11 1937). Jung thus identifies psychological effect of the image of the Self and the image of God: “[A]nything a man postulates as being a greater totality than himself can become a symbol of the Self“. Jesus then represents suffering of ego that must persist on his journey to individuation. He addresses this matter in greater detail in his workA Psychological Approach to Dogma of the Trinity (1948). As far as Christian terminology is concerned, Jung explains its psychological meaning. God and Father represent psychological image of collective unconscious, God and Trinity show birth of consciousness and unconscious, God as Quaternity represents a symbol for the aim of individuation process, the Self. The Trinity is for Jung a symbol of perfection while the Quaternity is a symbol of totality or wholeness. Reaching Quaternity, however, means theoretical, for man unattainable reaching of wholeness. Jesus is then a psychological story of a struggle to reach the aim, a symbol for individuation process; the Holy Spirit is an ideal imitation Christi, an individual decision to fight towards the Self through earthly existence. For Jung himself, this is a fresh breath for Christianity that has become so remote from the ordinary people (CW 11 1948, 152–163). In Aion (1950) Jung poses a question: Is the Self a symbol of Christ or is Christ a symbol of the Self? He responds: A psychologist does not have another option but to opt for the second one (CW 9 II 1950, 68). In the same work he also touches on issues of good and evil, where he, for the first time, attacks a concept of “privatio boni” as metaphysical definition of evil. For Jung the concept was not acceptable for two reasons. On one hand, the concept denies the evident reality of evil, which is a commonplace but painful part of all human life. On the other hand, “privatio boni” view of evil is not an adequate expression of the psychological reality of moral judgement. For him “good“ and “evil“ were evaluative categories, applied to given facts of experience. They are not themselves facts, but human responses to facts, which may differ from one person to another (CW 9 II 1950). Figuratively speaking, Jung does not take it only as a metaphysical problem but also something that directly and continuously intervenes with our lives. Therefore, for Jung, the teaching of “privatio boni” means repression of evil which can lead to evil working from the depth of our unconscious, and thus become even more concealed, stronger and devious. Jung believes that Augustinus arrived at his perception of “privatio boni”, because he did not contemplate evil as an equal pole to good. He claims that evil, unlike God is not absolute [10]. Augustinus does not acknowledge eternal existence of evil, because he imagined the world in the moment as if no evil existed and all of creation was a part of God – things, ideas, or human will etc. may be closer to or further from God’s perfection and appear evil by comparison. For Jung, on the other hand, the non-existence of evil is not possible. As long as there is a man, the evil cannot cease to exist, given it has already existed. Simply because we must symbolize evil, therefore, it must exist at the symbolic level as a psychological fact. As a matter of fact, there is no annihilation in psyche, only compensation. Therefore, even that what is fading from the light of con56 Ivana Ryška Vajdová
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=