Jung and the archetypes [IF41]

So, ours Eagle it could be considered - according to our conceptions - plus one psychologist ofIo, as in reality in all of his theory, in his discussions, in his works, he analyzes both the emotional and the mental part merged with each other and moreover in relationship with the environment.

So much so that he cares a lot about the social, environmental aspect in which the individual finds himself and this, in fact, is nothing more than what we say when we talk about the behavior of the Ego, how it comes to to relate with reality, the Ego as it relates to what is external to it; not only that, but the will to power and the sense of inferiority are typical elements that we have pointed out from the beginning in the ego. 

You know that the ego expansion process itself is actually an affirmation of potency, an attempt at potency on the part of the ego that seeks to encompass reality in order to possess it, in order to somehow become its owner and be able to enjoy the benefits that this position of privilege brings to him over other individuals. 

Agree on this? It seems to me that it is quite clear and that there is no need to dwell on it that much. Then, maybe, let's see if anyone manages to find the limits of both… (not Freud, which we have already talked about enough), both Adler and Jung. 

As for our "Gustavo" (Carl Gustav Jung, ed), I wanted to know from you what kind of psychologist Jung could be ... But it's too simple, I won't even let you say it, I know you would say it right away: he cannot be considered other than one akasic psychologist, in the end, because - by his own evolutionary characteristics - he is more concerned with understanding what lies beyond the apparent individual, trying to find an order, a coordination between the individual who appears on the physical plane and all that submerged part that does not appear, coming to speak of archetypes and collective unconscious. 

By the way, our friend G. – who is perhaps the only one who tends to chide me when I say something she thinks is not right – thought that I had used one of my usual not too nice methods when talking about collective consciousness instead of collective unconscious. 

Well, there was no fraudulent intent in that sentence of mine - but I understand that those who have been burned once may continue to suspect, then - as, in reality, Jung also spoke of collective consciousness, not just of the collective unconscious; indeed I would say that, after all, the most important part was not so much the collective unconscious as its consequence: the formation of the collective consciousness. But, of this, I would like you to go and document, also to leave something for the next meeting.

Archetypes: let's see these main points of the Jungian theory, that is the archetypes and the collective unconscious, how they can be arranged within what is our theory. Force!

D - I thought they were that orientation, thatimprinting that has that particular race.

I would say "amazing"!

D - No, was I wrong?

No, I would say “sensationally right”, almost sensational!

D - But later I was wondering: but ...

But that's not enough. Undoubtedly the first archetypes - and this goes beyond the function of the Jungian archetype - the first archetypes are those that are inscribed in the "carpet" through the imprinting received from the beginning of theevolution of the race during the incarnations as mineral, vegetable and animal; these are - even in their variants - experiences common to the whole race and therefore constitute a starting archetype, even if not very differentiated yet, for the moment, which is valid for the whole race.

On the other hand, if you think about it, the concept of "father"and "mother”, For example, exists as an archetype in all peoples of your race; this is because - at least starting from the animal kingdom, and at least for what concerns the mother - this experience of having a mother unites practically all the individuals who incarnate in the various animal races, and this commonality of experience makes it possible to fix in the vibrations of imprinting not the experience itself, but the symbol that this experience entails. 

If you remember, lately we had said that in the Akasic body facts are not recorded, experiences are recorded; but the experiences how? I would say that, for the moment, we can be satisfied with what Jung said and suppose that the inscription of the experience within the Akasic mass takes place in a symbolic form that allows to concentrate information as much as possible, making it as adaptable as possible to the needs of all individuals who refer to that same type of symbol, thus becoming an archetype that in some way exerts its influence on embodied individuals (embryo of collective consciousness, ed), beyond the different nuances, needs and evolutionary conditions that the various individuals have among themselves.

It will only happen that these individuals will have the influence of this vibration - which is the same for everyone - and will influence it by modifying it, adapting it to their own evolutionary needs and understandings; but the starting point, no doubt, will be the same kind of symbol.

Q - So archetypes are symbols?

Perhaps this is one of the points that falls a bit 'of tone as far as Jung is concerned. I wonder: are these archetypes fixed, as it appears when reading Jung's words, or do they change?

D - According to Jung they are fixed, and here he is wrong.

Certainly, it can only be like this or, at least, there can be archetypes, symbols, imprints, understandings that are fixed in themselves as a symbol, but the fact is that as the race continues its evolution and thus creates new symbols, new experiences, new common understandings within the Akasic mass of the whole race, these new symbols somehow interact with the other symbols, certainly causing a different influence of the starting symbol and therefore, indirectly, a its modification.

Q - And then a new collective consciousness?

Certainly. So a new one collective consciousness and, clearly, in the process of constitution and modification as the breed continues in its evolution.

D - So the archetype is not a fixed thing, but arises from the primordial experiences in the lower realms and then changes through the experiences in human life.

No, it's not even that accurate. We say: and then it becomes complementary with the new archetypes that, in the course of human incarnation, the race introjects.

Q - Does a fixed part remain in any case?

