Question - Semantic Discrepancy
Jacob Wrestling With The Angel, Alexander Louis Leloir
"I read Jungian material in addition to FTE and other books, and find a major discrepancy between the Jungian idea of owning up to the 'shadow', claiming it as one's own, and the Teaching that it is 'NOT I'."
We have found some Jungian material very helpful; for instance the work of Marion Woodman is an accurate, if quite oblique, description of the process of transformation. The problem is really one of semantics. Jungians talk of accepting the shadow, the false self (looking honestly in the mirror); they might say it is proper to admit "I am this or that." The Teaching sees great benefit in disidentifying from these "demons" (thus calling them NOT I) while still recognizing that I am indeed capable of performing any action any other human is capable of doing, i.e., under circumstances I felt right or proper or justifiable, I could conceivably steal, or kill, or any other thing.
The capability does not make us a thief or a murderer, however. While a Jungian might say "I am a controlling witch" after sincerely looking in the mirror, a student of the Work would say, "I am capable of striving to control everything and everyone, and have done so."
In either case the meaning is that it is essential to take an honest look at the false self, to admit it is there.
A back issue of FTE described Life as a verb rather than a noun. [See blog post Life Is A Verb.] Semantically (although not necessarily in practice, i.e., Marion Woodman) Jungians call the false self a noun; the Teaching sees the false self as a verb, that is, it may be the way we act, but is not what we are.
It is really only a matter of semantics, and the question is a clear picture of the danger in dabbling in various versions of maps for Transformation.
Our own interest in Marion Woodman's work began long after a sound foundation in the Work was established, and studying her enhanced what was already fixed. It appeals mainly because of her special slant toward women, and because she obviously is one who lives what she talks about. Her approach, however, is difficult to understand, and we have available much simpler tools toward the same end.
from FTE, Vol. I. No. 7
