In Carl Jung's Red Book, he offered this insight about the place of dreams in our life, and the place of our life in dreams: [1]     

          We all live in our dreams, we do not live only by day. Sometimes we 
          accomplish our greatest deeds in dreams. 

He ventured this statement as a reflection on one of his own puzzling dreams, the killing of Siegfried.

This is the way he told that dream in his autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections:

            I was with an unknown, brown-skinned man a savage, in a lonely, rocky
          mountain landscape. It was before dawn; the eastern sky was already 
          bright, and the stars fading. Then I heard Siegfried's horn sounding over
          the mountains and I knew that we had to kill him. We were armed with 
          rifles and lay in wait for him on a narrow path over the rocks.
            Then Siegfried appeared high up on the crest of the mountain, in the 
          first ray of the rising sun. On a chariot made of the bones of the dead he
          drove at furious speed down the precipitous slope. When he turned a corner, 
          we shot at him, and he plunged down, struck dead.
             Filled with disgust and remorse for having destroyed something so great
          and beautiful, I turned to flee, impelled by the fear that the murder might
          be discovered. But a tremendous downfall of rain began, and I knew that it
          would wipe out all traces of the dead. I had escaped the danger of discovery; 
          life could go on, but an unbearable feeling of guilt remained.

What is this guilt? And why did he want or need to kill Siegfried?  Think again about his earlier words: "We also live in our dreams, we do not live only by day." And so, I wondered, what was Jung living in this dream? The time of the dream was December 18, 1913, and in his personal life, Jung described the moment as a "confrontation with the unconscious," a "period of inner uncertainty," a "state of disorientation," as if feeling "totally suspended in mid-air."  (MDR, p. 170)

Jung is in turmoil. Why? As I will show, the reason for his inner upheaval is two-fold. The first reason is because of the break in his relationship with Sigmund Freud; and the second reason is because of the creeping catastrophic events in Germany. 

One year earlier, Jung had suffered a traumatic break in the relationship with Freud. The tension between these two pioneers in the young psychoanalytic movement had accelerated for years, marked probably with a dinner together in 1909, when Freud's mistrust of Jung reached a point of leading Freud to believe Jung harbored death-wishes toward him. Then, in ways historians have pondered since that time, neither of the men could or would find a way to resolve their conflicts occurring within what once had appeared to be a positive father-son relationship. Finally, in his letter of January 3, 1913, Freud took the decisive step of proposing that "we abandon our personal relations entirely." Responding in his letter a few days later, Jung completed the closure of their relationship with words borrowed from Hamlet's soliloquy:  "The rest is silence." 

Even now one and one-half centuries later, I find this exchange of letters reeks of death. How could they not have lingered in Jung's memories and dreams? But this is not the reason for his stated guilt at having killed Siegfried. After all, Jung did not kill the relationship with Freud, nor vice-versa. 

And so we turn to the second reason for Jung's inner turmoil. Jung killed Siegfried, not Freud nor the relationship with Freud. This Siegfried was the symbol of Jung's personal attitude and posture of heroism and power. This mythical image of Siegfried had come to symbolize Jung's egotism. His adoption of this attitude was an understandable connection, because Jung had become inflated with his own personal accomplishments, while Siegfried was "the warrior hero of Germanic medieval epics." [2]  In one of the mythological stories, Siegfried kills a dragon and then is himself killed. This is a theme developed by Richard Wagner in the third drama of his Ring cycle. 

But Siegfried also represented the uncontested collective complex that had seized Germany prior to World War I. At the center of that complex was the archetypal drive for power. Under Wilhelm II, the German kaiser, Germany followed the path of imperialism, militarism, and nationalism in alliance with Austria-Hungary and Italy (until 1914). Opposed by what would become known as the Entende alliance of France, the United Kingdom, and Russia, Europe became caught in a death spiral that would culminate in World War I and the cumulative deaths of seven million civilians and ten million military personnel. [3]

It was this dark, foreboding mood possessing Germany that haunted Jung, arising from the power complex, a complex Jung came to see as the obsessional drive of his own ambition. This frightening, repulsive drive was hidden, of course, in the deep, shadowy recesses of his unconscious.

But the truth wants to be made known. Propelled by the more dominant drive toward the realization of health and wholeness, we have to reckon in our dreams with the demonic powers that can possess us. "Health" pushes against "disease;" the "moral perspective" battles with the urge toward chaos, conflict, destruction, domination. We may ignore these inner struggles, and when they appear in our dreams -- as they will -- we may dismiss them as nightmares to be discarded as quickly as possible. 

So it is to Jung's credit that he took note of the dreams and visions that disturbed him so consistently during that period of 1912-mid-1914, when World War I was incubating. Among those frightening images in his psyche were these: [4]           

• "a monstrous flood" with the "floating rubble of civilization," the "drowned bodies of countless thousands," the "sea turned to blood." 
• "rivers of blood"
• "the land turned to ice," "all green things turned to frost," "the entire region deserted by human beings"
• an "active imagination" [5] in which he let himself "drop" into the depths of his unconscious that was experienced as a cave with icy water, a dwarf, a youth with blond hair and a wound in the head, a "gigantic black scarab" and "a red, newborn sun" [6]

Given the bizarre nature of these images, you might wonder if these visions indicated a mental illness. Jung himself questioned if he might be experiencing the onset of schizophrenia, and was relieved of that anxiety only when military hostilities of WWI began in July 28, 1914. 

But another war Jung was experiencing was within himself. Not only was Europe and the world attacked by a Germany fueled by the archetypal power complex of Siegfried; Siegfried also existed within Jung. This is why he was so troubled by his dream and why he had to come to this realization: 

          "Why, this is the problem that is being played out in the world." Siegfried,
          I thought, represents what the Germans want to achieve, heroically to impose
          their will, have their own way: ... I had wanted to do the same. But now that
          was no longer possible. The dream showed me that the attitude embodied by
          Siegfried, the hero, no longer suited me. Therefore it had to be killed. [7]

This act of killing Siegfried in Jung's dream throws light on what he meant when he said, "Sometimes we accomplish our greatest deeds in dreams." In the case of this dream, Jung had the support of the brown-skinned man who represented a force deep in the unconscious. And then there was the rain, a symbol of cleansing power from the "heavens" that renews the earth and offers absolution of his conscience. It was as if Jung's heroic deed of killing Siegfried was being validated by a higher morality in his deep unconscious. That is to say, he was not acting solely from the vantage point of his ego.

Our dreams are laboratories of life lived and unlived, adventures undertaken and possibilities never attempted. What a paradox! As frightening as dreams may be sometimes, as exhilarating as they appear at other times, and as mundane as they may seem to be most times, they are always images of our world and our deeds. And sometimes, during moments of national unease, they come to us as warnings about our personal as well as collective attitudes, attitudes that may have to be sacrificed in order that life may go on and the world be renewed.