Certainly. 
A fixed part remains, but this fixed part acts; because you know that the archetypes still act on the individual, they are not symbols placed there that do nothing; they have their own influence on the individual within the physical plane. The fact that these new archetypes are added, which change with the evolution of the race, means that even the previous archetypes find themselves undergoing this influence and, therefore, to act in conjunction with these other archetypes, it follows that the effect will be different.

• Readings for the interior: every day a short spiritual reading of the Cerchio Ifior and the Cerchio Firenze 77, up Whatsapp and Telegram.
• Summary of the philosophical teaching of the Ifior Circle: HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES PERSONAL REALITY, you can order here the book. If you're reading this and want support, write.

D - They are integrated.

Of course, they complement each other in some way.

Q - Some might even disappear?

Let's say that they could lose their value, certainly not.

D - No longer understandable, at least.

D - For example, the father / mother archetype… hopefully it will disappear in a few centuries.

Q - Why "hopefully"?
D - I hope so because for me it doesn't exist. The children belong to everyone and therefore one day I believe that it will come to the point where there will no longer be "the father" and "the mother".

This, undoubtedly, is a point that will be reached sooner or later by humanity, but the problem is not so much the father or the mother but it is the valence, it is the connotation that is given to the concept of father and mother; Why it is not that there will no longer be a father and a mother, but it will be that all will be fathers and all will be mothers; the speech is quite different. 

Then a the archetype will still be there; only that it will follow the evolution of the race, that it will have an enlarged consciousness and will begin to feel more united with all the other individuals making up the race and, therefore, even the archetype of father and mother will no longer be focused on a only individual but on several individuals.

D - But - if we want to continue on this example - I could say this: today I am a father and therefore I see a child as a son, and therefore I take care of him exclusively and neglect the others. Tomorrow, if this discourse evolves, all the children will be my children; therefore all children will be children of all and, at this point, the concept of a child falls away; but it is simply a relationship between older beings and smaller beings. He is more equal; there is no longer, I believe, a filial discourse.

It cannot be equal. It cannot be equal because between the adult and the child there is the connection of an Akasic body of difference, so it can never be equal. He may be more understanding, he may be more affectionate, he may be more sensitive, certainly yes, but undoubtedly equal I think it is very difficult that he can be. 

Think of the difference in experience that exists between father and son always and in any case, and think precisely of that great importance that lies in the fact that the child has only small portions of akasic body connected.

[…] Let's finish this speech for a moment. The problem, in this example we have done, lies in the fact that you identify father and mother with individuals, but it is not so: the archetype "father" is not an individual (we also said, if you remember, little fa), the parent archetype is a symbol, a condition, a state; it is the individual who feels himself "father" and can feel himself as a father even without ever having generated a child; while you, on the other hand, usually tend to give the value referring to creation, to generation, to father and mother. Instead the true symbol, the true archetype, without mental superstructures, is what causes that the individual feels himself to be the father or mother of another creature regardless of whether he has generated it or not.

D - Therefore a more extended sense of family, that is extended also to what is called brother, sister, husband, wife, etc. That is, it changes in meaning with respect to the current meaning we give, which is very restricted.

But certainly, and what will change the most I think will be that of husband and wife because it is the one that is most devoid of true meaning; and not only that, but it is the one that causes major problems because usually - starting from the way the relationship is set up within your current society - husband or wife somehow involves possession and "nobody owns anyone"! This does not mean that these constraints do not exist, but they must be felt by the individual, they cannot be factual imposed from the outside.

D - How nice it will be!

Eh, we'll get there, we'll get there! You don't have to be in a hurry, as we don't.

D - Sorry, Scifo, one thing that disturbs me, you say: “this better world will come”, but how will it arrive?

You say: "I die first"!

D - No. This for sure, but it doesn't matter; it may be that I find myself anyway. This is what I wanted to ask: if new races continue to reincarnate, the world can never be better; that is, it may be better for the individual, that is, for what he feels inside himself, but in this way, in general, the world will always be a continuous war!

But that's what the "best" is! The best resides not in the world but in what resides in the individual! We have always said that society changes from the individual.

D - Sure, but you tell me now about a future family where there will be a feel different and beautiful, but the new races that are incarnated will not have this feeling, there will always be the one who cheats on his wife, the one who cheats on her husband!

But for the old race it is another matter.

D - But in fact, I say, this famous better world that one hopes will never exist tomorrow, will surely be there only for the individual?

But a better world doesn't mean a perfect world! Better world means a world in which the individual can better express his or her evolution.

D - Ah, the single?

The single.

Q - But then on planet Earth there will never be a quiet humanity, at peace, where everyone loves each other?

That is a utopia that would go against the Design itself. There will be individuals who, in the course of their evolution, will have lives where they will be happy and at peace with themselves and with others.

D - As they are now.

On the other hand, if everyone had 120 lives in peace, happy with themselves and with others, all evolution and the course of incarnations would not make sense. 

D - I wanted to ask you: Wilhelm Reich, of which I spoke with F., how did he place himself: was he Adlerian or Jungian?

I would say it was a very special case. Very particular - and I like it very much, among other things - because it is something that differs from the simple in theory Freudian astral plane, from the Adlerian ego or even fromJungian Akasic as it mainly concerns energies; it is the energy - you know, creatures - that runs through all of reality as a vibration. Scifo

---