SELF'- 'CREATIVE I'

My theme here is that we are at the time in history when conscious and unconscious forces have gathered to motivate us to move away from the imbalance  of Individualism toward a different center to live from. We can call this new potential point of view 'Individuality.' To experience ones Individuality in contrast to his/her Ego Individualism would represent a newly possible paradigm for where a person chooses to live from. Individuality can come into a person's awareness by the Ego consciousness experiencing a dramatic inflow of content from what Jung has called the 'Collective Unconscious.' From ancient times such an experience has been described as 'religious' in that it involves some kind of strong 'numinous' experience. The human Ego experiences the 'numinous' when it seems to have been directly affected inwardly by some outside force that is a higher wisdom and power than any human Ego. This is usually first experienced as the Sacred approaching from without but in time a person can recognize that what seemed from outside is a part of ones unknown inner resources activated. This can also be understood as the direct presence of content from the 'Collective Unconscious', the source from which the personal Ego consciousness must have evolved originally. Dreams, visions and revelatory experiences are capable of providing the individual Ego such an experience. This kind of experience teaches the Ego that it is not the center of its assumed 'me' as it had once believed, but that there are 'semi conscious' and 'unconscious' aspects to one's personality that now demand to be acknowledged and honored in how one lives and relates to the outer world. As Jung put it, "A person is confronted that he is not the master of his own house."

This more expansive center of the personality I am calling  Individuality or the 'Creative I' is the product of the maturation process Jung calls Individuation. He also refers to both the 'cause and result' of Individuation as the 'Self' and describes it as a process that could never be totally completed. This is so because the part -'the Ego' can never enclose the whole- 'the Collective Unconscious' or the 'Self.' The two are like a water drop compared to the ocean.   To fail to acknowledge the existence of such forces or to not take them seriously in daily life would be to live a non 'religious' life and to risk  a one sided, unbalanced psychological life. It would also mean the attempt to live fully out of one's personal Ego. This 'broader than' Ego understanding of personal  identity makes it possible and reasonable for one to choose to live from a wider view of oneself, a view that is kept in awareness even when it cannot be directly accounted for or observed on demand. This would mean to live out of something bigger and broader than the Ego Individualism humans have traditionally felt themselves to be. Again, this new and different 'center of personality' has been called the 'Self' by Jung and also the ' Creative I' by other philosophers and spiritual teachers.

PHENOMENA OF INDIVIDUALITY, THE 'SELF' AND EXPERIENCE OF 'GOD'

For practical purposes, I believe, to experience the 'Self' is to experience what most humans mean by 'God.' To consciously live from the self would be to live in what is commonly called the 'will of God.' No such experience would ever give any individual a full definition of God or say anything about a God from where the 'Self' may originate. But the concept of the 'Self' affords an 'explanation', even for the non-religious, for the numinous kinds of phenomena involved in reports and stories across time and cultures of the Sacred being present. The 'Self' would represent where God and Human are consciously experienced as united and sharing a common interdependent life.

My Ego had, I'm convinced, such a qualifying experience as I've mentioned above beginning slowly about 1982 and taking on a large inflow of unconscious content in the form of , for lack of any better words, 'visions' and 'revelations' beginning in mid- August of 1985. I think in my efforts since then to live in my family, community and professional life I have been a self experiment in trying to live out of this new place rather than from my personal Ego. I am confident that many others have had similar experience even in the remote past. And I believe that this is now destined to be the essential way of living and relating to the world and will become commonly practiced. That is if human life is to head in the direction of its highest spiritual/psychological evolutionary potential. I can claim no more than minimum success in this experiment to live differently. To the extent I have in ways and at times moved beyond my Ego centered Individualism,which I believe we all do even if not consciously, it has been thrust upon me by my particular life circumstances. I was quite 'pushed' into experiencing the state of mind I am here calling Individuality in contrast to Ego centered Individualism. Of course my Ego has had to accept the challenge as a good thing and has chosen to cooperate to a significant extent.

