Jung and the Paradigm
or most people, there are not so many opportunities to experience clearly archetypal representations. This fact makes it for some people difficult to understand what archetypes are. We recommend that archetypes are seen as basic impulses in our minds. In Paradigm's basic three impulses (male, female, divinity), something that we feel active is considered to be animus, something passive, anima, and something moral that tries to respond to our inner conscience, the agent of the Self. The Paradigm of Christ sees that they constitute basic components of life and have a self developmental movement: division to male and female and unity to divinity. The Paradigm's approach differs from Jung in that it sees archetypes as not only the contents of the unconscious but also as the components of the structure of life through the nature of light. The Paradigm sees the gospel as the primary guidance for the individuation, rather than alchemical documents favored by Jung. We believe that relying on Christian revelation is more certain and faster than depending on alchemical symbolism. He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward. (Matthew10:41)
The archetypes of the gospel are those which intend to depict contours (profiles) of life's structure. In other words, they are the archetypes particularly devised to let us know the truth of life's integration. Such archetypes must serve to form the concept of life in order to indicate the universal truth. The gospel is arranged to show us the truth of human nature. On the contrary, Jungian archetypes are those which are phenomenologically reduced from the archetypal representations of various myths as major patterns existing in the psyche. They are the outcomes of a general classification.
Jung's psychological typology fits the Paradigm's context of light and the spectrum. Jung classified psychological types into four major different functions, namely, Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition. The radical difference between these functions are rather a priori and these types can be connected with archetypes. Roughly speaking, Thinking corresponds to Animus, Feeling to Anima, Intuition to Child and the Self. Only Sensation has difficulty finding an archetypal counter part, as senses are not really archetypal. In comparison to the Paradigm, Thinking corresponds to the spectrum's blue, Feeling to the spectrum's red, Intuition to the spectrum's yellow and the light itself. Sensation corresponds to darkness or black, for sensation is the function that belongs to the most material side of the psyche.
While Freud's way of thinking is non-teleological and his theory of the triad: ego, id, and super-ego, is rather artificial, Jung's style is much more teleological and metaphysical. In essence, whether he liked it or not, Jung's idea of archetypes corresponds to Plato's forms, and his individuation corresponds to Aristotle's actuality. It is this philosophical context in handling psyche's nature that we necessarily owe and relate to Jung. The typical examples out of such philosophical connotations are 'the relation between the ego and the Self ', and his 'understanding of the Self as the center and at the same time the whole of the psyche', just as we see the Paradigm's totality as the Christ.
However, he misunderstands Christ and the gospel in that he assumes, in his own view, that Jesus does not carry anything evil. As a main character in the story, Jesus still carries the possibility of the evil although it is not activated. The fact that Jesus understands, in his teachings, what the essence of evil is, means that there is a conflict between the good and the evil even in him and yet he transcends it. Otherwise, he never understands what evil is and henceforth cannot teach anything, if he is so naive. The image of Jesus Christ is a strong contrast between the good and the evil, and yet transcending them reflecting the genuine character of our unconscious. This is why the image of Jesus attracts our mind perpetually. In our understanding, the totality of the gospel corresponds to the totality of psyche. Unless we include scribes and the Pharisees, and Judah of Iscariot, our psychic contents lack important factors. In Jungian terms, they are the parts of our Shadow which our ego does not want to acknowledge. The story of the gospel intends to let us know the various aspects of humanity that we need to acknowledge for our individuation process.