Jungian Paganism as Zodiacism

Although I honestly like the guy and enjoy the material he puts out, I’ve criticized Jordan Peterson for pushing a proto-Luciferian cultural Christianity emphasizing the triumph of consciousness over the heart. Now, unless he unveils a hidden 13th principle as an addendum to his recent book, I’m going to assume he’s a stand-up intellectual guy who’s looking for truth, but his heart just isn’t ready to die to itself for Christ. But what that means is everything he learns about himself, and humanity by extension, is going to be a hack job to fix a fundamentally broken person.

Worshiping the human psychological principles represented by the Zodiac would be the most natural religion in the world. Seeking self-knowledge is self-worship, which is the deepest desire of the human heart. Imbuing these inner archetypal personalities with stories and making sacrifices to them like gods is a great way to invite Travelers into your home. And, taking the human experience as central (i.e. humanism), it becomes easy to dismiss stories of gods as shared delusions, because are these stories not merely the expression of stories within the human breast?

quote-whether-the-gods-are-inside-or-outside-makes-very-little-difference-to-whether-there-jordan-peterson-126-89-70

The naturalist’s desire to form the perfect world order built from this gnosis follows immediately from the study of philosophy and psychology, which is why these fields hold such an intense fascination for would-be philosopher kangz. Except, if you substitute the problem of entropy for the problem of Evil, you’re really just treating the symptom and not the sin. And so on and on we go, creating new world orders every 216 years, give or take (216 = 6*6*6).

(This is not to say I oppose treating the symptom. By all means, take steps to reduce your chronic inflammation. But to treat your heart condition, you need a deeply counterintuitive intervention method. One that could not have been an emanation of the human heart, because it’s downright offensive to all our sensibilities.)

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Jungian Paganism as Zodiacism

  1. Aton says:

    “…. his heart just isn’t ready to die to itself for Christ. But what that means is everything he learns about himself, and humanity by extension, is going to be a hack job to fix a fundamentally broken person.”

    I like the way you expressed that. Reminds me of the words of Fr. Seraphim Rose:

    “Christ is the only exit from this world. All other exits—sexual rapture, political utopia, economic independence—are but blind alleys in which rot the corpses of the many who have tried them [ . . . ]”

    It took me years and year to accept Christ because of intellectual vanity. I had the idea that it was a religion for dumb people, not for me. Anyway, if Peterson can be a gateway drug that leads people ultimately to Christ, then it’s all good.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      It took me years and year to accept Christ because of intellectual vanity.

      This is why I hesitate to finger JP for intentional subversion. He may just be very stubborn.

      • Glenn MT says:

        Out of curiosity, AP, is it impossible for a person to investigate Christian theology honestly and find it wanting? I’m sure you’ve come across plenty of examples of brainy people with bad ideas, but you seem to take it for granted that such a dynamic cannot be the case here.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >Out of curiosity, AP, is it impossible for a person to investigate Christian theology honestly and find it wanting?

          No, not at all. It’s the historical evidence side where this would be practically impossible today.

          • Glenn MT says:

            So you expect that someone would embrace Christianity [because of historical evidence] while still viewing the theology as lackluster?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              No, or at least expect is the wrong word, because most Americans and Canadians don’t. People observably make such decisions from the heart (which possibly refers to the posterior medial frontal cotex).But I expect a smart guy like JP who spends his life studying the Bible as myth will care about questions of historicity, and look into them, and therefore would have no *intellectual* hurdles to jump. I use this to illustrate that he’s not one of us to people who are anxious to claim any WINNARZ who will make their team look good.

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    Good insight on the number 216, I’ve added that to my list of Biblical number information.

  3. Heaviside says:

    >Worshiping the human psychological principles represented by the Zodiac would be the most natural religion in the world.

    If it’s so natural can you provide one example of it actually being practiced?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Breen writes, “Lifeshapes is a set of practical tools for missionary living grounded in biblical insights that enables Order members to live the TOM way.”[xxxiii] These are one in the same lifeshapes 3DM uses with the local churches in training their leadership. By extension, the local church congregations using lifeshapes are living The Order of Mission way. This statement alone should make any church reconsider before getting involved with this organization.

      http://bobhighlands.faith/3dm-warning-part-two.html

      • Heaviside says:

        So people worship and make sacrificial offerings to these things?

