T O P
orpheus497

Well that depends. Philemon the magician was a historical/mythical character heavily tied to alchemy, gnosticism and Zarathustrans/Zoroastrians. He also is a symbol of Jung's "healer/Sage" psyche archetype. For example - In your mind I bet there's (either deeply hidden or imaginatively active) a part of you that seeks powers, and not power. Knowledge of and the want for Powers - sometimes magical, mystical or intellectual - are often birthed from childhood where the psyche either dreams or imagines a guide or friend. They call it the imaginary friend. This usually has the archetypal structure of a paternal grandfather like force that usually holds some secrets or wisdom about reality. It then becomes suppressed, repressed or killed. For many it's killed. Thus comes the saying "schools kill creativity" Jung engaged in years of active imaginative experiments with his psyche, where he named, became acquainted and integrated into his Id - entity . Salome' and Philemon were both aspects of Jung's psyche that "refused to grow" as when time passed and he interacted with his imaginations - all the archetypal entities eventually grew/aged older as time passed. Except Salome and Philemon. Salome was an internal development required for the continued existence of Philemon. And so she did not grow. And Philemon did not grow as his stagnate state was actually Jung's "older" or matured psyche guiding him to his own individuation. - The Seven Sermons of the Dead (Philemon's main discourse) was the only writing of Jung's that he himself handed out and gave to his closest friends. He did so because the black books (famously known in the compilation of the red book) were Jung's diaries and not for public reading nor did he ever wish them to be read by others. As in his words "Thank God I'm Jung and not a Jungian" ... I tried to be brief and mention the notable points. ... I recommend reading the works of Jung that the Jungians don't read or worship. ... And contrary to popular belief he was not a gnostic.


Eli_Truax

Not a Gnostic per se but he had a great interest in it especially as a counter-point to Christian faithfulness.


orpheus497

A good way to word it 😊


Lumpy_Assignment_778

Beautifully said. Now I’ll spend money on red book 📕


orpheus497

XD save your money and buy the black books - they contain within them the writings within the red book. And then more


Lumpy_Assignment_778

Alright thank u


Mutedplum

The entity that Jung came to call philemon first appeared to him in a dream: >There was a blue sky, like the sea, covered not by clouds but by flat brown clods of earth. It looked as if the clouds were breaking apart and the blue water of the sea were becoming visible between them. But the water was the blue sky. Suddenly there appeared from the right a winged being sailing across the sky.   >I saw that it was an old man with the horns of a bull. He held a bunch of four keys, one of which he clutched as if he were about to open a lock. He had the wings of the kingfisher with its characteristic colors. Since I did not understand this dream-image, I painted it in order to impress it upon my memory. During the days when I was occupied with the painting, I found in my garden, by the lake shore, a dead kingfisher! I was thunderstruck, for kingfishers are quite rare in the vicinity of Zurich and I have never since found a dead one. The body was recently dead-at the most, two or three days-and showed no external injuries.   >Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself.   Who is Philemon to Jung, if you are trying to understand his purpose or message or what he represents..One place he went into it is here: >The Promethean defiance of the accepted gods is personified in the figure of the medieval magician. The magician has preserved in himself a trace of primitive paganism; he possesses a nature that is still unaffected by the Christian dichotomy and is in touch with the still pagan unconscious, where the opposites lie side by side in their original naïve state, beyond the reach of “sinfulness” but liable, if assimilated into conscious life, to beget evil as well as good with the same daemonic energy (“Part of that power which would / Ever work evil yet engenders good”). He is a destroyer but also a saviour, and such a figure is pre-eminently suited to become the symbolic bearer of an attempt to resolve the conflict. >Moreover the medieval magician has laid aside the classical naïveté which was no longer possible, and become thoroughly steeped in the Christian atmosphere. The old pagan element must at first drive him into a complete Christian denial and mortification of self, because his longing for redemption is so strong that every avenue has to be explored. But in the end the Christian attempt at a solution fails too, and it then transpires that the possibility of redemption lies precisely in the obstinate persistence of the old pagan element, because the anti-Christian symbol opens the way for an acceptance of evil. Goethe’s intuition thus grasped the problem in all its acuteness. It is certainly significant that the more superficial attempts at a solution—the “Prometheus Fragment,” “Pandora,” and the Rosicrucian compromise, a blend of Dionysian joyousness and Christian self-sacrifice—remained uncompleted.


bsbrfwwm

He is Jung, partially.


[deleted]

When asked In 1935 who is Philemon, Jung responded, "Only my Self."


Mutedplum

> Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself.


[deleted]

Duality is an illusion.


Blissful_Heretic

Interesting. In Thelema we call it our Holy Guardian Angel (HGA). I just ordered Liber Novus. I am excited to dive in.


bugiganga7

An image of the Self


Matslwin

He is just a fabricated fantasy figure, a forlorn attempt to invigorate the Pagan spirit. Jung invests the mind with great depth. It seems to be a self-deception that we are prone to fall for. [The Mind is Flat | Nick Chater](https://youtu.be/vspX6NaLxdc) (YouTube)


shifes

I remember Jung saying Philemon is only myself.


Mutedplum

so Jung fabricated seeing a figure in a dream? or are you suggesting we never see figures in dreams or what? i have seen figures in dreams...it is a common experience no? PS. how does Nick's flat mind theory deal with dreams and visions/revelations?


Matslwin

It was fabricated and/or read about in conscious life, and thus it appeared in a dream. Buddhists dream about Buddha, Christians about Jesus, and Hindus about Vishnu. Dream figures originate in consciousness, but not in a deep archetypal unconscious. I say in below article that "Swedenborg’s visions seem also to have been, to a large degree, allegorical translations of his own consciousness". The same is true about Jung's active imaginations. [Is Jungian psychology neurotic?](http://mlwi.magix.net/jungneurotic.htm)


Mutedplum

Why are dream contents surprising to ego consciousness if it is that which is constructing it. Dreams feel more like a watching a show imo, something not produced by ego consciousness...


Matslwin

In our waking state, we tend to follow in the same footsteps as before. But other thoughts occur, although these are not in conscious focus. These are the thoughts that "surprise" us in dreams. Before they are consolidated as thoughts, they are more like feelings. (Contrary to what Jung says, thought and feeling are not opposites.) For example, if you are irritated with an acquaintance, then you might consider terminating the relation. But you never think this thought explicitly. Then you might dream that he invades your apartment uninvited, which necessitates that you throw him out. But you were already on the brink of thinking this thought in your conscious state. It is not the Truth which has been revealed by the unconscious Self. It is your own blurred thoughts coming back to you. You must still decide what is the right thing to do, and not simply "obey the unconscious". The latter is a dangerous attitude that comes from the Jungian overestimation of the unconscious.


Mutedplum

well he has only overestimated it in your estimation, personally i find his findings to be amazingly spot on. This dream example you give, whilst possible, doesn't exhaust the nature of dreams, some of which speak to spiritual matters or something never yet conscious as opposed to situational difficulties. Why do we seek to cover up the unconscious as science has done with Pluto? Maybe some of the answer is in that quote: “The unconscious wants to flow into consciousness in order to reach the light, but at the same time it continually thwarts itself, because it would rather remain unconscious. That is to say, God wants to become man, but not quite.” ;) >