Izheheruvim
13th October 2024, 10:53
Greetings, fellow members!
Meet "Ukraine and Beyond". It comes as plain text, .pdf, and three links, each to one of its three parts.
Have a good read!
Part 1. Ukraine: https://telegra.ph/UKRAINE-AND-BEYOND-Part-1-Ukraine-10-07
Part 2. Beyond: https://telegra.ph/UKRAINE-AND-BEYOND-Part-2-Beyond-10-07
Part 3. Still Beyond: https://telegra.ph/UKRAINE-AND-BEYOND-Part-3-Still-Beyond-10-08
Ukraine? Or Russia? Who is (more) culpable for the scrimmage between the neighbors, essentially two kindred peoples? Are there any 'outsiders' partaking in the culpability? Is there an ideological or civilizational clash resounding along? Is it purely about the human plane or there might be a bigger preternatural drama unfolding behind what meets the eye? A former Ukrainian national, currently Russian citizen, but, most importantly, a human being in quest for a higher truth, I am going to present my personal take on the standoff between my former and current motherlands. In all this, I will be equipped with common sense and reasoning skills, lots of evidence from those on the ground, tons of 'media chaff' sifted through for the grains of truth, some general knowledge, some more specific, including Jungian ideas, and a number of spiritual insights, personal and otherwise, pertaining to the events. And just for starters: I do understand the reasons behind Russia's “unmotivated invasion” into Ukraine in February 2022. If my reader is patient enough – those too impatient and entrenched can hardly be my target audience anyways – my perspective might unroll before his or her eyes as a meticulously woven and, perhaps, somewhat intricate tapestry. It is, of course, up to the reader then to decide whether to put it to any good use.
Part 1. Ukraine
For those who are staying with me, I shall begin with my brief autobiography to be then complemented with the 'exegesis' on what has been happening outside of my immediate surroundings yet close enough to be passing through my heart and feeding my thought, both geared towards the main topic of this piece.
I was born in the Soviet Union, more precisely in the Crimea that was to become the southernmost and somewhat autonomous 'annex' to the independent Ukraine seven years later (geographically, the Crimean peninsula was connected to the Ukrainian mainland through a narrow neck of land, hence 'annex'). I lived in the Crimea for some seventeen years before going for university to Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, and willy-nilly receive the degree I did. I didn't settle down in Kiev though. Instead, I came back to my hometown and stayed there for another three or four years before setting out for more distant lands this time: my next school awaited me in Canada, all thanks to my parents' money and their enamourment with the West, as well as to my adventurous spirit and some clear promptings that I got... never mind.
Fast-forwarding to 2013, while still in Canada I grew highly skeptical of the uprising and social unrest roiling in Ukraine, the so-called Euromaidan, and the coup that soon followed it. A new pro-West Ukrainian government, ultra-right nationalists having its back, emerged on the scene, its legitimacy far from enshrined with a larger societal agreement, not coming from the southeast of Ukraine at the least, my Crimea included.
In March 2014, I found myself peeking at the newspaper of another passenger on a subway train, its title reading “Gunpoint Referendum in the Crimea” or something along these lines. Worth a mention is my being blissed out for several days on end – to my own surprise – upon the 'annexation' of the Crimea, or its reunion as seen by the Crimeans and Russians. My 'Crimeanness' had turned out to be more integral to me than I could have expected or, perhaps, this very pure reaction had come from yet deeper parts of my being.
In 2015, I came back to the Crimea, now a part of Russia, and took Russian citizenship. Have been officially Russian ever since. (Rest)
...The 'exegesis' part. Needless to say, I kept a close eye on what was going on in Ukraine all along. By then the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation (the ATO) against the Donbass “insurgents” (the actual death toll was the highest for the civilians), essentially Eastern Ukrainians, had been launched by the new Ukrainian government. Other 'exploits' too were in full swing in the country, including people being imprisoned, tortured and burned alive (e.g. the Odessa massacre on May 2, 2014) just for their pro-Russia stances and sentiments. Rape and pillage of civilians in the zone of the ATO by paramilitary ultra-right Ukrainian formations was common and apparently winked at by the Ukrainian military leadership. A 'fun' fact: some Ukrainian militaries on the ground were so appalled with the doings of their ultra-right 'comrades-in-arms' that they would spill deployment positions of the latter to artillery crews on the other side of the barricade.