The characteristics of relating to others and the world from this place of the 'creative I' or 'Self' has a wide range of experienced phenomena. Some are in direct contrast to living and relating from the personal Ego, Individualism. I will attempt to share some I have experienced. One of the first ways I described is the impression that one is living on some kind of 'automatic pilot.' This results in a decrease of the individualistic perceptions  of 'deciding', 'controlling' or 'planning' what one's actions and behaviors on a given day or moment will be. Long term imagining also takes on similar characteristics. One is not as easily startled or upset when something does not go as planned. There is an accompanying feeling that how 'it is going' is, for now, 'how it should be going.' One still imagines and plans what his/her tasks and movements for the day will be but is very open to that changing based on 'what the world brings to the situation.' One still desires to be responsible but what that means may vary from what the Ego alone would say. This is one way that the Ego is not given as high a place as before in ordering the events and expectations of life. This is a very different way of living, thinking and relating to the world. Such a way runs the risk of appearing to Ego dominated persons as being irresponsible or unreliable but I have not experienced that as the outcome. One can actually become convinced they have been far more responsible to the 'deeper' needs and tasks of life by desiring to align oneself with the 'Self' than with the more narrow Ego personality.

Some other parallel movements in culture with this development of the 'Self' as the center of personality are a heightened sense of the feminine element in the structure of all reality. There is also a stronger sense of ' following' and 'cooperating' and ' conserving' the earth/world resources to enhance all human life. The 'Self' in us has a ' we and us ' bottom line. This 'We' potentially spreads to include all humanity and all that is in the world. Individuality is drawn to considering and imaging the 'whole' and the 'All.' Other parallels with the development of Individuality are the leveling down the values related to claiming superiority to 'my' family, tribe, group, religion and nation. The acceptance of the mutual equality of other persons and cultures is seen as an important first step toward the day that the single multi-culture of humanity will carry our strongest emotional attachments and devotions. Individuality engenders a strong sense of relativism with respect to all dogmatic statements of universal belief, rules of morality and claims of eternal unchanging truth. Yet Individuality takes a strong uncompromising stand on issues of justice in its own given time and situation. An example of this that I personally experience is, "It is always urgent that behaviors by individuals or groups that perpetrate physical, psychological or economic harm, abuse or oppression on others should be called 'evil' and well hearted people will seek to correct it." In the Individuality engendered by the 'Self', Western culture will gradually experience a harmony and a reunion of a large number of 'opposites' that Individualism is driven to keep apart. These include 'the whole embracing the particular', 'thinking and feeling', 'male and female', 'self and other', 'power and form', 'Spirit and Flesh', 'Eros and agape', 'material and the imaginal(spiritual)', 'receiving and giving', ' sexuality and spirituality, 'work and play', 'being and doing' and seeing oneself, others and the particulars of nature as ' a connected web ' of creation, as parts of a living whole.

This Individuality enacted  by living more directly out of the 'Self' is always working hard to be open to the future 'current of time' as a continually unfolding 'new creation.' By not being hard-wired and anchored to the past it also recognizes itself and others as 'unfolding new creations.' The Ego is asked in this new approach to relating to the world to cooperate with the broader 'self' by 'giving up', even with much grieving, its dependence on the intellectual constructs  and institutions, as functioning in the past, as effective ways to build  the future. The dependence the Ego has to the past which it needs to release and grieve for reminds me of Jesus' statement to people whose Ego was tied tight to their Abrahamic lineage. Jesus' sharp response was that God could 'raise up children of Abraham from these rocks.' He was teaching that new ways of living in new eras must always come from the life of the earth and from the unknown future, not from reconstructions of past dependencies. And that humans only discover the right future by being fully open to it as a promising living unknown.

Jesus said, 'you can't put new wine in old wine skins.'

