This is quite a good book if you are looking for an introduction into traditional Gnostic belief as well as a well thought out, in-depth analysis of Carl Jung’s more modern form of Gnosticism. It starts by asking the question if Jung can even be said to be a ‘real’ Gnostic and this is explored throughout the rest of the book. The author also gives a valiant attempt at describing what (Jungian) Gnosticism is, although, in my opinion, like most other attempts made at adumbrating the tenets of (Jungian) Gnosticism and the collective unconscious, it ultimately comes across overly nebulous, perhaps even lackadaisical. Nonetheless, for people new to Gnostic spirituality, the attempt made to disinter spiritual truths - by way of a psychological, mythological and transformative alchemical exegesis of the ‘Seven Sermons to the Dead’, written by Jung to give us insight into the human psyche - and illuminate the perennial philosophy is laudable, and correctly identifies that for the Gnostics “it is the fullness of being that matters”.
Jung’s psychic exploration concentrated on an early form of heuristic phenomenology - what Jung called ‘analytic psychology’ - rather than rationalism and reductionism. However, with respect to this, I believe the book lets itself down in a couple of ways - firstly, by consistently reaffirming that Jung’s use of an empirical methodology is a valid scientific approach and, secondly, by not challenging the reductionism of Jung enough. For someone supposedly suspicious of the reductionist nature of the scientific method it is quite evident that he was reductionist in his own theories concerning the unconscious, even if he did try and obscure this under the guise of ‘psychological application’. On this point, I don’t believe the author convincingly argues against the criticism levelled at Jung that he falls foul of psychologism.
Whilst on the topic of disagreements I have with the author, he states that the Semitic origins of Christianity have resulted in a legacy of European Christendom being organised around more collectively focused societies - as opposed to the emphasis being on the individual, as in Hinduism and the Oriental belief systems - but that this changed after the Enlightenment and French Revolution, with the growth of secularism, humanism and individuality - all at the expense of Christianity. However, in my opinion, it is a mistake to think the Enlightenment was necessarily anti-Christian; it was preceded by the Glorious Revolution which, in turn, had its roots in the Reformation. England was in the process of freeing itself from the officious rule of the Papacy and imperious Catholic diktats, through the Reformation, when Elizabeth became Queen and under her reign England became the richest European country, as well as a global power. I believe it was this Protestant backlash - which resulted in the adoption of new civil and constitutional rights - alongside one of the most remarkable increases in prosperity that led to a focus on individualism and humanism - at least where England is concerned.
In fact, despite a fairly consistent vituperative rebuttal of the dominant societal Christian dogma, on the penultimate page, the author - ironically - unconsciously alludes to the fact that Jung’s Gnosticism - that of ‘the relationship of the human psyche and the starlike God-image that overshadows it’ - could be said to have echoes of the Catholic idea of grace and salvation (a return to wholeness or the, Gnostic, Self) happening through charity and good works (fides caritate formata).
Sadly, there are lots of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes which often made long, already complex, sentences even more difficult to understand. However, the notes, although brief, are excellent companions to the source text as well as proficient illustrations of Jung’s fierce intellect and perspicaciousness. This is no better shown than when commenting on the need for man to seek individuation (or self-actualisation) so that he might better understand his own moral code, it references his book ‘Psychological Types’, in which Jung opined that ‘(beneath the) thin veneer of culture the wild beast lurks’.
To borrow a quotation from Plato, whilst Jung’s penetrating insight into the human condition and ability “to see beyond the shadows and lies of [his] culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses”, I believe there are a great many things we can learn from Jung’s contemporary Gnosticism, in particular around complementary dualism and the equipoise between psychic polarities, what in Gnosticism are called ‘syzygies’. In his work, Jung hinted at the fact the Aristotelian logic and Semitic morality that underpins Western culture has resulted in a fundamentally flawed one-sidedness; good and evil, right and wrong, are not opposites on a line but points on a (culturally defined) circle. During his exposition of the First Sermon, the author beautifully elucidates this point by saying that the ‘excessive conscious pursuits of rational values bring unprecedented outbursts of irrationality; rigid insistence on consciously accepted ethical maxim occasions the rise of crime and violence’.
It was these types of exegeses that I found most interesting, i.e. when he abandoned the macrocosm (the transcendent, cosmic application) and concentrated on psychoanalysis of the microcosm (the appellation of the dualistic metaphysical processes occurring within the human psyche). Nevertheless, the Seventh Sermon, which is dedicated entirely to the human psyche, tends away from interesting theoretical psychoanalytical ideas towards either disgorged unsubstantiated babble or a more banal spirituality.
At the beginning I said this was a good book for relative newcomers to Gnostic belief, but I am not certain there is much value in reading it if you are already familiar with either Gnosticism or Taoism. Though the author acknowledges Jung’s fondness for Taoism, the correlation and similarities between the two point towards a much greater influence. As such, while it may still be an interesting and enjoyable read, I think if you have a good understanding of either you might not learn very much more.