                                               NOTES
1.  Liber Primus fol. IV (V)/V (r)
2.  The American Heritage Dictionary (Fifth Edition)
3.  Later, the United Sates, Japan, and finally Italy would join the Entende alliance.
4.  See Jung's Memories, Dreams, and Visions, pp. 175-194.
5.  "Active imagination" is a term used by Jung to describe the intentional act of allowing
      oneself to descend into an image or vision with no effort to project upon the outcome 
      of what one will experience in this encounter with previously unconscious elements in
      in one's psyche.  See Collected Works, Vol. 14, par. 706.
6.  Memories, Dreams, Reflections, p. 179.
7.  Memories, Dreams, Reflections, p. 180.

What I seem to remember most about May is that it brought exam time (ugh!) and then the last, celebratory days of the school year (yay!). In other words, it was sandwiched between April, which I most associated with springtime and flowers, and June, which meant the carefree days of summer with picnics, fishing trips, and idyllic days at the beach!

This really is not fair to May. The word itself derives from maey, an Old English word which connoted "to be able," "to be strong," "to manifest power." That is why it serves very well to represent the time of year when nature pops open with beauty, new growth, and landscapes escaping the cold death of winter. May represent a springtime of life that gives birth to traditional, springtime pagan festivals, a remnant of which remains in our present-day attempts to catch May's revelry with the Maypole display of greenery, ribbons and our school children "dancing" around a pole stuck in the ground, the significance of which our kids have no idea.

Strange then, isn't it, that May also calls our attention to a couple of grim experiences. The first of them is the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago. This violent event thrust the plight of blue-collar workers into a spotlight that shines today upon the labor movement with its own international day honoring workers. 

Unconnected to that event is the second of "grim" experiences that May has come to represent. This is the international distress call -- May Day, May Day, May Day! It was first used in 1923 when a British senior radio officer, Frederick Stanley Meckford, was asked to develop a vocal distress call that could be used by aviators and mariners to signal that they were experiencing an emergency. Mackford worked at the Croydon Airport, London, and most of the emergencies with which he was concerned had to do with sea vessels and aircraft flying between London and Paris. What he proposed was a clever use of the French word m'aider, meaning "help me." The French pronunciation sounds like the English "May Day," and thus was born a verbal international distress call that was made official in 1948, sanctioning the use of "May Day," sounded three times in a brief consecutive round.

Whether we think about "May" linguistically, psychologically, or historically, the word wants to get our attention. And so it was when "May," the month, slipped up on me following a very rainy month of April. Flowers burst out as if cued to announce a happy springtime festival's arrival. However, as the wonderful, old baseball poem, "Casey at the Bat," laments, "There is no joy in Mudville"!  And I am referring not just to the mood at my house but, for the most part, in most houses today.

There is no joy in Mudville, or in our nation's capital, or throughout the land. Everybody seems to be angry with everybody, everybody seems not to trust anybody, everybody seems to be pessimistic about the state of the world -- its looney-tunes politics, its perpetual war games abroad, its approaching-but-not-yet environmental catastrophe, its governmental  practiced howdy-doody show, its sarcastically mean humor, its hysterical love affair with machines, its self-appointed "know-it-all" talking heads, its sordid evangelical fundamentalism, its less-than-entertaining entertainment industry, and its vacuous non-engagement with the mind.

How is it we do not brood about these things and break through our imposed caccoon of dissociative inattentiveness to the inauthentic life we are living. I guess it has to do with our wealth. My God, there is so much money. My wife and I have just returned from the west coast and a visit to celebrate our granddaughter's birthday. We marveled at the opportunity we have to arrange such a visit, and we marveled still more at the wealth, the crowds pouring through the entertainment venues, the uproarious conversations in the restaurants, the preening presentation of exotic dishes, the transportation systems, the grand artifact of civilization imposed on one of the worlds' true natural vistas of beauty. 

And then there were also the fashionable dressing-down of the men, the women's wholly pants which are not so holy, the studied presentation of a casual air that says we do not assume to present a studied style. Not that their "airs" are at all unique to the west coast. For the most part, they are universal and present among all of us -- as is the wealth, the gobs of money, the standard of living that takes us far above the natural persons we are when we are not living in this bubble of detachment from our natural and vulnerable and ever-so temporary habitat. 

This habitat exists on a membrane of ecological sub-systems of water, oxygen, and natural life that may -- we are told by reputable scientists -- have no more than ten-to twelve years remaining for us to reign in the abusing excesses of our expoitative standard of living. We are driving and dancing, dining and drinking, dressing and doping our birthright away.

But before I go any further down the road of despair, I think it is important to mention yet one more association to the word, "May." This association is a linguistic one and is found in the thought of Hinduism and Buddhism, two of the world's great religions. From them we also find the word and the concept of "Maya." This term refers to the illusory appearance of the material world that obscures the undifferentiated spiritual reality from which it originates. You will recognize this as not so different from the idea of Jesus that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you."  

In other words, there is a profound reality beneath the surface of this material world. And in this "spiritual" world, other forces are at work, forces and powers beyond anything we yet can imagine with our egotistically driven minds. When and how will this spiritual world emerge? Has it already? Or is it waiting for us to sound the distress call -- May Day, May Day, May Day! 

Think about it. We hardly ever laugh anymore except at stories of the exploits of certain public figures. Perhaps it is because many of them cast themselves as laughing jokes. But when we think about it -- which we most often don't -- it is actually very sad that the unconsciousness of some of these characters provide most of the material for our late-night comedians posing as barkers at the big tent of our national horror show.

On the other hand, the late show hosts are doing us a favor. Unlike some societies that turn to revolution, we turn to the would-be comedic exposure of corruption and political cowardice. We let off steam with our laughter rather than physical attacks. Of course, there are also the terrifying scenes in which men, women, and children are shot to death, and these most often are innocent, unarmed, nonviolent people who fall in the line of fire.

And so we ask, what has happened to our world? Have we lost our civility because we lost our sense of humor? Or have we lost our sense of humor because we lost our civility? Perhaps most disturbing in this nightmarish time within which we find ourselves is the fixed attitude we have adopted and the polarization of our beliefs, values, and behaviors.

Which, if you will pardon this abrupt shift in mood, reminds me of a joke. It goes like this:

            Two men are making breakfast. As one is buttering the toast, he says,
            "Did you ever notice that if you drop a piece of toast, it always lands
             butter side down?" The second guy says "No, I bet it just seems that 
            way because it's so unpleasant to clean up the mess when it lands
            butter side down. I bet it lands butter side up just as often."  The
            first guy says, "Oh yeah? Watch this." He drops the toast to the floor
            where it lands butter side up. The second guy says, "See, I told you."
            The first guy says, "Oh, I see what happened. I buttered the wrong
            side!"                (Cathcart and Klein, p. 34)

You get the point, I am sure, and recognize this pattern of holding to a pre-conceived belief regardless of any evidence to the contrary! This fallacy in logic describes our age perfectly with plenty of rationalizations as to why evidence should not be accepted. It is "fake news," "bad science," "main-stream media," etc.  It does not matter how solid the evidence may be, if one's mind is made up, and if there is a deeply set political, ideological, or religious opposition to the evidence, then the evidence will not be accepted. And, in some cases, the evidence and those who present it may be attacked and banished from the opposing group.