The metaphor that, 'new wine cannot be contained by old wine-skins' is the same teaching. This does not mean discarding what has been learned and what has been supportive of life in the past but to not rely on these, as they are, as the needed foundation for the incoming future. The future is not to any longer be defined and made known by the past but is to be allowed to be the 'unknown arriving'  it actually is. Instead of the 'world' needing to be 'controlled' and  'stood against' as with Individualism the world is seen as far more a personal reality rather than primarily a material and mechanistic one. Nature is respected as containing a genuine wisdom that is to be related to with respect and friendship rather than something to be overcome, subdued, or used for only the human Ego's benefit. All of this demonstrates the potential change in Western human systems and attitudes moving away from patriarchy, and it's claim to privileged superior masculine power, to a renewed balance of the eternal feminine and masculine principles. Our systems, bureaucracies and organizations will take on an atmosphere of this Individuality as persons working in them and funding them become more fully and truly 'Individuals.'

B.P. Oil Pipe Rupture In Gulf of Mexico April  2010

The World when approached this way is seen as something living, not as  a mechanistic group of unrelated objects or related only by linear cause and effect. I think one might become more conscious of  his/her movement toward living from Individuality rather than Individualism  by exploring your actual feelings about the BP Oil rupture in the Gulf. If your feelings include a genuine sense of sorrow and grief at the Earth's great injury you are approaching the  World as something living. If you feel some anger  like you would feel if a family member were injured by a reckless medical procedure then you are likely relating from Individuality. I've heard some people speak of being angry at the Earth for releasing all this oil thus acting in ways that take something from our collective Ego. This would be a demonstration of ego Individualism in the driver's seat. There is a difference in grieving for the Earth and being disappointed that we are being  deprived of something we  value only for ourselves. The first is Individuality related, the latter is  from Individualism. The latter  would be being angry at a loved one for becoming sick or losing a job and thus being a 'problem' for the Ego's intentions. Or being angry at and blaming the victim(s) of crime, oppression or abuse, even if that victim were yourself.

I could have written most of this so far without reference to religious concepts. I would not have had to reference scripture or use the terms Sacred and God. But the meaning of Sacred is strongly implied in the concept of living from the 'Self' rather than the 'Ego.' I described the 'Self' as coming into awareness, at least to some humans, by a numinous kind of experience. Such experience  nearly compels  a person, without limiting his/her sense of choice, to acknowledge there is always 'more to their own personal identity than they can be conscious of.' This is the classical essence of the 'religious' mind set. This is very parallel to the way that religious texts have described 'living by the Spirit' and 'walking by faith, not by sight.' Yet, I do not think it is essential for a person to have a numinous experience or consider themselves religious in order to embrace 'living out of Individuality.'  But only time can tell if this paradigm turns out to naturally 'fit' what is reasonable, challenging and worth the effort of experimenting with for the person who feels a strong aversion to 'religion.'

                                                EMBRACING THE WORLD- LOVE

My title says that Individuality Is Able To Embrace The World. I see this as the essential change that needs to be made by human beings in this new era of evolutionary development. Individualism has led humans to increasingly  'turn away' and even to 'turn against' the world outside themselves in a million different ways. But the Individuality spawned by the 'Self' places a high value on the world and all that is in it. It seeks to not turn away even when the world and its creatures, plants and natural forces are frightening and behave as total unknowns. In short this newly arrived Individuality 'loves the world.' So much that it stands ready to relate to her , care for her and even to jealousy  defend her against any ignorant abuse that threatens her. As you notice my description of the world has faded  into a 'she' and I am convinced that is as healthy  as can be. Even our historically   patriarchal society has continued to call, even if disparagingly, life forces in the world, 'mother nature.' Also, I notice that this paragraph 'sounds like' an Erotic kind of involvement of the individual toward the world. The Greek Eros is definitely alive in the dynamics of Individuality 'loving the world'; far more than the Ego's distanced , objective style of relating to the world.