To be fair, not always the 'insurgents' showed their... noble side, so to say, some of them being outright criminals, psychos, or too aggravated and vengeful to be guided with their better self. Still in terms of magnitude of evilness, their misdoings would pale in comparison to those of the Ukrainian nationalists, if such a measurement can be undertaken. It can be safely asserted, all things considered, that 'Russian-friendly' or neutral Ukrainians were, and still are, well, just normal human beings with their rights and wrongs, ups and downs, virtues and vices, with hardly any of them driven with a zealotic, petty-minded ideology magnifying 'the normally distributed' hatred and indecency, as it were. In their normality, these people didn't wish to accept 'heroes' like Stepan Bandera who had orchestrated inhumane killings of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, now an icon of the new Ukraine. In their normality, they abhorred the slogan “Ukraine for Ukrainians” and the like seeing it as essentially backward and fascist, and now these slogans were on the lips of everyone and their sister in Kiev. In their normality, they didn't want a closer and legally binding association with the European Union with its ultra-liberal values from the one side and inevitable structural adjustments to Ukrainian industry from the other, Bulgaria and some other Eastern European countries, the most recent members of the EU, being far from shining examples of prosperity. In their normality, they were appalled at the idea that some day Ukraine might become a NATO member – nobody could have guaranteed the opposite – with its missiles deployed right at the borders of their historical and spiritual motherland. Weren't these the signs of sanity on their part? All that said, were there any moral, ideological or purely pragmatic reasons for those in the southeast of Ukraine to embrace the new Ukrainian authorities, which hadn't been chosen by them in the first place, except for the pleasure of traveling to the EU without a visa? For one thing, such a trade-off would have been much below their human dignity.
Be that as it might, the ATO with its ebbs and flows had been never called off by the Ukrainian government, not in practical terms at the least, right until February 2022 when it simply gave way to a new, more large-scale round of confrontation. Clearly, from the spring of 2014 to the winter of 2022 there had been a civil war in Ukraine, each side supported by a greater power. (Rest)
...When the Russian army rolled into Ukraine almost reaching Kiev in March 2022, at least two immediate events precipitated this. First, Russian authorities had failed to warrant the non-expansion of the NATO, their call to the rollback of the NATO to its 1991 borders also ignored. It can be safely assumed that had the US leaders found themselves in a similar position with a nuke-armed military bloc advancing towards the US borders, they would have been very outspoken about its security to say the least. Second, there had been a massive attack on the Donbass on the part of the Ukrainian military, its shells and missiles targeting, as they had normally done, civilian areas. These events standalone should be calling the “unmotivated invasion” version into question.
Judging by the structure and relatively poor preparedness of the Russian army to a full-scale military standoff, as well as the Russian society being far from war-mongered as of the start of the Special Military Operation – had I been an insidious and nefarious Russian ruler, I would have taken care of all this well in advance – the original plan of Russian authorities, apparently, was to simply show off power and have Ukraine give up on the long-suffering Donbass, as well as any of its claims to the Crimea. Military neutrality of Ukraine, giving more freedom to Russian culture and prohibition of the neo-Nazi ideology was another part of the deal. At least, all this was being negotiated between the parties in March 2022 when some third ones intervened, essentially the West, and got Ukraine to back down on whatever agreements reached. This very pattern was to reiterate in the next round of the negotiations a few months later. That's basically how the Special Military Operation launched by Russian authorities has strayed away from the intended route, with Russia 'bogging down' in Ukraine and claiming along more and more of its territories.
About savagery, or 'savagery', of the Russian military. At least as far as the top Russian military leadership was, and still is, concerned, there was no, and neither is, any embitterment or cynical, coldblooded calculation on its part – after all, Russian military commanders see Ukrainians as a kindred people – that would translate into things like Bucha and Irpen in 2022. For one thing, much later, in July 2024, a Czech mercenary that fought for the Ukrainian armed forces in March-April 2022, will have been tried in the capital of his country for war crimes, including killings of civilians, all shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers from the Ukrainian army, in the sadly remembered townships. This outlook on the events as coming from the West itself, will have been much at odds with its mainstream version holding the Russians as the culprit.
Coming back to 2022, the plan of the Russian military leadership, by all the looks of it, was to 'tiptoe' with Ukrainian civilians, and Ukrainian military for that matter (as far as this could get), all to 'win their hearts' for whatever humanitarian and practical purposes. As for the Russian military on the ground, it was very much in sync with the commanders in this regard and for pretty much the same reasons. To put it differently, Russian soldiers were, and are, no different in their humanity from, say, the Donbass insurgents, just normal human beings with whatever unfortunate outliers in the 'bell curve'. For one thing, when the first round of the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine failed, and new chunks of Ukrainian land, Kherson region and part of Zaporozhye, were soon claimed by Russia, what the locals experienced there as the aftermath – the majority of them had embraced Russia, and the rest was free to go to Ukraine without any hindrances on the part of Russian authorities – was nowhere near the treatment that the residents of Kursk region in Russia were to receive in August 2024 on the part of the Ukraine military, with lootings, humiliations, forced detentions, and killings of people going at full throttle.
