칼융의 나는신을안다. 의 의미

https://youtu.be/NhboEBUEHxk

"Sir, - So many letters I have received have emphasized my statement about 'knowing' (of God) [in ‘Face to Face’, THE LISTENER, October 29]. My opinion about ‘knowledge of God’ is an unconventional way of thinking, and I quite understand if it should be suggested that I am no Christian. Yet I think of myself as a Christian since I am entirely based upon Christian concepts. I only try to escape their internal contradictions by introducing a more modest attitude, which takes into consideration the immense darkness of the human mind. The Christian idea proves its vitality by a continuous evolution, just like Buddhism. Our time certainly demands some new thought in this respect, as we cannot continue to think in an antique or medieval way, when we enter the sphere of religious experience. I did not say in the broadcast, ‘There is a God’, I said ‘I do not need to believe in God; I know’. Which does not mean: I do know a certain God (Zeus, Jahwe, Allah, the Trinitarian God, etc.) but rather: I do know that I am obviously confronted with a factor unknown in itself, which I call 'God' in consensu omnium (‘quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur’). I remember Him, I evoke Him, whenever I use His name overcome by anger or by fear, whenever I involuntarily say: ‘Oh God’. That happens when I meet somebody or something stronger than myself. It is an apt name given to all overpowering emotions in my own psychical system subduing my conscious will and usurping control over myself. This is the name by which I designate all things which cross my willful path violently and recklessly, all things which upset my subjective views, plans, and intentions and change the course of my life for better or worse. In accordance with tradition I call the power of fate in this positive as well as negative aspect, and inasmuch as its origin is beyond my control, 'god', a 'personal god', since my fate means very much myself, particularly when it approaches me in the form of conscience as a vox Dei, with which I can even converse and argue. (We do and, at the same time, we know that we do. One is subject as well as object.) Yet I should consider it an intellectual immorality to indulge in the belief that my view of a god is the universal, metaphysical Being of the confessions or 'philosophies'. I do neither commit the impertinence of a hypostasis, nor of an arrogant qualification such as: 'God can only be good'. Only my experience can be good or evil, but I know that the superior will is based upon a foundation which transcends human imagination. Since I know of my collision with a superior will in my own psychical system, I know of God, and if I should venture the illegitimate hypostasis of my image, I would say, of a God beyond good and evil, just as much dwelling in myself as everywhere else: Deus est circulus cuius centrum est ubique, cuis circumferentia vero nusquam"

 

썰, 너무 많은 편지들을 내가 받아왔는데 그것들은 내가 한 말에 집중되어왔다, (신에 대한) 알고 있음. 페이스 투 페이스 인터뷰 에서. 내가, 거기서 '신에 대한 앎' 에 대해 말한건, 통상적이고 일반적이지 않은 사고 방식 의 말이었다. (당신들이 일반적으로 알고있는 방식의 신을안다 라는 말이 아니다 내가 했던 말은) 그리고 나는 확실히 제대로 알고 있다, 이런 답이 필요하다면, 나는 크리스찬 이 아니라는걸. 

그러나 나는 나자신을 크리스찬의 한사람 으로 생각한다. (크리스찬 은 아닌데 크리스찬 같은 사람이다)
왜냐하면, 나는 완벽하게, 크리스찬 관념들 위에서 바닥을 두고 있기 때문이다. 

나는 단지 애쓰고 있다 탈출하려고, 그러한 크리스찬 관념들의 내적인 충돌을, 보다 적당한 방식 경향을 도입하면서, 그런 방식은 고려한다 인간 마인드의 굉장한 어두움을. 

크리스찬 사유는 그것의 생존력 을 증명한다, 계속적인 진화 전개 펼침 으로, 부디즘 도 마찬가지이고. 

우리의 시대는 확실히 어떤 새로운 생각을 요구한다 이런 면에서, 왜냐면 우리는 고대 또는 중세의 방식으로 계속 생각할 수 없으니까, 우리가 종교적인 경험의 분야로 들어가면. 