Where does this opposition to evidence-based decision arise? As I said, we see evidence of it in the many "isms" of our day: nationalism, racism, creationism, sexism, anti-Semitism, ageism, authoritarianism, conservatism, liberalism, etc. If you Google any one of the"isms," you will likely be led into a labyrinth of history, social conflicts, economic developments, geographical conquests, and racial divides. Quite often, however, you will trace these developments to a single individual who understood the currents of his/her age and exploited those currents in forming a mass movement -- sometimes for the betterment of followers and the world, but also sometimes for cruel ends and destruction.

And, if I may, I will illustrate this with another joke:

                A man tries on a made-to-order suit and says to the tailor, "I need 
            the sleeve taken in. It's two inches too long!"
                The tailor says, "No, just bend your elbow like this. See, it pulls
            up the sleeve."
                The man says, "Well, okay, but look at the collar! When I bend my
            elbow, the collar goes halfway up the back of my head."
                The tailor says, "So? Raise your head up and back. Perfect."
                The man says, "But now the left shoulder is three inches lower than
            the right one!"
                The tailor says, "No problem. Bend the waist way over to the left 
            and it evens out."
                The man leaves the store wearing the suit, his right elbow crooked 
            and sticking out, his head up and back, all the while leaning to the 
            left. The only way he can walk is with a herky-jerky, spastic gait.
                Just then, two passers-by notice him.
                Says the first: "Look at that poor crippled guy. My heart goes out
            to him."
                Says the second: "Yeah, but the tailor must be a genius! That suit
            fits him perfectly!"             (Cathcart and Klein, p. 70)

That tailor may not be a genius. But he is a master manipulator, a kind of a salesman who does not care for others but for himself, a cunning magician of sorts who distorts perceptions and weaves a spell of deluding perfection for his customers. If we take the tailor in this joke as a symbol for a politician, priest, or salesperson who is intoxicated with his/her power, then we see what Carl Jung called the "mana"personality.

"Mana" is a Melanesian word referring to supernatural power of individuals connected to the spirit world. Psychologically, we would say these persons are mediators of the world of archetypes. If their ego is healthy so that they can accept the fact that they are themselves not the power, but only the messenger of the power, then they may do good for others. But if they are not conscious of that reality, that is, if they are possessed by the archetypal power, then they may wreak destruction upon individuals and societies as a whole. In this case, the individual, and/or group, becomes a victim in the hands of a person whose ego is inflated with a demonic power.

This ill-fitting suit in the joke seems to symbolize the fashion of our present age. We appear to have been deluded into wearing a suit that does not become us. We know this because the laughter has left us, and with it a healthy sense of who we are as well as what our destiny really is. For as Shopenhauer boldly declared, "A sense of humor is that truly 'divine' attribute of man which alone befits him to maintain his soul in freedom."  
(See Jung, CW 7, para. 240)


For references, see the following:
Cathcart,T. and D.Klein. (2007). Plato and Platypus Walk into a Bar. New York: Abrams Image.
Jung, C. (1966). Collected Works, Vol. 7, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. (R.F.C. Hull, Trans.).  Princeton: University Press.

In my last blog, I described the suffering of our precious, nineteen-year-old cat, Sheba, who died of a melanoma that attacked her viciously in her mouth. I also described the excruciating suffering my wife and I endured as we treated Sheba's cancer, as we held her at the end when our vet euthanized her at home. Even as I write this, some four weeks later, I cannot hold back the tears -- thinking of her death, how noble and present she was to us until her last breath.

So there we were, intimately facing what is inevitable for each of us, death. And suffering -- the suffering of birth, aging, disease, the loss of all things and persons we hold dear, and then death. In my last blog, I described how Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha, found unbearable this cycle of birth and death, and how he discovered an "end" to suffering through a realization of "The Four Noble Truths" and "The Eightfold Path." This is Buddhism's understanding of the human potential to experience "an end to suffering." 

And what do the Christians propose? Or, more particularly, what did Jesus say? I was mulling over that question soon after Sheba's death when a friend told me about his loss of a pet. My friend told me how he greatly empathized with us because he had been through that experience himself and could not believe the depth of the pain. In fact, he said, "I believe I have grieved more deeply over my pet's death than the death of my mother and father"!  A number of people have told me something of the same thing -- how they find it hard to admit that the grief over losing a precious pet aches so deeply. As my friend and I pondered that experience, he paused and said very thoughtfully, "Actually, that love my cat showed me might have been the closest I have ever come to experiencing unconditional love." 

His statement surprised me. My friend is not a person who appears to be in touch with his feelings in general. He does not appear to be curious about his inner world, or if so, he is either reticent to talk about it or does not have the words to express what he may think and feel deeply. But there it came out -- with his cat he experienced unconditional love, a bond between them that seemed not to be limited by conditions. 

"Unconditional love," I pondered. That probably does capture the bond my wife and I shared with Sheba. Even when I could sometimes feel irritated with her and speak more sharply than usual, she would return in a forgiving manner to curl up comforting me. Sure, I thought, this is all about her thinking about her next meal; this is all about eating and sleeping and doing it all again the next day! But I knew better.

Yes, we can anthropomorphize; we can project our human cognitions, motives, and emotions upon our pets. But to reduce our understanding of the bond between human beings and pets as a relationship of co-dependent survival behaviors is to rob the attachment bond of a transcendent meaning that enriches our existence. And now we can take a step even further, thanks to the increasing research in animals' behavior and brains. Now we can define and describe empathy in many species; now we can trace the human compassionate instinct through an evolutionary process that moves "from the bottom up," informing our consciousness of an instinct we may call compassion or empathy that is not only within a species but also between species. 

This "attachment bond" may carry many names. Among human beings we call it love. And within the Christian community, the name of that love is agape. It is almost common knowledge today to refer to our Greek heritage that has helped us distinguish between the different forms of love including: philautia (self-love), pragma (a practical bond of attachment that may describe some long marriages), storge (tenderness and affection such as parents feel toward children), philia (a bond between friends), eros (a drive toward union with that which is desired), and agape (unconditional love that "wills the good of another," as described by Thomas Aquinas). Furthermore, C.S.Lewis offered us the keen insight in his book, The Four Loves, that "the highest good does not stand without the lowest." I take this to mean that agape does not assume some sanctimonious perch separate from the other forms of love but rather enfolds them in an embrace of a wholistic consciousness. This is what compels agape toward an unconditional regard for all sentient beings.

And this is the compelling theme in the New Testament. God is defined as agape (1 John 4:8 and 4:16). Also, drawing upon his Hebraic heritage as described in Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19, Jesus describes the Great Commandment in this way: "Love (agape) the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And the second is like it: Love (agape) your neighbor as yourself."  Then, just before his death, Jesus gave his disciples what he called "a new commandment" -- "that you love (agape) one another. Just as I have loved (agape) you, you also are to love (agape) one another." 

This is the essence of Christianity. Its gift to the world is a witness to the meaning of love that is unconditional, whose name is agape, whose motivating force nudges humanity on toward what Teilhard de Chardin calls the Omega Point, an evolutionary destiny of life in which the conscious and unconscious meet to provide humankind with a deep morality that guides us beyond the Freudian super-ego toward the laws of life itself and the God within. (C.G.Jung, Collected Works, Vol. 9ii, paragraph 190ff). 