It is October 2024 now. My 'extended' autobiography is stopping here, only to go into another retrospective spiral some sections away. (Rest)
...In writing all this, I presume that not so many people busy with their daily rounds thousands of kilometers away from the scene, have had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with some important in-betweens and outs of the conflict, like what it essentially means to be Ukrainian for Eastern and Western Ukrainians (the geographical divide is provisional). Well, I have laid this trouble upon myself, for this distinction, apart from all other considerations to be discussed later in varying degrees, is key to understanding not only the civil war in Ukraine of the late years but also the current hostilities much as its 'sequel'. Some of the details have already transpired, so I will just supply the rest.
For many those in the east, south and center of Ukraine, or what used to be Ukrainian territory up until recently, to be Ukrainian is (or used to be) much about being embedded in the Soviet past and the “Russian World” in general, with whatever good and bad to it, while retaining certain ethnic and temperamental distinctions. Say, Ukrainians have been known in their 'extended' Russian family for their emotionality or being more 'on the heart' side, for better or worse. There is even a joke that once a Ukrainian takes to logic, he becomes Russian, for worse or better.
Ukrainian identity as hailing mostly from the west of Ukraine is obviously a different kettle of fish with more nationalistic undertones or outright Nazi or neo-Nazi coloration. Apparently, there are a number of ultra-right groups out there differing in their stance towards the primacy of Ukrainian language and ethnic purity, in religious beliefs, in the degree of antisemitism, or say, in their take on Western ultra-liberal values. What all of them have in common though is flagrant intolerance to pretty much anything pertaining to Russia, and this had been the case much before February 2022 or March 2014.
And here's again a major contention of mine: Ukrainians associating themselves with the “Russian World”, and the Russians for that matter, are much better off in their general humanity and sanity than those espousing and practicing nationalism, more like its neo-Nazi variation. I do contend that it has never been a magnifying glass for virtues of its bearers but, quite the contrary, for their wickedness, of which I have already provided some examples featuring uncalled-for, inhuman cruelty.
Cruelty aside, it is about losing whatever human decency there is to lose. It appears to be a psychic infection of sorts that had spread in Ukrainian society far beyond its most hard-boiled nationalistic nucleus and much in advance of the Special Military Operation. Sticking in my memory here is what surrounded the Odessa massacre in 2014 when pro-Russia activists were burned alive. Namely, there was a lot of derision in the Ukrainian media landscape about “potato beetles” nicely roasted (the activists wore Georgian ribbons having black and orange stripes that resembled the coloration of the beetles). Alas, this is just one in a barrage of examples of how collective Ukrainian consciousness came to be desensitized and debased, largely 'thanks to' the nationalistic ideology holding it in its clutches. I will be busy probing into this uncanny 'embrace' for some time now. (Rest)
...Obviously, Ukrainian nationalism has a history to it. Digging deeper into it should be all the more edifying as, apart from some curious but very context-specific details, this will help me raise more universally meaningful themes like good and evil, which will certainly add more dimensions to whatever is being laid out.
For now, just to make it more personable, I will share some of my first-hand random and hardly bearing impressions and experiences of Ukrainian nationalism in my youth, a waft off the 'flowers' that were to blossom somewhat later in the conflagrated Ukraine and a distant echo of much earlier events that I familiarized myself with in earnest only in my late 20s and early 30s. This somewhat belated research of mine, highly compressed, will come on the heels of my immediate recollections.
Growing up in Ukraine after 1991, the year it got its independence in its borders of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with the Crimea in tow, I always felt some apprehension about my new country. It was just in the air but I couldn't really put my finger to it. Actually, something once happened that helped to shape this apprehension up. One day, an inspector from the education department was visiting my school. He had come from the mainland Ukraine, and the hearsay had it that he was a very 'Ukraine-spirited' fellow. Once in school, he attended a few classes, basically pitching Ukrainian language and Ukraine as it was to the pupils. It was then all over school that during one of those pitches he had stepped on the foot of a young pupil sitting in the first row, and, no matter the attempts of the latter to release it, the inspector never budged and just went on and on.