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Not yet, it’s just time and money at this point. But this is the one they’re teaching the young adults at my church, so it’s what came to mind first (time is an issue).

          • Heaviside says:

            >Not yet, it’s just time and money at this point.

            Why would they start?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              By accepting 1) that the old gods are merely psychological symbols, and therefore not against the first and second commandments and 2) by Judaizing to the point that making sacrifices is normalized. I figure in 100-200 years animal sacrifices will be a prominent minority policy item.

              In the long view, for the same reason that Augustus Sol Invictus sacrificed a goat and drank its blood. We didn’t outgrow the basic psychological drives that produced the behavior in the first place.

            • Heaviside says:

              1) In the countries where people actually make ritual offerings, they do it because they hope it will have real supernatural efficacy. If they thought that deities were “psychological symbols,” it would be completely pointless and nonsensical.

              2) Jews haven’t made any sacrifices for almost two millennia.

              >In the long view, for the same reason that Augustus Sol Invictus sacrificed a goat and drank its blood.

              Shock value?

            • Heaviside says:

              Do you get my point?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Yes. The general point is that I’m making a sloppy case for without evidence. The particular point is that my description of paganism deviates from the typical description, without making any provisions for this stretch of the definition from paganism as generally understood to the unsubstantiated Paganism = degenerate Zodiacism.

            • Heaviside says:

              Adding to that, I think your misconceptions on this point come from a need to construct a variety of paganism that fits into dispensationalist end times theology, and a lack of knowledge of historical/anthropological works on paganism plus primary source theological/mythological works by pagans.

              If there was a resurgence of real paganism in the U.S., it wouldn’t be Jungian or psychological at all, it would probably have to come from American Indian religion.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Okay. My primary need, as I understand it, derives from the view that the human baseline society is (still) many (little-p) pagan slaves manually pushing blocks up a ramp to build a pyramid for a very small coterie of (big-P) Pagan (occultist) psychopaths.

  4. Ø says:

    Carl Jung is not unlike a modern rock band in that his early work was dynamite, but then he progressively fell off the more stuff he put out. IMO, the deeper he goes into his depth psychology, the wronger he gets.

  5. Pingback: Wolves in shepherds’ clothing | Aeoli Pera

  6. says:

    >”The naturalist’s desire to form the perfect world order built from this gnosis follows immediately from the study of philosophy and psychology, which is why these fields hold such an intense fascination for would-be philosopher kangz”

    >”this gnosis”

    ^You appear to be conflating Gnosticism (a be-a-shitbag-for-free-card masquerading as a religion) with the xNTP cognitive style (which favors “knowing” as opposed to xNTJ “willing”).

    • says:

      From IDRLabs.com:

      NTP Knowing vs. NTJ Willing

      By Sigurd Arild and Ryan Smith

      Here on the site we often tell our readers that Jungian functions are about cognitive processes and not specific contents of consciousness. Content can be understood as any entity of consciousness, be it a thought, feeling, sensation, or belief, i.e. anything that is contained in consciousness. The content need not be consciousness of a physical object, in fact, it need not even be true (for example, a man may have as a content of his consciousness the belief that his girlfriend has never cheated on him when in fact she has). The basic idea when dealing with the contents of consciousness is that there is cognitive attention directed at something and that it is this attention that distinguishes between conscious and unconscious mental contents. Attention to the entities of consciousness is common to all of the functions; what differs is the way in which each function interacts with the contents given.

      In this article we will talk about Knowing and Willing as prima facie modes of attending to the entities of consciousness – modes that are especially applicable to NTPs and NTJs. For our purposes, we postulate that there are two modes of relation between consciousness and content (in reality there are more, but we have not discovered them all yet).

      There is one mode in which the contents of consciousness determine the kind of attention levelled at it, i.e. where the content dominates the attention, thus causing the individual consciousness to get lost in the object; we call this mode Knowing.
      There is another mode in which attention determines the content, i.e. where the consciousness dominates the content, thus causing the object to get lost in the individual consciousness of it; we call this mode Willing.

