@Constance
@Soupie
http://www.cgjungpage.org/pdfdocuments/EndofMeaning.pdf
I've been thinking about Geigerich .. I think there is a connection to Bloom's
closing of the American Mind (I found a PDF the other day of the book, but can't find the link now)
... section two
Nihilism American Style - specifically the influence of German philosphy, of course this line continues to Geigerich's thought through Jung - reading the paper above, he jumps in head long:
"One of the most persuasive voices that during the last century raised the question of the “meaning of life” or, as we might also say, the question of “mythic,” “religious,” or “metaphysical”1 meaning, was that of C.G. Jung. His thoughts about this topic moved between two poles. On the one hand there is his relentless
diagnosis that “No, evidently we no longer have any myth.” “Our myth has become mute, and gives no answers.” Today “we stand empty-handed, bewildered, and perplexed [...]” “There are no longer any gods whom we could invoke [...]”Jung even went as far as to state that “it would be far better stoutly to avow our spiritual poverty, our symbol-lessness, instead of feigning a legacy to which we are not the legitimate heirs at all.” Jung was very much aware that modern man dwells with himself alone, “where, in the cold light of consciousness, the blank barrenness of the world reaches to the very stars.”
The other pole of his thinking about meaning comes to the fore when to the quoted diagnosis of his (“No, evidently we no longer have any myth”) he immediately reacts with the surprising question,
“But then what is your myth? The myth in which you do live?” Jung did not take “no” for an answer.
He was of the opinion that meaning is indispensable and that the loss of meaning in modern times is the ultimate reason for neurosis. Neurosis is due to the “senselessness and aimlessness” of the lives of those who suffer from it.“Everything is banal, everything is ‘nothing but’; and that is the reason why people are neurotic.”
“You see, man is in need of a symbolic life—badly in need.”
...
What is the delusion? The search for meaning seeks something that cannot be sought because any seeking for it destroys what is to be gained. Meaning is not an entity that could be had, not a creed, a doctrine, a world view, also not something like the fairytale treasure hard to attain. It is not semantic, not a content.
Meaning, where it indeed exists, is first of all an implicit fact of existence, its a priori. It can never be the answer to a question; it is conversely an unquestioned and unquestionable certainty that predates any possible questioning.
It is the groundedness of existence, a sense of embeddedness in life, of containment in the world—perhaps we could even say of in-ness as the logic of existence
as such. Meaning exists if the meaning of life is as self-evident as the in-ness in water is for fish.
Myth, religion, metaphysics—they were never
answers to an explicit and pressing question about the meaning of existence, such as when, e.g., William James in 1897 raised the question, “Is Life Worth Living?” No, they were merely the concrete
articulation or
formulation, in imaginal form, and, in the case of metaphysics, the
explication, in the mode of thought, of the form of the
factually existing in-ness in, or groundedness of, existence at each historical locus respectively. The tales of myth, the religious practices, doctrines or dogmas, the elaborate systems of metaphysics, spelled out in different modes the logic that factually governed a peoples lived life. They were the self-expression in consciousness of the meaning that was. This is why myths, rituals, and metaphysics simply told—and celebrated—the truth. That was their job. Just as fish could never seriously question the meaningfulness of being in water,
so from the age of myth through the end of the age of metaphysics, i.e., through the time of Hegel and Schelling, man could not possibly have in all earnest raised the question, “Is Life Worth Living?”
as a real, more than merely rhetorical, question.