Of course, Christianity's demonstration of agape down through the centuries has been compromised by humanity's failure to protect the little ones, by a wretched abuse of power that has destroyed habitats, by a tendency to side with dictators who use power to dominate others, by a prejudice against women who are equated with the source of so-called "original sin" based upon a misinterpretation of Eve's role in the creation myth, and by an anthropomorphic hubris that demeans other creatures in our beloved animal kingdom. Yes, all of that is true, and all of that -- and more -- debases the principle of agape. It is enough to drive each of us who have been baptized within that tradition to hang our heads in shame. 

How ironical it is then that we see in the eyes of our pets a forgiving unconditional love. True, it may not be what we fully mean by agape. Our pets, our dogs, cats, birds, and other creatures do not have the same brain structure we have. And we must not be naive in overlooking their instincts for survival, instincts of territoriality and mating, hunger and hunting, aggression and fear of aggression. These are our instincts as well, although played out in what we may rationalize as a more civilized manner. Still the force of unconditional love in these creatures drives us toward an introspection by which we are made more deeply human.

Here at this point in my writing, two synchronicities occurred which I would like to share with you. The first synchronicity is the irritating peck on the wooden structure of my house by the downy woodpecker looking for a suitable home. Typically, the downy woodpecker establishes a nest in trees of which we have plenty around our house, so many we have not provided a substitute nest -- yet. 

And so, when the woodpecker comes along, checking out my house, I find I also have to contend with another uninvited guest -- my most Elmer Fudd-like self who marches outside to do battle with the petite downy woodpecker. The bird seems to find this charade of competition over a choice of homes to be amusing. I rush outside, it flies up in a tree and patiently waits for me to go back inside so that we can repeat this maneuver several times, amidst threats and pecks and slamming doors and flapping wings. I know -- we are planning to buy a house -- for the woodpecker -- this next week.

Now, the second synchronicity. Taking a break from my writing, over breakfast this morning and my weekly read of The New York Times' Book Review, I was surprised to see on the front page a review of Dr. Frans De Wall's latest book, Mama's Last Hug. Dr. De Wall is a Dutch-born primatologist whose research and writing have opened doors in my mind to the reality of emotions in animals. The reviewer, Sy Montgomery, describes one passage in de Wall's book when two old friends met after some time had passed: 

               The two old friends hadn't seen each other lately. Now one of them 
               was on her deathbed, crippled with arthritis, refusing food and 
               drink, dying of old age. Her friend had come to say goodbye. At first
               she didn't seem to notice him. But when she realized he was there, 
               her reaction was unmistakable: Her face broke into an ecstatic grin.
               She cried out in delight. She reached for her visitor's hand and stroked
               his hair. As he caressed her face, she draped her arm around his neck
               and pulled him closer.

In this moving real-life scene, the "friend" who is visiting is the Dutch biologist, Dr. Jan Van Hooff, and he is visiting his old friend, Mama, a chimpanzee. 

I think the last moments with Sheba were much the same. And these shared moments are happening now all around the globe. It may not be agape but it is a bond of love that crosses the bridge of our separateness, a bond in which our suffering, regardless of our religion or politics, is eclipsed by a greater reality.

We have just had to euthanize our petite, black and white, tuxedo cat. A faithful, dutiful companion for going-on nineteen years, Sheba was strong, loyal, and courageous to the end. We had battled a melanoma on her lower-left lip for three years. The melanoma won, but not until after we had thrown everything at it we possibly could: immunotherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, and herbal medicines along with pain-killers, etc. We kept her alive so long because she seemed herself to be choosing life: eating, bathing, going for walks in our yard until the last three days when she finally refused medicines and food. So, we held her and tearfully uttered our good-byes while she was mercifully attended by a most-compassionate vet who specializes in hospice and euthanasia in the home.

Sheba's suffering and death parallel some pages in a manuscript I am attempting to complete. The focus on this manuscript does not arise out of the blue. The theme of suffering nestles within my twin vocations of Pastoral Counseling and Jungian Analysis. How could the experience of suffering not occupy some central place within the work of all practitioners of healing? Suffering is life; life is suffering, although not the only thing.

But just because suffering holds center stage in each developmental phase of life, precisely because of its prominence in human existence, we desperately attempt to not-see the ravages of suffering. We try to drag it behind the curtain of life's drama. We distract ourselves with diversions of anything we can buy, beg, borrow, or burglarize -- anything that will take our minds off the real truth of our finite existence.

That truth is this: All that rises falls away. Siddhartha Gautama (563-483 BCE), a young nobleman living in a border area between what is now India and Nepal woke up to the reality of life's suffering in his observations of birth, aging, disease, death, and the experience of the loss of loved ones and things. This realization of life's impermanence and suffering was too much for Gautama. If this is all life is about, he appears to have reasoned, then how can we live with such awareness? Maybe more importantly, why continue on with life if we cannot escape or end the suffering?

And so, on the night of his 29th birthday, Gautama abandoned his life of luxury and privilege to become a wandering ascetic in search of an end to suffering. After six years, following an in-depth encounter with Mara, the tempter who traffics in distractions, diversions, and delusions of life, Gautama realized the enlightenment of his "Buddha-nature." 

Emerging from his six years of an ascetic quest, a life-and-death encounter with Mara, the demon of unconsciousness, and finally a heroic affirmation of an enlightened conquest of suffering, the Buddha preached his first sermon at Deer Park in Sarnath, India. It was here Siddhartha Gautama, now speaking as the Buddha, announced an end to suffering, or at least, the way by which an individual might experience an end to suffering. As the very foundation of what would become Buddhism, the fourth largest of the major religions today, Buddha taught his small group of listeners the "Four Noble Truths" and the "Noble Eightfold Path." These, he said, reveal the path to end suffering for all who honor these truths. In a brief summary, they may be described like this:

                                 The Noble Four Truths
1.  The truth of suffering. Human existence is marked by the nature of impermanence, which we experience in birth, aging, disease, death, and the loss of all things and persons we hold dear.
2.  The truth of the cause of suffering. The cause comes from the manifold feelings, thoughts, and sensations of anxiety that arise from our recognition of and attempt to avoid suffering, our drives to attach to things and persons we want to possess, and our pursuit of the countless distractions that divert our attention from suffering.
3.  The truth of the cessation of suffering.  It is not inevitable that we suffer, says the Buddha. In fact, there is a cessation to this suffering.
4.  The truth of the Eightfold Path. The cessation of suffering may be experienced through the intentionality of following the Eightfold path as described below.