This new Individuality owns itself as participating in both Spirit, which reaches to the high and lofty Logos with its search for order; and Soul, with its instinctive life rooted deep in the life of the earth and matter. And what's more Individuality thinks of the earth, and the world also has having Soul. And that our human soul and that of the world and matter are deeply and timelessly related. This is why Individuality looks at and  approaches life and the world from a very different place than the time honored past-bound Ego does. Individuality sees the world, not our human past, as the primary source of the future. It looks to the world as a friend. Individuality aspires to not bow down to any idol, to anything less that what is the 'All in All.' It sees as idolatrous any finite definition imposed upon the ultimate meaning of the Sacred, of God, of the 'All in All.'  It knows that the ultimate Sacred is beyond  Ego comprehension and that the Sacred must be considered as including  all that is, has been, and will be. Individuality lives life with arms open facing the World and facing the future as unknown, and confident that if the greatest good has ever been experienced it came from the unknown future, not the clung to past.

Nearly every known ancient religious thread has some way of acknowledging the feminine underpinning of all that is, the Great Mother , the feminine Wisdom.  This feminine source of wisdom and creativity is often referred to as Sophia. The Sacred as Sophia is an image to which our developing Individuality can relate to as a living World. Sophia  seeks to be made more conscious Herself through the avenue of human consciousness, a process which always involves the mutual suffering of God and Human stretching toward increased mutual consciousness. So as we choose to embrace the World from our Individuality we can do so in a mutual relationship with Her. The future of the earth and of humanity is a co-creation of Human and Sacred, each being fed by and dependent on the other. This is the way the 'Self' can be consistently also called the 'Creative I' that is recognized as  the fuller identity of each person, as well as a conscious experience of the Sacred. Below are some statements of Sophia from  the Old Testament. I think such texts are in harmony with the invitation to Western humans to now begin living out of their own Sacred formed 'Individuality' and to move away from the time honored 'Individualistic' approach to life. Hear Sophia speak as imaged  in Proverbs 8: 1-17. (This is from a translation where 'Wisdom' is, I think, more accurately translated 'Sophia.' I have taken the liberty to make the passage gender neutral by changing 'men' to 'humans.')

1] Does not Sophia call,
does not understanding raise her voice?
[2] On the heights beside the way,
in the paths she takes her stand;
[3] beside the gates in front of the town,
at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud:
[4] "To you, O Humans, I call,
and my cry is to the human sons and daughters.
[5] O simple ones, learn prudence;
O foolish Humans, pay attention.
[6] Hear, for I will speak noble things,
and from my lips will come what is right;
[7] for my mouth will utter truth;
wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
[8] All the words of my mouth are righteous;
there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.
[9] They are all straight to him/him who understands
and right to those who find knowledge.
[10] Take my instruction instead of silver,
and knowledge rather than choice gold;
[11] for Sophia is better than jewels,
and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.
[12] I, Sophia, dwell in prudence,
and I find knowledge and discretion.
[13] The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil.
Pride and arrogance and the way of evil
and perverted speech I hate.
[14] I have counsel and sound wisdom,
I have insight, I have strength.
[15] By me kings reign,
and rulers decree what is just.

16] by me princes rule,
and nobles govern the earth.
[17] I love those who love me,
and those who seek me diligently find me.

Such a broad essay must say something about the reality of evil. The problem and place of evil is an essential concern in this approach to living through human Individuality. I will simply say for this essay that I believe the location of evil is much more complex than the Western Ego has perceived it to be. In private and public life learning the subtleties of evil takes time and patience. But it is always urgent that behaviors by individuals or groups that perpetrate harm, abuse or oppression on others should be called 'evil.' The victim(s) of such evil deserve the assistance from well-hearted people at all levels to stop these evil behaviors with minimal if necessary harm to the perpetrators. Evil has become more complicated with the strengthening of the personal Ego of all humans the past three centuries and accelerated more with the arrival of contemporary organized terrorism. Evil is real but seldom is found unattached to what is good. Jesus is pictured as addressing the problem of separating evil from good when they are like growing plants in the same environment. That is for sure the situation in the world now. And a most difficult challenge for a person is to recognize the ways that evil appears in our own attitudes and actions. This requires facing our own shadow aspects and is the only way that we can more nearly prevent ourselves from only seeing evil in people and the world outside of ourselves. Evil is not primarily about breaking certain paternalistic rules of accepted behavior as the West and orthodox Christianity has tended to define it. It is not so simple. The Ego approaches dealing with evil from the past and its constructs as it does with all of life. Individuality and living from the 'Self' provide a far more nuanced and likely significantly more successful approach to dampening the strength of evil. So that what is healthy and of love can take stronger and stronger root. The approach of Individuality to most present day issues of living, including evil, is significantly more indirect and takes into account many more factors, semi-conscious and unconscious, than the most developed assembly of personal Egos can begin to imagine.