One way or another, from bits and pieces I picked here and there I could conclude that some Ukrainian nationalists out there, in the mainland, weren't particularly friendly towards Russians, and the Crimeans in particular, just for the fact of many of them being Russians or pro-Russia no matter their personality or deeds. For one thing, when I rented a room in a flat in Kiev, a neighbor lady apparently didn't fancy my Crimean origins once they had transpired. My landlady told me later that the neighbor was a Ukrainian nationalist, hence her being cold with me. Well, it was odd but I couldn't care less about my being disliked by some neighbor – after all, it didn't translate into something more menacing than wry glances or sullen silence in the elevator from her end.
Fast-forwarding to my stay in Canada, I was told a curious story by a Russian acquaintance pretty soon after my arrival. She used to be friends with a girl from the Ukrainian community and, according to her, they really got along... right until the moment when other Ukrainians found out about their friendship. The girl got an earful from them for taking up with a Russian. Sure enough, my Russian acquaintance and the Ukrainian girl parted their ways over their ethnic 'incompatibility', the latter having the upper hand in this.
Still in Canada a few years later, I worked for a landscaping company laying sod and doing other landscape-changing acts as a general laborer. A coworker of mine was a Canadian of the Western European origins. Once in our conversation he referred to Canadian Ukrainians as “backward” without any call from my end and any further elaboration on his. It must have been the year 2015, and by then I had already done some research, on top of my more or less scrappy impressions, into what this backwardness actually signified apart from mere disliking or hating someone for his or her association with Russia. I am about to share my findings as coming below. (Rest)
...The reader, if he or she is still with me unaware of all the backstory at that, would be curious to find out that the cradle of Ukrainian nationalism is a relatively small westernmost part of the contemporary Ukraine that, over the last several centuries, had changed hands of different 'masters', including Poland (in its different incarnations), Austria (in its different materializations), the Nazi Germany (for a brief yet momentous period), and the Soviet Russia. For convenience's sake, this land can well be called “the nucleus Ukraine” and its inhabitants – “the nucleus Ukrainians”.
Apparently, being pushed back and forth wasn't a nice thing to experience on the part of the people. Of a note is the fact that of all the 'masters', perhaps, only the Russians didn't look down on the nucleus Ukrainians as on ethnic or racial inferiors, which, of course, didn't prevent the latter from experiencing the 'pleasantries' of Stalin's rule for one, all on equal terms with their Russian fellow sufferers (if that is of some comfort).
The reason I am bringing this up, in terms of historical grudges over the last several centuries, Russians had by no means been worse off to the nucleus Ukrainians than, say, Poles. It just happened so that the Soviet experience with its forced collectivization, deportations and other adversaries stayed the freshest in their memory. To the point, over scores of years these memories came to be somewhat... confabulated, that is, deliberately boosted and colored up here and there. Say, so-called “Holodomor” was mispresented as an attempt of the Soviets to famish ethnic Ukrainians, unlike a much more complex malefaction and tragedy. For one thing, the nucleus Ukrainians had barely been touched by the famine.
One way or another, in the 1930's the most nationalistically minded ones in the nucleus Ukraine came to equally hate Russians and Poles, along with Jews . This hatred wasn't long to flesh out in sweeping and equally cruel killings, with mostly civilians targeted. I would rather not go into the gore part of this sparing the reader of horrifying details. Suffice it to say that even German Nazis, their then masters, were appalled with brutality of the minions.
Apparently, there had been, or have been, some better-off masters as per their lights, too. 'Bearing the palm' here would be Austrians with their relatively mild politics and democratic allowances (they actually cherished Ukrainian nationalism, chiefly to spite Russia in the larger geopolitical game). These were later changed by German Nazis that used rogue Ukrainian nationalists in the said punitive expeditions and in some of their military operations against the Soviet Union. The most recent 'good master' comes to be the United States and the collective West in general. Curiously enough, Canada gave refuge to a lot of Nazi collaborators from Western Ukraine after Germany was routed by the Soviets, with some help from the Allies, in 1945. They were then utilized in the ideological warfare with the Soviet Union and, later on, in fueling anti-Russia sentiments, Soviet or not, in the independent Ukraine, of which the said “Holodomor” was but a part. As for Poles and Jews as other major objects of their hatred, apparently these were 'zoomed out', much at the bidding of Americans, so that only Russians would remain its major recipients, all in accordance with the geopolitical agenda of the new master. (Rest)
...My presentation may have been somewhat one-sided thus far. Whatever Ukrainian ultra-rights' devilish doings in the first half of the twentieth century had been (again, I am focusing exclusively on the nucleus Ukrainians), now I shall attempt to play the role of the devil's advocate.
