This book discusses the structure of Yijing in relation to ideas developed in the West and presents the Jeongyeok to overcome any hierarchical system implied by the Yijing. Both the Yijing and the Jeongyeok are also examined as textual sources for kindling a discussion about divine impersonality and personality for the meeting of East and West.
These essays examine the significance of balance between the opposites in order to understand God and the world. The author argues that opposites-the subject and object, mind and nature, good and evil, truth and falsehood-are not separated from each other but interdependent in the relational paradigm. Each cannot exist without the other. Creative advancement is achieved by their dynamic tensions. The paradoxical relationship between the opposites is not posited in the mechanistic model in which opposites are recognized as separate entities and thereby antagonists; rather, they are dialectical and creative in the organic model. Based on this organic model, the relationship between God and the world is not hierarchical but interdependent. In the organic model, God is not described simply as a transcendent reality in a dualistic structure of God and the world. God reveals God-self in harmonious order and pattern as the ultimate principle formed in the world. In other words, God reveals God-self in the relative contexts of the opposites good and evil, true and false. Unlike Aristotle's Law of Contrast, God is both A (transcendent) and -A (immanent), which is the basic logic of the organic model. In this context, God is different from eternal reality such as Plato's Idea or the transcendent God developed in the Western tradition. In this text, the author explores how the complex of divine reality entails the dialogue of differences in a constructive way, using inter-religious dialogue and religion-nature dialogue as examples. The author also brings the theme of paradox into his discussion to connect the West with the East and explore how it can be a positive method of understanding God and the world in the organic model, which can in turn be a key to the understanding of the common good.
Jung’s understanding of Yijing for supporting the synchronistic principle reveals the key issues of his archetypal theory. Jung’s archetypal theory, which is the basic motif of his understanding of Yijing, illuminates the religious significance of Yijing. Jung defines the human experience of the divine as an archetypal process by way of which the unconscious conveys the human religious experience. In this way, the divine and the unconscious mind are inseparable from each other. For the human experience of the divine, Jung’s archetypal theory developed in a theistic tradition is encountered with the religious character of the non-theistic tradition of Yijing. From Jung’s partial adaptation of Yijing, however, we notice the differences between Jung’s archetypal psychology and the Yijing cosmological view. This difference represents the difference between the Western and the East Asian tradition. This aspect is well shown in the fact that Jung’s theoretical assumption for the definition of archetype is deeply associated with Plato’s Idea and the Kantian a priori category. Accordingly, Jung brings their timeless-spaceless realm of archetype into the synchronistic phenomenon of the psyche and identifies the Yijing text with the readable archetype. Yet, the synchronistic moment that Jung presents is the phenomenon always involved in subjective experience and intuition, which are developed in the duration of time. The synchronistic phenomenon is not transcendent or the objective flowing of time-in-itself regardless of our subjective experience.
Jung’s understanding of Yijing for supporting the synchronistic principle reveals the key issues of his archetypal theory. Jung’s archetypal theory, which is the basic motif of his understanding of Yijing, illuminates the religious significance of Yijing. Jung defines the human experience of the divine as an archetypal process by way of which the unconscious conveys the human religious experience. In this way, the divine and the unconscious mind are inseparable from each other. For the human experience of the divine, Jung’s archetypal theory developed in a theistic tradition is encountered with the religious character of the non-theistic tradition of Yijing. From Jung’s partial adaptation of Yijing, however, we notice the differences between Jung’s archetypal psychology and the Yijing cosmological view. This difference represents the difference between the Western and the East Asian tradition. This aspect is well shown in the fact that Jung’s theoretical assumption for the definition of archetype is deeply associated with Plato’s Idea and the Kantian a priori category. Accordingly, Jung brings their timeless-spaceless realm of archetype into the synchronistic phenomenon of the psyche and identifies the Yijing text with the readable archetype. Yet, the synchronistic moment that Jung presents is the phenomenon always involved in subjective experience and intuition, which are developed in the duration of time. The synchronistic phenomenon is not transcendent or the objective flowing of time-in-itself regardless of our subjective experience.
This book discusses the structure of Yijing in relation to ideas developed in the West and presents the Jeongyeok to overcome any hierarchical system implied by the Yijing. Both the Yijing and the Jeongyeok are also examined as textual sources for kindling a discussion about divine impersonality and personality for the meeting of East and West.
These essays examine the significance of balance between the opposites in order to understand God and the world. The author argues that opposites-the subject and object, mind and nature, good and evil, truth and falsehood-are not separated from each other but interdependent in the relational paradigm. Each cannot exist without the other. Creative advancement is achieved by their dynamic tensions. The paradoxical relationship between the opposites is not posited in the mechanistic model in which opposites are recognized as separate entities and thereby antagonists; rather, they are dialectical and creative in the organic model. Based on this organic model, the relationship between God and the world is not hierarchical but interdependent. In the organic model, God is not described simply as a transcendent reality in a dualistic structure of God and the world. God reveals God-self in harmonious order and pattern as the ultimate principle formed in the world. In other words, God reveals God-self in the relative contexts of the opposites good and evil, true and false. Unlike Aristotle's Law of Contrast, God is both A (transcendent) and -A (immanent), which is the basic logic of the organic model. In this context, God is different from eternal reality such as Plato's Idea or the transcendent God developed in the Western tradition. In this text, the author explores how the complex of divine reality entails the dialogue of differences in a constructive way, using inter-religious dialogue and religion-nature dialogue as examples. The author also brings the theme of paradox into his discussion to connect the West with the East and explore how it can be a positive method of understanding God and the world in the organic model, which can in turn be a key to the understanding of the common good.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.