The call to live from Individuality rather than Individualism is a call to 'love the world.' So I wish to close this essay with thoughts related to some potential ways to imagine love as a powerful force to change the world. This is a goal and longing of most recognized religion and human ethics. I still believe that a meaningful way to conceptualize love is with the three primary Greek words of Agape, Phileo and Eros. And as one Christian passage emphasizes we are best able to love when we have experienced being loved. I remain convinced that  a person  experiencing being loved in a way that encompasses being 'Faithful to'(agape), being 'liked'(Phileo) and being 'bodily desired'(Eros) is a primary way that a person can be moved to an awareness of the 'Self' and the 'creative I', to living from Individuality. Such a love encounter between humans is far more than something between two persons. It is potentially a Sacred/Human event par excellence.  It would be spiritually/psychologically healthy to image a third party to such love as the living World(or Soul of the World.)  Such love is beyond anything the human ego can rationally comprehend or establish on its own. I believe every time persons are intimately related in this threefold aspect of love that the potential for non sexual creative  love  in the world increases exponentially. Where such an expanded experience of love happens these individuals are nearly certain to turn back to the whole world, the macrocosm that has been recognized in the microcosm of such love, with the kind of open embrace toward the unknown future that is described above. Such love experienced would realize the New Testament claim that, 'God so loves the world.' And I think that such love moments touch off extended potentials of non-sexual love experienced as friendships, mentoring, parenting and enriched political and  international relationships. All I have said in this essay  is in hopes of encouraging others to a greater and fuller experience of love for oneself, others and the whole world. May the world be embraced by the Individuality, and the mutuality of love that grounds it, which I hope is presently developing in humans around the planet.

________________________________________________________________________________

This essay was prompted, in addition to my inner personal experiences, by the book Love And The Soul, creating a future for earth. I know little about the author Robert Sardello. I found the book to be challenging regarding these topics. I felt him to be writing very authentically. He says many things that elicit important questions which is an indication of one deserving to be read. I have not read him necessarily always agreeing but he has given me motivation to share the above thoughts. His work helped me to organize many of my own thoughts and experiences. Other readings that have influenced this essay include Eros Toward The World by Alexander C. Irwin, the treatment especially of 'patriarchy' and 'sacred erotic power' in Journeys By Heart by Rita Nakashima Brock, The Erotic Word by David M. Carr, Psyche As Sacrament: A Comparative Study of C.G. Jung and Paul Tillich by John P. Dourley, A New Earth, Awakening to your life's purpose by Eckhart Tolle, When God Was A Woman by Merlin Stone, especially the chapter on the mystics in A History Of God by Karen Armstrong and the writings of Carl G. Jung. I wish to emphasize that these readings or others have not been my primary source. But my own inner experience has. These and many other wonderful writers have given me better words and metaphors with which to express what I have learned more directly from nature. For that reason I am drawn to them like a magnet.

I agree with Robert Sardello that expressions on this kind of topic are easily viewed as so much new-age baseless ego chatter unauthenticated in human experience and critical intelligence. I hope what I have written will not be grouped with such material.

Jim Hibbett June 23, 2010(edited July 18,2011)

DREAM: Formative Relationships/ Competition Ended..march 29, 2010(edited 7/17/2011)

I am a teacher in Meredosia, IL. I am in the science wing area of the High School. D.H. is there also. The wing is two large classrooms with an area between that has a sunlit terrarium and an office. Superintendent R. H. is also there to support the beginning school year. It seems there is a money crunch and they have had to sell out much of the furniture and equipment. The floor has a very dark, nearly black, surface to it. The three of us are standing in the terrarium area between the classrooms. Touching the wall where an office had been but now was closed off, I said jokingly , "Well D. and I won't have to fight over the office will we?"

