Thank you Robert—and thank you in particular for the links to source materials! They’re going to be a fascinated read—again thank you so much!
As mentioned in my reply, I didn’t necessarily want to make our conversation about Jung but I have no doubt the matter of his brief involvement with Nazism is extremely nuanced; so are his extra-marital affairs with patients, and in particular, his—what shall we call it?—polyamorous or polygamous relationship with Tony Wolf as second wife—all these “realizations of the Self” have great amount of nuance and detail. I was merely trying in cursory manner to state the basic facts.
I do think you’re right though. Jung never formally apologized for his brief opportunistic involvement with Nazism. But that doesn’t help his cause, does it? Heidegger didn’t either, he never issued an apology, but his silence was even more deafening. I was thinking of the personal apology Jung allegedly gave to a rabbi friend of his, seated next to him at a table in Eranos, to whom he admitted about the Nazi affair that he had “slipped”—an account given by Laurens van der Post, I believe… But now you’re making me doubt; I wonder if perhaps I am misremembering this scene in an attempt to give him more credit than he deserves.
About Gnosticism. I too was shocked to learn that, outside the Jungian bubble, Gnosticism is generally acknowledged to be a dualistic religious creed. Of course, everything is more complicated and nuanced, but it is important to understand the common, as Heraclitus would say. And what is more common than a simple look at Wikipedia?
“Gnostic systems postulate a dualism between God and the world, varying from the “radical dualist” systems of Manichaeism to the ‘mitigated dualism’ of classic gnostic movements. Radical dualism, or absolute dualism, posits two co-equal divine forces, while in mitigated dualism one of the two principles is in some way inferior to the other.”
Of course, I don’t think Wikipedia can count as a primary source on Gnosticism, which is indeed more nuanced and complicated than that, but we should be able to establish some simple facts about it before we can go any further.
I don’t mean to belabor the point but with regards to the complexity of every thing, this is an opportune moment to reflect on the point of the art of thinking itself. As Nietzsche put it so well:
“THE THINKER.—He is a thinker: that is to say, he knows how to take things more simply than they are.” (JOYFUL WISDOM 194§189)
In the realm of Art this is even more obvious. It is easy to make things complicated—for things in reality are indeed complicated! We know from our student days how easy it is to get mired in complications. But the real Master work, the work that characterizes a real Master, consists in making it all look so simple and easy.
The same reason we should be leery of “mystical explanations,” as Nietzsche again explains in a beautifully simple way:
Mystical explanations.–Mystical explanations are regarded as profound; the truth is that they do not even go the length of being superficial. (JOYFUL WISDOM 169§126)