      Knowing

      In the Knowing mode of relation between consciousness and attention to the entities of consciousness, we aspire to have our consciousness determined by the object. Our goal is that our consciousness – i.e. the subjective element of consciousness – should merely discover the object without adding anything to it or distorting it in any way. For this impartial discovery to occur, it is logically necessary that the object should exist prior to, and independently of, us. It must be an already accomplished and agreed-upon fact; one that is not brought into being by our cognition of it.

      Willing

      In the Willing mode of relation between consciousness and attention to the entities of consciousness, we aspire to embody a “consciousness first” approach. In the Knowing mode we are at ease when the fact existed prior to our own cognition of it, but the Willing mode functions differently. Here we operate on the basis of an ideal initial stage where only our own consciousness existed and there was not yet any object to preoccupy it. Psychologically, we may say that in the Willing mode, objects are ushered into existence by way of our consciousness of them. Objects are felt to have no purpose apart from the purpose that we will for them. Hence we call it Willing.

      Contrast of Knowing and Willing

      In the Knowing mode, we aspire to have ideal knowledge of the object, even beyond what is humanly possible. But in the Willing mode, we aspire to have the objects of consciousness conform to the injunctions of our personal consciousness. In the knowing mode, the properties of the objects of consciousness are therefore ends in themselves, whereas in the Willing mode, these properties should ideally be completely conducive to the volitions of one’s personal consciousness. Willing thus operates on the basis of pure imagination, whereas Knowing only imagines on the basis of facts that are already given to it. The ideal of Knowing is therefore truth, while the ideal of Willing is freedom.

      It might be thought that in order for us to Will something, we must know what to will in advance. This is certainly axiomatically true, but psychologically, we are here dealing with one of the many instances of surprising inferences contained in Jungian typology: In the case of the NTJ types, for example, we may say that they often will things without completely knowing in advance what it is that they are willing. One reason for this remarkable arrangement is that, as Te types, they care about being decisive before caring about being precise. By way of Te, they quickly see a goal, but with depreciated Fi, and with no Si to instill moderation in their pursuits, they do not necessarily pause to ponder what it is they are advancing. The psychological injunction to will something into being may in practice occur with only scant insight into the outcome willed.

      NTP Knowing and NTJ Willing

      It should now be easy to see how Knowing and Willing conform to the typical makeup of NTPs and NTJs, all else being equal.

      In the Knowing mode:

      We aspire to let the whole of our own consciousness be determined by the external object. Thus our motives are neatly aligned with Ne.
      We wish merely to discover the object on its own terms, without taking sides or deploying it for any specific purpose. We employ a mode of inquiry where, ideally and in the final respect, we do not even require a consciousness to be conscious of the object. Hence this mode of attention blends well with Ti.
      We are more at ease if an object of consciousness is already existent and agreed upon, prior to our engagement with it. These properties of the object are soothing to Fe and Si.

      But in the Willing mode:

      We invariably let the external object be determined by our consciousness of it, which is akin to Ni.
      We push for specific goals and outcomes; goals that may make considerable and skillful use of external facts, but which are ultimately given precedence (i.e. one goal is pursued over another) by the means of our personal consciousness, thus allowing the exerciser of Te.
      We crave freedom from the already existing and the communally agreed upon, which speaks to the fancies of Fi and Se over those of Fe and Si. We want to arrive at results that are iconoclastic and seminally new; not a brilliant reorganization of an already existing body of knowledge (as in the case of the NTPs).
      We are preoccupied with the aspirations of our personal consciousness and thus cannot be self-forgetful.

      Thus we say that, all else being equal, Knowing conforms to the NTP temperament, while Willing comes closer to the natural dispositions of the NTJs.

      Acknowledgements

      We are indebted to Professor T.R.V. Murti for his discussions of transcendental psychology.

  7. says:

    Basically I’m irritated at your conflating a different cognitive style with heresy

  8. Pingback: Objective vs. functional | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s