Then I was in a circle with some new students. It seems we were off to a good start. I felt rapport with them and they seemed eager to learn science, even though our materials were limited. One boy who was potentially a trouble maker seemed especially eager to learn.

Meredosia-Chambersburg High School

REFLECTION: The dream source seems to go out of its way to stress the importance of those people who were positive figures in my young adult life. D.H., who represents school teacher collegiality and church friendship keeps coming back in my dreams. R.H. was the superintendent that Bev and I worked under with much respect in two different school systems over a 25 year period. He always expressed similar respect for us.

I think it is reminding me of how valuable and necessary these relationships were in my development. How impossible that I could arrive where I am in my attitudes and beliefs without experiencing such formative people. It reminds me of how totally trusting and appreciative I was of many such people. And how they proved the accuracy of that trust. In those days I had no idea that my theology would change so drastically and would place a significant tension on similar relationships. I don't think I am called here to contact such people but to certainly be open to receive any connection with them that should happen in the ordinary course life. I am to never allow any sense of superiority to occupy my attitude toward any person who has had a role in my daily life and work along the way. I actually remember more clearly the people in those early work years 68-74 at Meredosia than I do  many others in later jobs I had.  I was then freshly getting my first attitude toward colleagues and bosses. I am right, the dream says, to acknowledge that those were just as good and healthy experiences as they seemed to be at the time. Yet, I was quite unconscious and naive in so many ways but such people were giving my unconscious opportunity to project some of the values that are timeless and always to be approved....friendship, fellowship, collegiality, good relations with authority figures and superiors. I experienced all that in these and similar relationships. My guess is that what they experienced as one of my strongest attributes was my sincerity. It is also right for me to recognize that quality in myself. It is especially good to see some sense of humor coming from me in this dream.

Finally, I see myself relating well to students, even ones who are potentially trouble makers.(I've had many dreams where this is not the case but where the class is totally out of control. I've worked hard to see the meaning of those horror dreams) The dream teaches me that a 'desire to learn' is one the highest and most needed attributes among humans. This is an attitude of curiosity about what is real and true whether it be in nature, science, philosophy, religion or one's inner life. I think my 'desire to learn' was much greater than I consciously was aware at that time. And I was totally unconscious that my desire to learn would eventually focus on inner reality and its connection to religion and psychology/spirituality. Now my latest and maybe last kind of semi-formal learning activity is a completely self chosen , mostly private, attempt to listen carefully to the voice of the unconscious through my dreams. Somehow the early adult work years that this dream highlights were a prerequisite to such a final focus, as was the other work to follow and each of my family relationships. The dream says for me to greatly honor and respect the foundation and formations of my life and the human and Sacred influences that made my development not just possible but literally forced it out of me. The motivation for this blog is to share such things.

Another attitude the dream source is underscoring is that I cease any sense of being in competition with anyone who has been formative in my life. D.H. surely was a mutual friend, teacher colleague and church co-worker who taught me the meaning of fair and developmental competition. The dream says there is literally nothing that deserves to be considered an issue that is any longer worth 'fighting about'. There is no 'wall of separation', if there ever really were in such relationships. The 'collective unconscious' seems to always have the power to 'tear down walls of separation" and reunite that which has been separated by ego consciousness and rational thought. There are only walls of support and areas of light(the terrarium) regarding these formative relationships. Such relationships and their impact has exactly served their positive purpose. That is far more valuable than any differences in religion or politics that may still exist between me and such friends of the past.

