From the author: The article is a logical continuation of the previous one (Christian psychology. Myth for some, reality for others.) and consists of three interconnected parts. This time I tried to comprehend mainly how religion, faith and real life can be interconnected in theory and in practice. Please forgive me for the somewhat ironic form of the story. I hope some particularly intrepid readers will pay attention to the content of the work. The figure-and-ground principle has not been canceled.1.K.G. Jung repeatedly showed with clinical material that the unconscious is not constrained by religious dogma. The work of the unconscious, as a natural, natural-biological part of the mental apparatus, is wider than any framework, especially confessional ones. Let me remind you that for Freud, dreams are internally processed products of the events of the past day; a reflection of what is desired, which cannot be achieved in reality, and, in general, meaningless plots, by analyzing which one can identify the presence of a complex and approach the causes of neurosis. With this interpretation, it is quite clear why the unconscious “among the people” is something that does not exist (despite Freud’s empirical proof of its presence, who drew attention to the psychopathology of everyday life, or, more simply, the often unconscious motivation of actions), and for more progressive people - a dumping ground for everything that was the content of consciousness and “flew out of my head.” For Jung, as far as his work is revealed to my understanding (and he practiced for at least 60 years), dreams are invaluable material, the content of which must be analyzed as it is, with all attention to detail and the overall picture of what was seen in the context of the patient’s life path. In many of his articles, he directly writes that dreams show what they show, and at the same time, they often mean much more than the Freudian “inversion” hinting at suppressed or repressed sexual impulses. Having experimentally discovered archetypal images, collective representations of Jung introduced the concept of the collective unconscious. We read: “Whereas the personal unconscious essentially consists of contents that were at one time conscious, but nevertheless disappeared from consciousness - because they were forgotten or repressed - the contents of the collective unconscious were never in consciousness and never , thus, were not acquired individually, but owe their existence solely to inheritance." By and large, he was ahead of his time, psychologically substantiating what everyone now hears as genetic memory. We can say that he explored its psychological aspects within the framework of analytical psychology, which is progressively different from classical psychoanalysis - even with associations, Jung worked differently than Freud. Now about the main thing. For Jung, an archetype is a “protoform,” a certain predetermined image that appears in the psyche of people, regardless of their knowledge of culture, science and life in general. An archetype, therefore, is not something clearly fixed once and for all, cemented into one single form, but a certain vessel that is filled with phylogenetic content, manifests itself in dreams - normally, or, for example, with productive symptoms (hallucinations) in schizophrenics. Let us add - In order to conditionally identify a more or less stable form of an archaic idea present in the mental life of an individual, Jung needed to analyze and classify at least two hundred dreams (and he analyzed many thousands of them). In addition, of course, it was necessary to carefully study the mythological symbolism, as well as scrupulously separate the wheat from the chaff. Thus, if the researcher had reason to believe that the patient might know about the archetype from somewhere, then such a case was not taken into account. Finally, Jungian analysis is a very long-term activity, however, the basis of its methodology is the synthesis of the natural scientific approach (andtoday characteristic of clinical psychology), and phenomenological - that is, description and analysis of the subject’s direct experience of any fact that has become part of his individual experience. The phenomenological approach, according to Jung, is designed to identify the individual psyche - that which is inaccessible to the observation of an outsider. The objective becomes such if the subjective becomes the actual property of more than two people or a group of people - collective. The scientist honestly notes that before him, some comrades wrote about unconscious attitudes of the type that would later be called archetypal. Among them: Plato, Adolf Bastian, Hubert and Mauss (from the Durkheim school), and Hermann Usener. “If I have a part in these discoveries, it is proof that archetypes are by no means spread only through tradition, language and migration, but they are capable of spontaneously arising - again and again, at all times and everywhere, and precisely in in a form that is not subject to outside influences." - Writes a Swiss psychiatrist, psychologist, cultural scientist. 