From what I have learned, at least some Western Ukrainians were coerced to take part in punitive operations by their more frenzied countrymen under threat of death, theirs or their close ones'. Occasionally, Ukrainian nationalists would save their Jewish, Polish, or Russian friends, their humanity prevailing over ideological froth. Apparently, the majority of them were embittered with what Poles and Russians had done to them and/or their ancestors and craved for justice.
With Jews my 'advocacy' comes to a standstill though, for the acts these poor people received hadn't been precipitated by any prior major wrongs directed to Ukrainians on their, or their forefathers', part. It was a purely ideological 'thing' in tune with the Nazi spirit of the time, which was sheer unmotivated evil or, rather, motivated with its evilness alone.
Coming back to Poles and Russians, the amount of cruelty received by them seemed to be way beyond the “tooth for tooth” retaliation as the Bible, more like the Old Testament, prescribes. It is not by chance that I am throwing in biblical themes, for the overwhelming majority of Western Ukrainians identified themselves, and still do, as Christians. Oddly as it might sound, there were priests in Ukrainian SS divisions and punitive squadrons, which was nothing but a reflection of a very bizarre cross-breed of Christianity and unbridled nationalism, essentially two incompatibles, in the first place.
Changing now my advocate gown for that of a judge, whatever justice dwelt with Ukrainian nationalists in the nucleus Ukraine before the 1930's, human or Divine, it appears to have been nullified with the subsequently committed atrocities, along with a deep ideological entrenchment justifying these. It would be safe to say that they ended up in the negative balance, as it were. (Rest)
...Before I proceed any further, the yearned-for independent state of Ukrainian nationalists as informed with their ideology of its 1920's-1930's version, merits a closer and, at the same time, broader and deeper look.
Here, I would like to offer the reader an exercise in abstraction. Apart from the 'justified' violence against the enemies, what would have been life like in a might-be Ukrainian state in the mid-twentieth century, had it ever materialized, with enemies, real or perceived, nicely 'cleansed out' and other major ideological tenets brought to their logical conclusion?
Religion-wise, the already mentioned cross-breed of the incompatibles – Christianity and flagrant nationalism – would apparently have provided the bedrock, a rather shaky one at that, for the rest of the 'superstructure'. What kind of leaders would have ruled it? What kind of art and literature would have been cultivated? What kind of education system would have been put in place? What saints, philosophers, and thinkers would have emerged there or been studied? Would largesse and creativity have been encouraged and to what extent? Or would it have been living in a spiritually stifling atmosphere, not unlike, say, that of North Korea? For one thing, the Spirit, according to the Bible, transcends national boundaries, it breathes where it wills and doesn't seem to grace institutionalized hatred and its deeds. Neither does it grace narrow-mindedness with its lack of metacognition and imagination and, as a matter of course, fallacious ideation, in the first place. This calls for a broader question yet: as idealistic as it sounds, shouldn't a state with its laws, customs, beliefs and core values, be judged, first and foremost, against its being more or less on close terms with the Spirit, that is, God, or what is called in China "Mandate of Heaven"? I will return to this question in due course.
Coming back down to earth where cynical 'interests' oftentimes prevail over goodwill, Ukrainian ideologists like Stepan Bandera didn't seem to be people of imagination and largesse, among other things. For this very reason, their ideology, if stripped of hatred and calls to inhuman violence, would have shrunk into a vision marked with pettiness and backwardness and profusely decorated with paraphernalia like vyshyvanky or pysanky no matter their might-be deeper symbolism.
Even if Ukrainian nationalists had succeeded in securing a piece of land for their political and cultural experiments in line with the spirit of the time, the defeat of their then master Nazi Germany and the rise of America, a future one, with its commitment, real or trumped-up, to spreading democracy and pluralism all over the planet, would have rendered the nationalistic experiments backward, that is, not being in the lockstep with time or “on the right side of history”. Thinking back to my Canadian colleague in the delights of landscaping and his 'diagnosing' Canadian Ukrainians with being backward, it doesn't take a very deep analysis – I am going to undertake it nonetheless – to see through their mindset.
Be that as it might, neither did Austrian masters allow in their time, nor would Nazi Germans have allowed the nucleus Ukrainians to have their own independent state, for they saw them simply as instruments in a greater scheme of things and looked down on them, particularly Nazi Germans, as expandable racially inferior ones. For one thing, Hitler didn't make a secret of this.