                                 The Noble Eightfold Path
1.  Right understanding.  The word "right" as used here is not to be understood  moralistically. "Right" refers to that which is appropriate to the situation. Thus, "right" understanding means that the Eightfold Path begins with a conscious acknowledgement of the reality of suffering interwoven within the essence of existence.
2.  Right intention. The right intention is to undertake the Eightfold Path on one's own choosing with a resolve to see it through, recognizing the Path will likely lead us into new discoveries of our old "self' while opening up unexplored, new ways of being in the world.
3.  Right speech.  Our words arise from our thoughts; indeed, they are our thoughts. "As  persons think in their hearts, so they will be." What comes out is what is within, yes? But the reverse is also true: What we say takes lodging within us. Our speech arises from our character while at the same time our words continue to mold our character. How hard it is in some families to say to one another, "I love you." However, once spoken the ice begins to melt, and a new relationship is born.
4.  Right action.  The same that was said about our speech applies as well to our actions. When people come into my consulting room, wanting to deal with a conflict in personal relationships or difficulties in the work place, they will sometimes say, "But this is just the way I am"! To which I gently remind them, "No, this is the way you have learned to be." If you change your behavior, you create a new life, and from your new life, you change the world.
5.  Right vocation.  I am not talking about your job as such;  I am referring to your "calling" to be in the world -- which may be expressed in many different "jobs."
6.   Right effort.  The Buddha spoke of "effort" in four steps: (a) awareness of the negative pattern of thinking; (b) a resolve to turn loose that old pattern, (c) awareness of a new way of thinking; (d) commitment to put that new way of thinking into practice. This "new way" is that which leads to health and the alleviation of suffering.
7.  Right mindfulness.  We are likely to associate this with meditation, "mindfulness meditation." In that meditation, we watch our thoughts, feelings, and sensations arise, pass by, and then go on over the horizon of our consciousness. But right mindfulness does not end with our meditation, nor is it intended to. We learn in our meditation to practice in our active life the process of being mindful of feelings, thoughts, sensations. Our anger, our fear, our moods arise as we encounter stressful situations and people. But we learn we have choices: we do not have to attach to any of those feelings, thoughts, or sensations. We may need to take action, even strong action in some cases, but we do our best in mindfulness training to learn how to respond consciously. We have the feelings or thoughts; they do not have us.
8.  Right concentration.  This one is hard because it refers to that which is wordless. Consider its etymology, centrum from Latin, meaning "center." And look at the definitions Webster gives us: 
      1.  to bring or direct toward a common center;
      2.  to render less diffuse, less dilute;
      3.  to express the essence of;
      4.  to bring all one's powers, faculties, or activities to bear;
      5.  to direct the attentions of the mental faculties toward a single object [the "one  
           point"].

This brings us to a deeper state of meditation. It is in the state of concentration that bliss may arise. It is in this culmination of the Eightfold Path that Buddha would say we realize our true humanity as a connection to the universe and to all others who, like us, suffer, but now with a sense of meaningfulness -- perhaps. This is the "end" of all the major religions, as it is the "end" of suffering.

And before I go, I want to add something further from the perspective of Christianity and Jungian psychology. But that will have to wait, when I will also say something further about Sheba.

You may recognize the title of this blog as a line from Abba's "Happy New Year." But in case you have forgotten, or never heard the song, here are the lyrics form the first verse: 

       No more champagne
       And the fireworks are through
       Here we are, me and you
       Feeling lost and feeling blue
       It's the end of the party
       And the morning seems so gray
       So unlike yesterday 
       Now's the time for us to say ... 

Abba, the Swedish pop music group that originated in Stockholm in the 1970's, released this hit song in 1980 as part of an album. Against the backdrop of the 1970's, the lyrics above assume an even greater poignancy. With the war in Vietnam, the Iranian Revolution, the conflicts in the Middle East, the rise of terrorism, and the energy/oil crisis, the "party' did seem to be over in many respects.

Apart from the cultural and societal turmoil, Abba itself would suspend its work, and the two couples in the group would each divorce in the late 70's and early 80's. But this blog is not intended as a psychological analysis of the 70's or of Abba's psyche, collectively or individually. They appear to have gotten on with life very well. 

So it is the poignancy of the lyrics in themselves that draws my attention at the moment. Also, there is one additional factor at play for me personally. This comes from a holiday visit with our daughter and her family on the west coast, a visit that gave opportunities for singing and making music with our piano, cello, guitar, tambourines, and voices! This is part of our family tradition. On most occasions when we get together, there will be songs, impromptu performances, laughter, and the challenge of trying new songs to add to our repertoire.

It was at such a moment when we were congratulating ourselves on how well we sounded (to ourselves!) when the suggestion arose that we should do Abba's "Happy New Year." Sober reflections prevailed, however, and we gently let that prospect for our ourve fade away -- at least for the moment and perhaps for all time. 

Why?  

Well the first and obvious answer is that we could not reach the pinnacle Abba achieves in their arrangement. But there is something else going on in our reflections on the lyrics of that song. I have referred to the poignancy of the lyrics, but "poignancy" does not contain the deep emotion of the images evoked in those words to the second and third verses:

       Sometimes I see
       How the brave new world arrives
       And I see how it thrives
       In the ashes of our lives
       Oh yes, man is a fool
       And he thinks he'll be okay
       Dragging on, feet of clay
       Never knowing he's astray
       Keeps on going anyway

       Seems to me now
       That the dreams we had before
       Are all dead, nothing now
       Than confetti on the floor
       It's the end of a decade
       In another ten years time
       Who can say what we'll find
       What lies waiting down the line
       In the end of [twenty-nine]

The words are written as if for today. Here we are, you and I, facing a political process in crisis, unending wars of brutalization of armed soldiers and civilians, an opioid crisis whose real cause has not been named because of what it would reveal about the spiritual vacuousness of our society, an upswing in suicide rates for our children and young people, the creeping ecological changes, the destruction of habitats for wildlife and humans who migrate to our neighborhoods and shores, and the engines that drive our production and marketing of distractions which anesthetize our consciences.

But Abba's song does not end in despair, and neither must we resign ourselves to the distressing way of things we are experiencing as 2018 becomes 2019. We are free to envision another world, a kinder and more hopeful world. Here is the way Abba ends their lyrics: 

       Happy new year
       Happy new year
       May we all have a vision now and then
       Of a world where every neighbor is a friend
       Happy new year
       Happy new year
       May we all have our hopes, our will to try
       If we don't we may as well lay down and die
       You and I

For 2019, I am choosing to believe the party is not over, that all of our dreams are not like confetti on the floor, and that we do not have to stand on feet of clay, because our feet are made for dancing!

I invite you to join me in the dance, as I wish you a happy new year!

(Happy New Year lyrics by Benny Andersson and Bjorn K. Ulvaeus, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, Universal Music Publishing Group)

            They who speak do not know;
            They who know do not speak.

I adapted those lines above from the fifty-sixth chapter of Tao Te Ching. Written by Lao-tzu in the late fifth century B.C.E., just before he went up into the fog of an unknown where-about, he had left his post as historian with responsibility for official records in Loyang, a Chinese imperial capital. 

Legend describes Lao-tzu's unhappiness with the political intrigue of the Chinese Chou (Zhou) regime. Abandoning the political turmoil, Lao-tzu was passing through the Hanku pass of Loyang and stopped for the night at an inn. He obviously impressed the innkeeper, perhaps with tales of adventures in the capital, as well as commentaries drawing from his down-to-earth philosophy of life. Somehow in their exchange, the innkeeper persuaded Lao-tzu to write down his observations of life. The result was a book of sayings that came to be called the Tao Te Ching, "The Book of the Way and its Virtue." And it is from the events around this legend that the Chinese school of Taoism came into being. 