2. Interested persons can read Jung up to the point where he writes about the image of God, a collective idea, which is different in content every time and is always not equal to the model of Jesus Christ given by the Church, or, for example, Purusha. In other words, in psychology one can study only the image of God imprinted in the psyche. It is an idea which from time to time becomes a fact of consciousness. But its presence, as Jung rightly believes, is not proof of the existence of God. Let philosophers do this, he says, and psychologists, first of all, are empiricists, and it is clear that humanity does not have enough intelligence to prove or disprove the existence of God. All that people have, in one form or another, are various religious movements, with varying degrees of authoritarianism. Further. For a priest, the soul exists as such. If he is dealing with a believer, she only needs to be directed in line with the belief system (but not beyond its boundaries, otherwise ay-yay-yay, this is already heresy). Doesn't it remind you of anything? Sometimes it gets funny. Jung ironically cites the case of the supposed educational successes of Christianity in Africa, which resulted in the ban on polygamy. The end result was that this prohibition prompted an explosion of prostitution, in order to eliminate which tons of money were allocated. Modern Christianity has lost its former authority, and is trying to regain it by hook or by crook. Illustrating such remarks with examples from his private practice, he writes that Christianity should get rid of its own barbarians before educating others. Moreover, in a real analytical situation, his patients often regressed to the stage of mythological thinking, saturated with pagan images, those that were unknown to Christianity. Don’t get me wrong. Jung had nothing against world religions (sometimes Catholics and Protestants came to see him) - only against fanaticism, including religious fanaticism. And also, those stereotypes and views according to which the psyche = consciousness. This is understandable, because Jung substantiated the increasingly popular view in modern psychological science on mental dynamics as a continuum of the conscious and unconscious in a person. And then there are the clergy and all sorts of stubborn materialist opponents accusing them of mysticism. Here we begin to touch on the topic of faith as a type of attitudinal, intuitive attitude towards the objects of reality. It does not matter significantly which specific image of God is a symbol of the self, in the case when faith is discovered by the individual in himself, and not simply mechanically perceived, imposed from the outside in a model, behind which there is nothing but a wrapper. God, if he must be found by a person, must be found subjectively. Only then, perhaps, does faith have a positive, developmental character for a person. The consciousness of modern European man is undergoing a split: either I believe or I do science. And if Indians in general are people of the Eastare naturally disposed towards the spiritual aspects of existence, then Europeans, on the contrary, are increasingly controlling the consciousness and nature around them and moving away from their spiritual core. Christianity, in an attempt to self-affirmation, points a person to himself as the only true path to spirituality. However, taking into account the dogmas, Christ becomes for the believer in this case either a punisher or an unattainable ideal that blocks opportunities for self-realization. Following rituals turns into self-deception, covered by the desire to “be like everyone else,” and faith as something living and ideological becomes an ossified surrogate for experiencing direct religious experience. But the success of psychology as a science and the popularity of psychoanalysis in society (especially at that time) is primarily due to because Freud and others like him showed the way to what was previously hidden. The degree of awareness has increased, along with everything else, a person has become more interested in his life and inner world than usual - and this despite all the blackness and scandalousness of classical psychoanalysis. Probably, it was in the first half (closer to the middle) of the last century that the idea of ​​human spiritual freedom finally crystallized, having perceived which the person was finally convinced that if he sinned, he would not be killed by lightning or fall into the abyss of hell. More seriously, people stopped relying on the meanings previously traditionally conveyed to them from the outside, and began to feel them within themselves, transforming them into concrete manifestations of life experience, their own choices, actions and their consequences. In other words, religious dogmas required experimental verification. From the side not so much of “evil psychologists”, but of matured believers - not scientists, but ordinary people. And priests have nothing to be offended in cases where this test was not passed by self-satisfied Christianity. The Second World War showed that traditional stability is fragile, and if someone trusts in God and does it from the heart, there is nothing wrong with that, but it would be better rely on yourself. And since THIS is left behind, will there be more? I remember a line from Paradise Lost's song Terminal: "I can hope, as silence and torture grows (I dare to hope while silence and violence grow)" Here, if you caricature it, is the ground for the existential revolution of the "lost generation." It is not surprising that on such compost the logotherapy of Viktor Frankl, amazing in its beauty and wisdom, has matured. Returning to our sheep, I would like to note one more thing. In my previous article, I already drew the reader’s attention to the so-called. Christian psychologists, turning a person to higher (in their opinion, values, such as Christ), alienate him from the interests of his own Self. “We-psychology” (Christian) is contrasted with “I-psychology” (supposedly academic psychology). It is obvious, even formally and methodologically, that one is separated from the other. Disunion instead of synthesis. 