나는 그 방송에서 이런 말을 하지 않았어. 어떤 신이 있다. 라고. 나는 이리 말했어. 나는 신을 믿을 필요가 있지 않다; 나는 알아. 라고 

그건 내가 어떤 신. 제우스 야훼 알라 삼위일체신 등 을 안다는 게 아니라 

나는 알아, 나는 분명하게 마주하고 있다는 걸, 그 자체로 알려지는 않은 한 부분에. 나는 그걸 갓 이라고 불러. 모든 것을 함께 묶어서. 콰드 셈페르 콰드 우비쿠에 콰드 압 옴니부스 크레디투르. 언제든 어디서든 믿어지는 모든 어떤 것으로 부터든. (모~든 그자체로 모르는 것을 나는 신 이라고 불러)

나는 그를 기억해, 나는 그에게 호소를 해. 내가 그의 이름을 사용할 때마다, 그때는 압도된 상태야 내가, 화 에 공포에, 내가 나도 모르게 말할 때마다, 오 갓, (할때마다 나는 신 을 기억하고 호소를 해 나도 모르게)

그런건 언제 일어나냐면, 내가 누군가를 만나거나 나자신보다 강한 무언가를 접할때야, 그것은 적당한 이름 이거든 모든 압도하는 감정들에게 주어지는, 내 자신의 싸이키 한 시스템 안의 감정들인데 이건 나의 의식적인 의지를 바닥에서 통제하면서 나자신을 뒤집어 엎기도 해. 이것이 그 이름이야, 그 이름으로 나는 모든 것을 다 드러내(뽀록나), 나의 의지에 찬 길을 (당당히) 폭력적으로, 뻔뻔하게 지나 건너가면서, 모든 것들을 드러내 나라는 개인의 나름의 관점들, 계획들, 그리고 의도들을 완전히 뒤집어 엎는 모든 것들이야, 그리고 나의 삶의 과정을 더 좋게든 나쁘게든 변화시켜. 

전통적인 것과 같은 식으로 보면, 나는 운명의 그 힘을 불러, 그 힘은 부정적인 면들 만큼 똑같이 이런 긍정적인 방식으로 그리고 그것의 기원 과 똑같은 정도로, 그건 나의 통제영역 밖인데, 이걸, 갓, 인격화된 갓, 이라고 불러, 왜냐면 나의 운명은 아주 많이 나 자신을 의미하니까, 특히나 그것이 나에게 닥아올때, 복스 데이, 신의 소리 의 하나로 양심의 형태로 다가올때, 그 소리와 함께 나는 말도 할수 있는거고 주장도 할수 있는건데. (우리는 해, 그리고, 동시에, 우리는 알아 우리가 하는 것을.(나 라는) 하나 는 서브젝트 이자 오브젝트 야). 

그러나, 나는 고려해야 해, 그것은 지식인의 부도덕질 이란걸, 내가 보는 신의 관점 이 유니버설 하고, 슈퍼내추럴한, 인정들 또는 필로소피들 의 존재. 라는 믿음 에 중독되듯 빠지는건.

나는 어떤 휘포스타시스, 서있는 것의 바닥, 즉 실재 에 대해 무시하자 관심끄자 라고 하는게 아냐, 또는 어떤 오만한 성질, 머 신은 오직 선 일 뿐이다, 같은 것을 폄하하려는 게 아냐. 

단지 나의 경험은 선 일수도 악 일수도 있어, 그러나 나는 알아, 우월한 것은 바닥에 인간의 상상을 넘어서는 어떤 근본이 있어. 나는 알아 내가 내 자신의 심리적 시스템안에 있는 어떤 우월한 의지와 충돌한다는 걸, 그래서, 나는 신에 대해 알아, 그리고, 그 바닥 실재 라는 부당하게 차지한 듯한, 나의 이미지 인데 그게, 그걸 탐험하려면, 굳이 말한다면, 그 이미지 란게, 선과 악을 넘어선 신 이고 그것의 실재 인데, 그 신 이라는 실재 는 나 외의 모든 곳에 있고, 그만큼 또한 내 안에 살고 있어: 데우스 에스트 키르쿨루스 쿠이우스 켄투룸 에스트 우비쿠에, 쿠이스 키르쿰페렌티아 베로 누스쾀

Crocus (English plural: crocuses or croci) is a genus of flowering plants in the iris family comprising 90 species of perennials growing from corms. Many are cultivated for their flowers appearing in autumn, winter, or spring.

크로커스. 아이리스 붓꽃 패밀리의 속 인데 여기 꽂들이 이쁨. 샤프란 도 여기 종 이고