Guest guest Posted April 10, 2006 Report Share Posted April 10, 2006 > > > Date: 2006/04/10 Mon PM 12:08:49 EDT > To: JUNG-FIRE > Subject: Re: Iran -> the Self > > Dear , I don't know what an uncommmon response would be, but another common response might be that such men as Gandhi and Mandela would be easily crushed by a Stalin or other truly ruthless opponent. Best regards, Dan Greg, all, Your comment raises a question or two. They revolve around much understanding which is unsettled for me and also around unsettling questions about the practical implications of leadership. If at some point in the process of relativization of the ego, and at some point on the continuum of discrimination and integration of a more spectral (i.e. less one-sided,) personality, profoundly wise and ethical behavior and integrity emerges, what then would a leader at this stage be like? (I already know what the common response might be: Gandhi, Mandela. What would an uncommon response be?) *** There are several versions of what an Intentional Self might effect. For example, one version is it's all the luck of the draw. Another version is that the Self is pagan, in effect, and can manifest spiritual " dramatic peersonnel " . Much dream theory proceeds from a conception of the nocturnal drama leading one beyond one's ego. Another version is that the Self is structurally the mirror image of the Egoic/conscious structures, but is functionally disposed to create circumstances where it becomes more known. Granting intentionality to the Self is problematic too, but it's an old idea of course to suppose there is dramatic development, and, then, there is Dramatic Development; 'each and every going Home,' our spiritual destinies written in heavenly language on our Heart, etc. (I remind myself that Dr.Jung thought the reconciliation of the personality would be for most " work enough " . *** Then, alas, there is the harsh actuality: nothing about leadership, in terms of the analytic psychology's developmental schema, easefully promotes individuation, because leaders lead groups and groups may nominate leaders for unconscious psychological reasons. One could substitute " most often " or " always " for 'may' too. As implied the messianic participation is related to the father complex. It is also possibly and many times times wrapped up in the mother complex. Yet, to note this is to note the factor of mythos not separable from a conception of the Self, ('what is known and not known') as 'something' that grips one with its own purposes. Ha ha. Heck if I know! regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.