I think it was necessary that I was able at some point to risk continuing such valuable relationships on the alter of a 'greater consciousness' in order for me to truly have them in the end. The hard words of Jesus that we can 'love God more than family, friends and ego-self' is still the actual truth(It is just extremely important what our image of God is.) It is also true that by a  sacrifice of the smaller ego-will to our larger personality, the Self and  the demands of the collective unconscious, we actually lay a much fuller claim to such high values of life and love. Carl Jung went to great length to show that this is the attempted central spiritual meaning of the ancient Eucharist, especially as expressed beautifully in the Catholic Mass.

This actual learning area depicted  in the dream had an excellent quality about it, vibrant and lighted . More so than the dream shows it to be. Maybe the darkness and black floors  refers more to my low level of consciousness of life and love at that time and to my very average skills and intelligence. Underneath the 'black surface' of the floor I think I recall was a nearly permanent hard and bright terrazzo stone floor?  I would guess it is much the same now as it was when it was new and when I was one of the first teachers to walk on it. We were all proud of our new school facility.

I think I knew these things before this dream but I would not have made such a prominent issue of them as the dream source insists. This, unlike many dreams, is an 'easy' dream to think about and stirs only gratitude. Jim (edited July 17,2011)

Church In Crisis -Note to Edward Fudge, July, 2006

 Crisis In The Church  Edward, Thanks for getting back to me. I’m growing in an opinion that the church is in crisis which has been building for a very long time, say a 100 yrs. It seems to be reaching a critical mass point. It has much to do with what faithful interpretation of scripture involves for our age. One very large group approaches the scriptures literally for the most part, except for occasional very obvious culturally based statements eg wearing head covers and seeing beyond literal statements that women should be very limited in the church. I see this 'Bible as the literal and complete God's Word' assumption as eventually not succeeding for it asks people to take on the world view of another age and neglects the importance of an overall intellectual integrity. It makes things of physical-intellectual knowledge matters of faith which inevitably creates inconsistencies with the actual physical-sensory knowledge available. It mistakes that the place of faith is very much a matter of what is 'revealed by man rather than being received from God' (Matt 16:25-30). It is very stuck in the 'late modern' (pre-1900)age definitions of truth and reality.  But we are all well into a post-modern era.
 
The other extreme, generally referred to as liberalism, is losing its connection to the masses for neglecting to demonstrate how the scriptures are still relevant if not taken literally; to show when non-literal language and style is the intent of the writer and when  the writer is writing from a world view that is no longer intellectually honest for post-modern people. *Such liberalism  has found no new widely accepted language to express the timeless background of scripture, especially that of the actual experience a few people had with Jesus. Thus it still uses the language of the modern or pre-modern era but encourages people to 'somehow' let it be consistent with scientific information and a 21st century world view as well.  Thus folks in many  'liberal' churches still are 'hearing' the Biblical words as literal and historical even though the pastor may see this as a problem. And  to younger minds, the conflict in viewpoints is commonly too much to contain and the religious language ceases to have any immediate practical meaning or attraction to felt needs and longings.

I believe there is a 3rd path emerging that can be walked that can indeed hold to, even rediscover for our own time, the reality and power of the initial Christ experience; and also call people to accept the other facts of life that have come into being in the scientific age. The use of language and definitions of reality that are typically called post modern are primary tools that can help walk this path to the original Christian experience which I believe is timeless, numinous and life enriching. This involves acknowledging that the tradition of claiming that scriptures are inerrant and designed by God to be consistent with each other is not sustainable intellectually or spiritually and can no longer be forced as a concept of faith. Then the scripture(eg the gospels) can be approached with a genuine respect of their very nature, with an assumption that they were written by sincere people seeking to present in the language and world view of their age that which was beyond total ordinary human explanation. These were extremely creative people writing with intellect and heart to accomplish specific goals in their readers. They were evangelists. Understanding they wrote as mortal humans allows us to much better appreciate their gifts and begin to truly hear them, without expecting them to be speaking of these things the same way we would and can today. And it does not require us to live out of the kind of language and world view that surrounded them. Jim

*Two authors, among others, who have written authentic and sound  material to help people interested in making these kinds of transitions  in thinking regarding the nature of the Bible  are Marcus Borg and Shelby Spong. Both are easily found with google.