On the function of weakness

I do not believe that It is humanly possible to differentiate all four functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, intuition - M.) alike, otherwise we would be perfect like God, and that surely will not happen. There will always be a flaw in the crystal. We can never reach the perfection. Moreover, if we could differentiate the four functions equally we should only make them into consciously disposable functions. Then we would lose the most precious connection with the unconscious through the inferior function, which is invariably the weakest; only through our feebleness and incapacity are we linked up with the unconscious, with the lower world of the instincts, and with our fellow beings. Our virtues only enable us to be independent. There we do not need anybody, there we are kings; but in our inferiority we are linked up with mankind as well as with the world of our instincts. It would not even be an advantage, to have all the functions perfect, because such a condition would amount to complete aloofness. I have no perfection craze. My principle is: for heaven's sake do not be perfect, but by all means try to be complete.

C.G. Jung, Analytical psychology, its theory and practice. Routlege and Keagan, London, 1989, pp. 109-110.

This is the idea we find in many spiritual writers, from St Paul to Calvin and Paul Tillich… I think Jung’s “complete aloofness” is  what Christian tradition calls Pride: a state of total self-sufficiency; and it also could be called “Hell”, because such total autonomy cuts the individual from the community (commun des mortels) and alters and distorts  his or her perception of reality. To be fully human,  we need our weaknesses just as we need our strengths; we ought to value them and be grateful for them too.

On dependency, or The end of the red bubbles

I have been vomiting red bubbles on the word "dependency" for twenty years now, yet I  have always felt that "independency" did not score much better either. 

The text below is from the book I quoted a couple of months ago, "Women and desire", by Polly Young-Eisendrath. Interesting approach that allows to see clearer. Italics are mine: 

"Mature dependency, a term I borrow from the psychoanalyst Ronald Fairbairn, means a style of dependency in adult life in which you are grateful, appreciative, and free to depend openly because you know the importance of give-and-take and are dependable as well as dependent. This style of dependency should be a goal in all aspects of adult life, both in the workplace and at home. 

Mature dependency is in stark contrast to both the immature, clinging dependency that is exemplified by an infant or young child and the anxious, defensive independency that is exemplified by the adolescent struggling for emancipation....

Instead of believing that we develop from being dependent to being  independent human beings, I believe that we develop our ability to be dependent -- from early infant dependency through the dependency of childhood and the defensive pseudoindependency of adolescence to the final mature dependency of adulthood. 

Mature dependency is a developmental achievement, available only to those who can establish a mutual rythm of give-and-take with a partner or a friend. One has to be an equal in order to respect that other as much as the self (not more, not less). A key part of mature dependency is trust".  

Yes. What I've been vomiting on was immature dependency, what I've been instinctively sceptic of was immature independency. Neither is satisfactory. If  we are to grow up, we have to move beyond, acknowledging  both our frailty and strength, our dependency and dependability. Then, perhaps, we can access the reality of a partnership built on trust as opposed to a manipulative (in)dependence built on fear. 

The Dynamics of Falling Upwards - I : The Beauty and The Beast

It is a fearful thing, to fall into the hands of the living God... Hebrews, 10:31

I often use the expression "false self", or "dear self", or "shadow", and I wonder if I am making clear what I am speaking about. So I will attempt to explain it, because this notion is important for our understanding of who we really are, and where (more or less) we start when we find ourselves falling upwards. 

Here is a helpful clear description of the notion of “psychological complex” from the book by Dr Polly Young-Eisendrath, “Women and Desire: Beyond Wanting to be Wanted”. The author is an American Jungian psychanalist. Italics are mine.

“Psychological complexes compel us to repeat the emotional themes from childhood, especially in our adult partnership and parenting. Unless we become conscious of these complexes, they rule us through subjective impulses and images that seem to be reality. Complexes are the psychological karma that we bring with us from our families of origin. We came by them honestly when we were dependent on others for survival and sustenance.”

This is what Fr Thomas Keating in his book “Open Mind, Open Heart” calls “a false self”: emotional and behavioural patterns set in motion in infancy and childhood, when the needs determine and shape our existence. He distinguishes three main “centers” of the false self: the need for security/survival; the need for power/control; the need for affection/esteem. Around these – legitimate! – needs the false self is constructed by the ways we find as children to adapt to the world in order to have them satisfied, and to cope with frustration when these needs are not satisfied. For Fr Keating, the task of our life is to grow out of these patterns, to surpass and integrate our needs in order to reach our full human maturity which alone enables us to stand in direct, real, reciprocal, free relationship of love with God and fellow-creatures.

“When our complexes are hidden from our awareness, they can become monstrous, dampening our vitality and motivation. The experience of pervasive discontent and a futile kind of inner emptiness are symptoms of hidden complexes in their uglier forms. Unacknowledged longings and fears manifest themselves as strong drives that may appear in dreams and fantasies as demons, snakes, floods, earthquakes, threatening intruders or hungry ghosts who could consume us. They may appear in waking life as addictions and compulsions that make no logical sense”.

We often think that complexes are symptoms of mental or psychological illness. When we say that such-and-such is “full of complexes”, we imply that he/she is not normal, and sometimes secretly congratulate ourselves that we are not “like this”. In fact, being “full of complexes” is either pretty normal, or we are all sick: complexes, shadow, false self, patterns, whatever we call these parasites, are present in all humans just because… Yes: here comes the dreaded notion of the original sin. Just because we are all born under the spell of the original sin, the false self, like a tumor, envelops and strains our true identity, our soul – Godlike, mighty, free. 

This happens in all of us, although not to the same degree nor with the same violence. There is nothing abnormal or exceptional about it, and nothing shameful either – although the Church “helpfully” promoted this feeling and maintained people in a state of guilt for ages… But in reality, this is just the way it is, that’s all: a fact of life.

We are in the same boat. The beauty and the beast in you will fight until you die; but at least, you can choose to fight for your life on the side of the beauty. This is not simple nor easy choice, because your true soul and your loving heart are hidden from your eyes; just like the Saviour, who changes forever the face of the world, is concealed in Bruegel’s “The mill and the cross” in the middle of the crowd, and for the same reasons.