Love is a central concept in Carl Jung's psychology and his concept of holiness. In Jung's view, it is not just an emotion or feeling, but a fundamental force in the universe that drives us towards wholeness and integration. It is through love that we connect with ourselves, others, and the divine.

It is essential for individuation, Jung's process of becoming a fully realized human being. This process involves integrating all aspects of the personality, including the conscious and unconscious, the masculine and feminine, and the ego and the Self. Love is the glue that holds these different parts together and allows us to become whole.

It also plays a role in our relationship with the divine. Jung believed that the divine is not a distant and abstract God, but a living presence within us and all of creation. Love is the way we connect with this divine presence, both within ourselves and in the world around us.

There are two main types of love in Jung's psychology: Eros and agape. Eros is a form of love that is based on desire and attraction. It is often associated with romantic love, but it can also be found in other forms of relationships, such as friendships and family relationships. Agape is a form of love that is based on selflessness and compassion. It is often associated with religious love, but it can also be found in other forms of relationships, such as charitable acts and acts of kindness.

Both Eros and agape are important for our spiritual development. Eros helps us to connect with others on a deep level and experience the fullness of life. Agape helps us to transcend our ego and connect with the divine love that is present in all things.

In Jung's view, holiness is not about perfection or piety. It is about living a life that is true to oneself and connected to the divine.

Love is the path that leads us towards holiness.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

πŸ’œπŸ’œπŸ’œ splendid

This is one area where I do find myself agreeing with Jung.

I find myself mostly agreeing with Jung.

Of all his ideas, I think synchronicity is the most the hand wavy and difficult to prove scientifically. But in principle I do think it would make sense, considering mammals are social creatures, there would be certain aspects of our programs and imprints that are collective in nature, and that perhaps a subset of the group would express parts of a larger program that may appear as synchronicity to individuals at certain points in time.

The archetypes would be the base programming that is primed in us unconsciously through our sensing of our environment. The act of playing out reality under the activation of the archetype will reinforce it. It's essentially evolutionary programming that plays out across the group. I do think it's funny that it may make more sense to

call it an asynchronicity if you were to take a holistic view over an

individual one.

They can also come directly from nature too, of course. Like how the spinning earth creates a projection of day-night

cycles, which in turn reinforce programming in us for when to sleep or eat. Or even just the darkness being a scary unknown where anything can happen/signals potential danger, and therefore we make associations with light and darkness having an up-down meaning for us. Like, for example knowledge and brightness being related.

Anyway, If we take the consciousness of nature into account, I think it makes more sense to call it asynchronicity, but maybe that's just me. :D

I’m definitely nodding along in agreement with you here. It all makes such a lot of sense, looking at groups and how we tend to behave. How archetypes are a part of our programming (which I do believe is true) and our fears being created through the associations with nature.

Yea, and that we could be unconsciously selecting specific kinds of imagery or symbolism that may appear to us individually as just "interesting" at certain times in certain cycles, and we may not even understand why ourselves, but serve a role in signalling for the group.

(Btw, I'm not saying everything we say or do is like this. Just that the exist in some form for certain events)

For sure, I get you on this, I have observed similar things myself. But it makes sense and bears thinking about and observing.

This is so true, watch the crowd and you see plenty of this. Also in one’s self..