Now I return to my opening lines,

            They who speak do not know;
            They who know do not speak.

In Lao-tzu's case, he no doubt was pointing to the bizarre political developments in China that led to what historians call "the Warring States period" (475-221 B.C.E.). The cacophony of voices formed a backdrop of military confrontations, bureaucratic wrangling, ever-changing power plays, and a decline in civility and meaning in which "bad" people speak in bellicose voices while the "good" people say nothing.

That brief introduction serves as a backdrop to our present moment. Have you noticed how the most outlandish actions and words increasingly seem to pass by us as if unobserved? Where is the outrage when mothers and children are gassed on our southern border? When there will be more and more caravans of displaced people arriving at our borders as more and more homes are destroyed by the catastrophes of fires, hurricanes, floods, destruction of fertile lands, and unspeakable disruption to the natural habitat of our wildlife? When the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" continues to widen while the advertising machinery of our merchandising industry floods us with images of the "beautiful things" many people can never hope to obtain? When our infrastructure crumbles while profits of our conglomerates escalate? When wars in foreign neighborhoods continue on as a kind of accepted business-as-usual news blurb while we busy ourselves with the mundane affairs of the markets? When one of our political parties remains basically silent in the face of monstrous acts of inhumanity, separating children from mothers and embedding those children in prison-like barracks for indefinite periods of time, making impossible the psychological reunion of parent and child even should they be physically reunited? And again, I call attention to our absence of outrage, the shrugging off of what I believe in times past would have been recognized as moral failures and criminal offenses in many cases.

Yes, people who do not know speak, while the people who do know say nothing. But events may have arrived at what could be a tipping point. For example, consider some stories in the news of our past two weeks.

First is the report that life expectancy in the United States declined again in 2017, a statistic not seen in the U.S. since 1915 through 1918, (see The Washington Post, November 29). In this annual report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we learn that "life expectancy is improving in many places in the world and wonder why it should be declining in the United States." 

Then, in another report we learn the ongoing growth of deaths from suicide has "climbed steadily since 1999 and grown worse since 2006." Most disturbing to me regarding the increase in suicides is the fact that suicide is the leading cause of death among young people between ages ten and twenty-four. Consider that number and add the 5.7% increase of self-inflicted, near-fatal injuries among young adults and children, some as young as age five, and we see a deeper concern emerging as to the health of our society.

The deeper concern is for our soul. I understand "soul" to mean the "spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal," having to do with a human being's moral or emotional nature and sense of identity (Oxford Dictionary of English). What happens to us when we lose a basic sense of safety, when sanity and civility are drowned out by words and events of violence and/or deadening triviality? And what happens when education is underfunded, when public spaces are filled with commercial developments, when religious institutions preoccupy themselves with their own growth and marketing of self-serving dogmatism, and governing is seen as a never-ending game of charades with preening politicians? 

Largely, these are questions people bring to my consulting room. Anxious about our drift toward authoritarianism, depressed about the seeming inability of good people to bring about change, the absence of moral leadership to speak in behalf of our children and our planet, our society's fascination with technology's parade of new gadgets, and the deceptive experience of a pseudo-connectivity with one another made possible by the wide web of social media, we appear to be immersed in a fog of soul-less unconsciousness.

How do we escape this numbing unconsciousness? As powerful as these forces of death-dealing unconsciousness may be, a much greater power is the striving of the human soul. And the human soul wants to be free. Entangled in the bind of collective forces, whether the binds be those of family, work, government, or social group, the soul yearns for a felt sense of safety to be free. 

So... how do we arrive at a state of mind in which the soul experiences a felt sense of freedom? I am not talking here about a social program to bring about such a state of mind. Nor am I speaking of turning our backs on the injustices I have described and the disturbing silence of those who might be able to make a difference. Apparently we have arrived at a moment in time when we have to establish an internal base of safety to be free, sane, and clear.

And that is the promise of what I am calling "Zen." Arriving in Japan from China in the twelfth century, Zen had been formed in a cradle of Lao-tzu's Taoism. Zen is a sect of Mahayana Buddhism that aims at enlightenment made possible through meditation, a form of meditation that draws upon each human being's innate intuitive sense. But Zen is also a state of mind, a state of calm attention in which one's focus is guided toward a deeper consciousness by which we find our true self, our deep being not conditioned by the world, making possible a life of service to others while living from an "oasis" within ourselves.

Zen reminds us of Christianity's Kingdom of Heaven which, Jesus says, is within each of us. It also reminds us of Carl Jung's description of individuation, a term he applies to the experience of "becoming whole." Psychologically, this happens when our minds become clear of our complexes, where we attend to the messages of our dreams, when with art, music, journaling, and creative play, we integrate conscious and unconscious, when we come home to ourselves.

We may call this "home-coming" by many names. It is a return to the deep nature of our soul, where it experiences safety to become oneself. However we name it, soul is recovered. And at this moment, I call it Zen, a call to step beyond the commonplace into a world where the moon rests peacefully upon the calm water.    

Sometime around the age when my daughter was four, something she said to her sitter confronted my life and changed it forever. This is the story, and what follows are my reflections upon a child's capacity to know a lie and our growing awareness of the savage assault taking place today upon our children, our grandchildren, and their very fragile worlds.

The incident between my daughter and her sitter, briefly stated, was this. The two of them were discussing the time her mother and I would be returning from a brief weekend trip out of town. The sitter had understood one time -- late afternoon on Sunday -- and my daughter another time -- early afternoon. As the sitter reported the story of their little disagreement, she warmly recounted how our daughter held to her understanding (which, incidentally, was the correct one), as she said, "I am right because my daddy told me, and he never lies to me"!

Prior to that time, I do not remember ever having thought that much about how and when a child developmentally comes to understand the meaning of lying and truth-telling. I am sure we had talked about telling the truth, but there had never occurred an incident in which we had reason to give the matter extra attention. 

But there it was in a very strong jolt for me to reflect upon the way in which a child observes everything, especially what parents do and do not do, what we say, how we say it, and the importance of appropriate honesty with our children and adolescents. 

More than we might think to be the case, children learn early on about lies. Recent research by child psychologists and educators informs us that children learn to lie between the ages of two and four. Then, between ten and eleven, they have actually begun to perfect the art. For the most part, these lies of childhood are the "fibs" that we have all engaged in and continue as adults in order to achieve some reward (saying we were sick from work when we actually were sneaking out for a trip to the coast or mountains) or to protect ourselves from some feared retaliation (saying to our supervisor we are late at work because we were stuck in traffic when actually we overslept).

But the important thing regarding children's views about lying is that they know it is wrong. As one five-year-old child said, "You should never tell a lie because the brains inside grown-ups heads are so smart, they always find out." Yes, and there could be unpleasant consequences. Morality is shaped in this instance because there is a "grave danger" for the child, so they will tell you, if they are caught lying. (See the research and educational materials of Scholastic at scholastic.com, where they provide more information on children and lies. See also the outstanding work of the Greater Good Science Center at Berkeley, located online at greatergood.berkeley.edu.)