3. Earlier I already cited the example of my lesbian friend, who dared to “come out of the closet” and reveal her sexuality to a priest, who is also an Orthodox psychologist (stylish, fashionable, youthful). He ended up scolding her for quite a long time for her immoral sexual behavior and otherness. I would like to see how this minister would behave if he had a child with a similar orientation. By the way, even on VKontakte and on FaceBook, on the occasion of the recent day of family, love and fidelity, Irina Alferova’s words about gays were circulating: So, according to Alferova, “A believer cannot relate to this normally.” What can we say about the rest, so to speak, mere mortals? Not long ago I was told that Christian psychology does not imply pressure on the client (in terms of imposing views and religious preferences), but in reality, it turns out to be. Let me explain now. There is an interesting trend: those who say that “Christian psychology” is not a science and discredits itself are recorded as so-called. Orthodox psychologists into pragmatic rationalists. Meanwhile, even morehalf a century ago, Jung noted that some had already tried to form “Christian Science,” and the split of the Church into Catholics and Protestants gave rise to such a number of interpretations of the Holy Scriptures that one is amazed. He was able to count about 400 branches within Protestantism. And don’t say now that all Protestants are bad guys who wanted independence for pragmatic reasons. In general, gentlemen “Orthodox psychologists,” the sooner you recognize that people who voluntarily depart from the main religious movements have the right to their own spiritual search, the better for you and your clients. By the way, I remember interesting cases from life. 1) The following case received wide publicity among professional psychologists not long ago: in a correctional institution for people with intellectual disabilities, special rooms for masturbation were opened, in which children, under the supervision of specialists, received the necessary physiological release, as a result of which their deviant behavior was reduced to a minimum in short time. The prevention program worked. Soon the priest came to visit and began to talk about the dangers of masturbation (just like some pediatricians in the USSR). It is not difficult to guess that a little later the good initiatives of the specialists were cut down in the bud; 2) A friend recently told an epic story about how St. Petersburg fanatical religious people did everything to crush Dmitry Dmitrievich Isaev (son of the late Dmitry Nikolaevich Isaev - Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Medical Sciences, founder of child clinical psychology, with whom I I had the good fortune to study). The pressure from Orthodox activists was organized in several directions: - Let’s pretend that he advocates the adoption of a law banning the propaganda of homosexuality (corrupts young people, such a bastard); that the adoption of such a law is a stupid political decision, not medically or scientifically justified; that journalists and officials do not understand what is normal and pathological, homosexuality. After which all the fuss arises, and opinions according to which homosexuality is transmitted almost by airborne droplets. - Let's call him an atheist, since he is engaged in an extremely indecent matter, namely, helping transgender people undergo the necessary examinations and commissions, trying to provide they receive comprehensive psychological assistance (and this is a long process, and often not cheap); “I am not familiar with the organizers of the campaign against me, but I know that they regularly engage in harassment. They choose victims against the backdrop of negative sentiment towards LGBT* people in society are trying to provoke law enforcement agencies to check violations of the law on the propaganda of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality among minors. Help for LGBT* allegedly contradicts the views, as they now like to say, traditionally. The organizers call themselves differently: patriots, Orthodox, homophobes. The name of a specific organizer is never known. It doesn’t sound like it, but they act in a coordinated manner: they collect various kinds of material, and then invite everyone who likes this idea to write complaints. They started a campaign against me in early June - and achieved what they wanted." - Dmitry Dmitrievich explained the reasons for his departure from the St. Petersburg Pediatric Academy. The full text of the interview with the specialist can be read here: http://www.the-village.ru/village/situation/ situation-comment/218131-dmitriy-isaev I’ll add on my own that Isaev Jr. read neurosology to us (students), and I am grateful to him for imparting knowledge on this topic, which is always relevant for psychologists. At the same time, regarding the second subparagraph, my friend received information. from one of the “non-traditional” patients who was observed by D.D. Isaev for a long time. A friend also saw Orthodox propaganda like, “God, we won’t let Isaev work in peace” (I’m exaggerating them, psychologists-sexologists, my friend!3). ) Once on You Tube I watched a video in which a certain Orthodox.