VOLUME 7 ISSUE 2 FALL 2021

3 4 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 7 - 2 Fa l l 2 0 2 1 Notes [1] In this study, we do not deal with the distinction be- tween religious and mystical experience , nor do we an- alyze the various notions of mysticism and spirituality, although we are aware of their variousness. We start from the core of every mystical and religious-mystical experience, which is the experience of the Numinous , in the intentions of Rudolf Otto. [2] Carl Gustav Jung consistently avoided the conception of psychology as “ objective science ”, as it has no basis outside the singular subject’s own sphere of conscious - ness. Therefore, according to him, deep psychology is fundamentally relativistic, and even his theory of sym- bols, archetypes, and collective unconsciousness serves as a function of hypotheses rather than ultimate claims about the objective world. It should also be noted that Jung did not provide any systematic interpretation of his theories, and any attempt to systematize his ideas by other authors encounters reductivism and partialism. On the contrary, he blames the tendentious “objectiv- ism” of psychology for his teacher Freud, with whom he broke up for this very reason (in 1913). [3] The metaphor of the window as a transparent topos , which separates and at the same time connects the sphere of rational constructions with the sphere of essential being, i.e. , it forms a passage of their meet - ing and “dialogue”, is indeed limited and imperfect. The question may arise whether the “window” rather connects these two spheres (then it should be open, possibly without “glasses”), or rather separates (then it should have colored glass, or it should be filled with imaginary stained glass). The question of whether spir- itual experience is the result of a subjective immanent and contingent construction of consciousness (it arises “in front of a closed window”, i.e. , inside) or is given by the entry of objective transcendent and necessary reality from the outside into the realm of personal ex- perience (originates “behind an open window”, i.e. , out- side), this question is the subject of the epistemological controversy of constructivism vs. essentialism, which re- flects the theme at the level of paradigms (outside the metaphors of the window) and develops still current ar- guments for both competing positions. We do not elab- orate on this controversy at this point; we are inclined to the dialogical, i.e. , “relational paradigm”. “ A relational paradigm is beyond the alternative of a naive realism and positivism on the one hand or a radical constructivism or deconstructivism on the other hand. ” (Krech 2019, 2). [4] The form “ mysterium tremendum et fascinans ” is better known, but Rudolf Otto uses the form “ fascinosum ” rather than “ fascinans ” in his German manuscript (Otto 1920), although in Latin the active participle “ fascinans ” better captures the intended attribute of the Sacred. [5] See Jung’s preface to the work of psychologist and theo - logian Victor White God and the Unconscious . On pages XX–XXI, he expresses his conviction that the psycholo - gist is strictly limited by the empirical field of research and, although he deals with spiritual phenomena, he must approach them as the contents of the human mind. If we considered his psychological claims to be metaphysical a priori , we would make a mistake. “ The atom of which the physicist speaks is no metaphysical hy- pothesis, it is a model. Similarly, my concept of the arche- type or of psychic energy is only an auxiliary idea, which can be exchanged at any time for a better formula. Seen from a philosophical standpoint, my empirical concepts would be logical monsters .” [6] In his later writings ( Archetypes and the Collective Un- consciousness , 1954; Mysterium coniunctionis , 1956), C. G. Jung, however, explains the possibility of unifying opposites: empirical consciousness and supra-empirical contents, which are reflected in the human mind as symbols – archetypes of supra-individual being. At the same time, these are not Immanuel Kant’s a priori “pure” concepts, but “impure” (content-soaked) images that are a testimony of being, not being itself. Acknowledgment The study originated as a partial outcome of the project VEGA 1/0056/19.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=