So what we are learning is that children early on determine who is trustworthy and who is not. The older I get and the more people I see in my consulting room as a Jungian psychoanalyst, the more I turn to look at the dynamic of trust, or the absence of it, in shaping a person's life. It is trust that propels a child's life forward, and it is mistrust that drives the child's emerging life off the rails, into the tall weeds, sidetracked and vulnerable to all the mishaps of life: lying, addictions, incompetence, vagrancy, alliances with others whose lives have been sabotaged by the early failure to form trusting relationships in other persons, as well as in our primary institutions that ensure a social contact for life, safety, happiness, and fulfillment in vocational choices.

It is most astounding that we find so little attention paid to trust in the theories of psychotherapy. However, there is one major exception among the theorists of mental health, and that is Erik Erikson (1902-1994). In his book, Identity and the Life Cycle (1959), Erikson outlines his psychosocial theory on the eight stages of life. I will list these stages, and you will note what Erikson calls a "crisis" at each stage, a "fork-in-the-road," so to speak. It is a "crisis" inasmuch as the child's direction reaches a formative point. The child develops along the lines of health and wholeness or veers off into maladaptive patterns. Should the child's life stumble into the unhealthy trajectory, then the outlook for life becomes increasingly dim as each succeeding stage builds upon the preceding stage. But if the outcome of the crisis is successful, then there is developmentally a "virtue" that arises in the child's cognitive and emotional development. By "virtue" Erikson means a moral quality that shapes character and solidifies its further formation, such as hope, love, purposiveness,, etc. 

So here are the stages, virtues, and ages proposed by Erikson:

Stage    Psychosocial Crisis                          Basic Virtue                         Age
  1.       Trust vs. Mistrust                              Hope                                    0-1 1/2
  2.       Autonomy vs. Shame                         Will                                     1 1/2 - 3
  3.       Initiative vs. Guilt                             Purpose                               3-5
  4.       Industry vs. Inferiority                      Competency                         5-12
  5.       Identity vs. Role Confusion                Fidelity                                12-18
  6.       Intimacy vs. Isolation                        Love                                    18-40
  7.       Generativity vs. Stagnation               Care                                     40-65
  8.       Ego Integrity vs. Despair                   Wisdom                                 65+

It is the first stage of trust vs. mistrust that concerns me at this moment. If the child is fortunate enough to have loving care from one or more parents, then the child has hope for himself/herself. The world is seen as a good place, a safe place, an inviting place that encourages one to go forward, to take appropriate risks, and to seek relationships with others. How beautiful it is to see children play, to explore different roles, to experiment with objects, art projects, "work" assignments.

And how terrible it is to see children striving for life in a foreboding cloud of anger, war, divisiveness, and alienation from others they learn to hate and mistrust. This is the cloud hanging over our world today. One's race is projected as superior, money and wealth are upheld as the supreme value, the world is described as an unsafe habitat, and violence is practiced as a way of life to justify any means for obtaining what one believes is entitled.

But, thankfully, not everyone lives by that destructive credo. There still are some among us who, like the little five-year-old, believe that "... the brains inside grown-ups heads are so smart, they always find out."

Fear is the perception of danger. But what if the perception is an illusion; that is, a false idea or belief? And what if that illusion (the false idea or belief) "infects" a group of people or even a state? And what if the illusion is used as a weapon by an individual to manipulate the people who are thus "possessed" -- like a lynch mob can be urged on to do heinous things because those persons in the mob are under the influence of the manipulator?

So where am I going with this? Here, I refer to Bob Woodward's latest book, Fear. He introduces his book with the following quote:

       "Real power is -- I don't want to even use the word -- fear."

                Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump in an interview with
                Bob Woodward and Robert Costa on March 31, 2016, at the 
                Old Post Office Pavilion, Trump International Hotel, 
                Washington, D.C.

Woodward never develops this idea as such. Instead, he proceeds to demonstrate with quotes how fear was used in the service of one individual's seemingly enjoyment of brandishing power. The book's descriptions of attempts to portray fear are not for the faint of heart. The chapters throb with bellicose language, profanity, the shaming and berating of individuals in front of their peers, accusatory and demeaning tweets, unpredictability in following a schedule as well as changing ideas regarding policies, lies, firing individuals without facing them, disregarding tradition and time-honored institutions of government, and an ongoing cacophony of false, self-serving descriptions of achievements. 

What are we to make of such behavior that appears as irrational, aggressive, militant, without regard for individuals or institutions, paranoid, self-centered, callous, and unconscious -- while also enjoying this display of so-called "manliness." But even more puzzling and disturbing is the question that follows: What are we to make of those persons who participate in this carnival of insanity; individuals and groups of people who occupy positions of respect, power, and responsibility -- and yet do nothing. In fact, some of these even appear to curry the favor of this self-appointed leader! How can this be, we ask. It makes no sense. 

It makes no sense. At least from any psychic island of sanity where this bizarre phenomenon has not yet taken hold, it makes no sense. But for those so possessed, for those under the thrall of this madness Woodward describes, those persons appear to overlook the immoral and irrational behavior through the use of rationalization. Each of us can rationalize doing absurd things if we are driven by fear. 

Fear is the most basic, primal emotion. Most of us know fear very well. We come into the world afraid to live; we leave this world afraid to die. And in between, we move in a serpentine path, dodging fear here and there, facing our fears on some occasions, suppressing or repressing them at other times, in which case they take up residence in our unconscious and re-appear in an array of symptoms, maladaptive behavior, self-medicating attempts, and actions taken in behalf of the fears now turned into psychic deities who command our thoughts, emotions, and patterns of behavior. 

It seems to me that that we here in the U.S. have yet to come to terms with the 9/11 attacks on Manhattan's twin towers and our Pentagon. So shocking was this first attack on what we thought to be our unapproachable, impregnable mainland, that we collapsed into a histrionic fear of deep vulnerability, of not feeling safe, of having a faceless enemy who worked in fiendish ways to destroy us and our way of life. Villains lurked everywhere; no place was safe; "if you see something, say something." Paranoia grabbed us by the back of our necks and dragged us into a "war of terror" with shades of color to signify the level of danger, and an international hunt to capture Bin Laden -- the only face we could stick on this new world of terror.

Worse, there welled up from our collective unconscious a dark force that possessed us. Possession is a psychic state in which people are controlled by a strong inner drive, a dark, irrational power that could be described as a spirit, demon, god, or other supernatural force. (American Heritage Dictionary)

You recognize that feeling, that state of mind when you are "scared senseless," so to speak. To be "scared senseless" is in fact a very apt description for what I am attempting to describe here. Carl Jung calls that power by the name of "archetype." The Jungian analyst, Anthony Stevens, defines "archetypes" as: 

       Innate neuropsychic centres possessing the capacity to initiate
       control and mediate the common behavioural characteristics
       and typical experiences of all human beings irrespective of 
       race, culture, or creed.       (Archetype Revisited, p. 352)


Of course, these "neuropsychic centres" do not "scare us senseless" as a rule. The emotions and cognitions vary from person to person, experience to experience. But the point is that the "felt sense" of an archetype intervenes in our conscious state of mind. Jung explains it in the following metaphor, taken from his essay, "Wotan," published in 1936, for the purpose of trying to describe what he saw happening in his neighboring country, Germany.

       ​Archetypes are like riverbeds which dry up when the water deserts 
       them, but which it can find again at any time. An archetype is like 
       an old water course along which the water of life has flowed for 
​       centuries, digging a deep channel for itself. The longer it has flowed
​       in this channel the more likely it is that sooner or later the water will
​       return to its old bed. ... Thus the life of nations rolls on unchecked, 
​       without guidance, unconscious of where it is going ... . Political events
       move from one impasse to the next, like a torrent caught in gullies,
       creeks, and marshes. All human control comes to an end when the 
​       individual is caught in a mass movement. Then the archetype begins to
       function, as happens also in the lives of individuals when they are 
       confronted with situations that cannot be dealt with in any of the 
       familiar ways.  (para. 395)

In other words, an archetype arises in an individual person, but when the same archetype occurs within a group of people, even a nation, then there develops a kind of psychic infection, a "group-think" a movement that usually carries the name of some kind of "...ism," e.g., communism, fascism, racism, etc. And for this to happen, the circumstances in the life of an individual must have reached a point of vulnerability in which the person seeks some kind of explanation, a savior, a cause, someone to blame, something that awakens strong emotion -- thereby opening the mind to an invasion or psychic infection. In this case, a charismatic person who poses as a heroic savior may infect a group, an entire nation. Jung goes on to say: 

       ​The impressive thing about the German phenomenon is that one man
       [Hitler], who is obviously "possessed," has infected a whole nation to 
       such an extent that everything is set in motion and has started rolling 
       on its course toward perdition. (para. 388)

Thus did Carl Jung in 1936 anticipate the catastrophic collapse of a nation in 1945, of educated, civilized, technologically advanced citizens whose fear turned into anger, opening the windows of their souls to be filled with their most primitive instincts under the influence of an archetypal god, a warrior god, who had possessed a leader capable of charming them into a mass hysteria. He promised them economic relief, power to rule the world, and a privileged place within his illusion.

So,no, real power is not fear. But real fear can possess us; it can expose our souls to the invasion of a dark power that ever so slowly erodes our sense of right and wrong -- even our humanity.
    

                        Now is the time to know
                     That all that you do is sacred.
 
                        Now, why not consider
               A lasting truce with yourself and God.

                        Now is the time to understand 
                   That all your ideas of right and wrong
                      Were just a child's training wheels
                              To be laid aside
                        When you can finally live
                               With veracity
                                   And love. 

                          Hafiz is a divine envoy
                            Whom the Beloved
                     Has written a holy message upon.

                            My dear, please tell me,
                                Why do you still
                         Throw sticks at your heart
                                    And God?

                      What is it in that sweet voice inside
                               That incites you to fear?

                     Now is the time for the world to know
                    That every thought and action is sacred.

                                     This is the time
                  For you to deeply compute the impossibility

                                  That there is anything
                                         But Grace.

                              Now is the season to know
                                That everything you do
                                           Is sacred.

              (Poem by Hafiz, Trans. by Daniel Ladinsky, The Gift)

This remarkable poem by the Persian poet Hafiz arrests us on many levels. Had we time here in this blog, we might spend the night musing together about the meaning of each verse. But, for the moment, I am thinking about the sixth verse that slips in unexpectedly with a startling question:

                        What is it in that sweet voice inside
                                 That incites you to fear?

With this one sentence, Hafiz turns the table on us, prompting us back to the preceding verse for a slower rereading:

                                  My dear, please tell me,
                                       Why do you still
                                Throw sticks at your heart
                                             and God?

Now we realize Hafiz has gotten very personal! I did not realize I was throwing sticks at my own heart, much less throwing sticks at God! And, while we're at this unveiling of "secrets," what makes you, Hafiz, think I have been covering over a voice that "incites" me to fear?

Here I was looking forward to enjoying a comforting, "spiritual" poem by this fourteenth century poet, and suddenly the cat is out of the bag, to insert yet another metaphor. And, as happens with our dear cat Sheba, there is no rest until her meowings and nudgings are investigated!

So here we are with Hafiz who, not unlike an insightful psychotherapist, slips in a question that moves us into the subterranean depths of our psyches, leading us down through the cobwebs of long unattended memories, the shadows of play between light and dark, and the creepy descent through realms we may not even knew existed.

Hafiz is extending an invitation to put aside his book of poems for the moment and reflect back through the long, dimly-lit corridors of our lives to the basic fear that has incited our histories of fears. For fear is not just a primal emotion, it may be the primal emotion. We come into the world afraid of life, and we leave the world afraid of death. And each step  along the way has been preceded by the fear that we do not know what lies ahead, we may not like what we find, we may not be up to what the new thing demands of us, or we might not do it as well as whomever it is we are falsely setting up as the measuring rod for our life, or we may fear that we will have to give up whatever we find -- the treasure, the lover, the distraction that covers up our fundamental fear!

Our fundamental fear: What is it? We probably first think of fear as an emotion arising from a sense of danger, a threat of some kind -- physical, emotional, mental. But there is another way that we use the word to describe something of another nature. This connotation of fear might be most closely associated with the experience of awe or reverence. We fear the most basic objects that we believe might threaten us in some way; but we also "fear" those objects, places, and/or experiences that connect us with the deepest and highest aspirations of life. This is most fundamental because it is archetypal, "hard-wired" within the neural networks of our psyche.

Looked at this way, we may understand "fear" as the primary emotion that anchors our humanity. Without fear, we would be vulnerable at the point of not recognizing the dangers that can kill us. But, also, without fear we would miss that magnificent dimension of life in which our humanity flowers. For example, think of how we welcome home those persons who have faced danger in whatever arena, prevailed, and returned to remind us that the highest point of human achievement is the "baptism by fire" in which we face the "dragon of death" and overcome. Daily, often without fanfare or recognition, persons around the world encounter their deepest fears, and in their acts of courage find their lives to be ennobled. Without these heroic acts, we would be enshrouded in cowardice and unconsciousness.

Which brings us back to the question Hafiz raises, "What is it in that sweet voice inside that incites you to fear? Why does he call it a "sweet" voice?

I think the voice is "sweet" because it prompts us to face not just the surface level of our fears but the archetypal level of fear, which we know as awe, reverence, the dimension of depth. On our long journey through space and time, it is the nature of our species to recognize danger, feel fear, and make adjustments. But is is also our nature not to fear fear! 

To be conscious of this is to escape the paralyzing fears of childhood in which we feared the "bogeyman" in our closets and underneath our beds. To be conscious of this is to escape the suffocating imprisonment of relationships in which "love" is lived out as control and the need to carry the others' feelings. To be conscious of this is to recognize the dehumanizing policies of dictatorial regimes and would-be dictators who exploit others in the service of their own narcissisms.

To be conscious of this is to experience the grace of being fully human.