One might profitably ask: are the current masters any different in this regard? Judging by their acts and pronouncements, say, that Ukrainians should fight Russia to the last drop of their blood, this barely resembles a love affair, to say the least.
Astonishing, on the other side, is the eagerness of Ukrainians, if not of common people then the authorities, to make all these irrational sacrifices (hadn't all this come to the gore though, the majority of common Ukrainians would have remained very much enamored with, or hypnotized by, the 'master'), that's apart from all other apparently psychotic outpourings of today's 'Ukraineness'. Could these have come from a place other than some infernal recesses? If yes – and this is basically my answer to this question and yet another contention of mine – what kind of torch would be bright enough to illuminate them?
Part 2. Beyond
At this juncture, I shall begin putting forth what I have had up my sleeve all along, with Carl Jung's ideas being a major, but not the only, illuminating torch. Basically, I will be elaborating on the said Spirit breathing where it wills, the archetype of Self in Jungian terms, chiefly on what its workings and expectations of us humans seem to be, and how we might not be living up to them. All my explications, in turn, can well be applied as to the events laid out in the previous part, so to the entirety of human life as it is, given the opening panoramic, and so too abysmal, view. This part, unlike the previous, could be much harder to understand – for one thing, it took me a number of years to see all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. That said, the reader should brace himself or herself for a rather thorny and bumpy passage. (Rest)
...According to Jung as paraphrased and somewhat 'jazzed up' by me, the human psyche doesn't just hang loose in the air but has a predestination of sorts, an inner calling or pull as coming from the archetype of Self that can well be matched to the image of God in the Christian tradition. The progression towards this Self and coming on close terms with it, was called by Jung as “individuation”.
As far as humans are concerned, they, or, rather, we, have the right to take a pass on this deeper calling and be content with whatever 'smaller fish' out there in relatively 'shallow waters', drifting more like horizontally than inwardly. In a sense, this is the state of a 'normal', unpretentious existence.
There is also a freedom, for better or worse, to go in a pretty much opposite direction, ending up being possessed by the devil, or devilishness for that matter, if self-conscious personified evil sounds too much with some.
To recap, we are free to go down three major 'tracts' with whatever dynamics issuing from this. Only one of the three though can fulfill one's destiny in earnest and, perhaps, as importantly, with the most pleasurable, or least unsavory, afterlife experiences. (Rest)
...Suppose, the inward progression, or individuation, is there. This will essentially mean harmonization of cognition, emotions, intuition and physique in such a 'setup' for any given individual, which would lead to his or her greatest fulfillment and ennoblement. To put it differently, the primacy of the Spirit across the said layers or aspects of one's being will be manifesting in the least abrasive, most meaningful and most gracious way. What I basically refer to here and further in the text by “abrasion”, is all unnecessary hurt and/or grief.
In more practical terms, it is as simple, and so too hard, as taking up different roles in life (e.g. that of a child, a student, a spouse, a parent, an expert, a citizen, a ruler, a warrior, a sage, etc.) with their associated joys and/or responsibilities. All this, ideally, will be mediated by the unconscious, more like the Divine part of it, through a leveled-up cognition, sublime feelings, deep and intense emotions, or certain bodily states of the individuated one, all propelling him or her to a yet greater fulfillment.
In parallel to all this one ought to be developing a congruous mindset, marked with honesty, alertness and courage from the one side and humility and grace from the other, leading to, or emanating from, correct ideas about the Divine Principle, about life, about oneself. Honesty and courage will also be much needed in facing one's “shadow” (if any), a topic of later discussion.
Pretty much all inner states, in turn, can be mapped out onto two basic drives in their various 'setups': the drive for autonomy (“being”, masculine principle, “yang”, “rajas”) will be checked and balanced with the drive for belonging (non-being, feminine principle, “ying”, “tamas”). The pull towards Self, ideally, will be overlapping with these drives, informing them of 'spiritual competence', or higher nobility, and whirling them inwards in a centripetal kind of fashion. If the drives don't happen to be cooperative enough though, they may well find themselves on the periphery as cast away by the centrifugal push and sort of left to their own devices.
Essentially intuitive or instinctive pull towards Self appears to be a manifestation of a yet more cosmic, that is, independently existing of us humans, reality. With a smaller or greater degree of distortion, it must have been materializing in major religious traditions though not being confined by them. Physically or, rather, metaphysically, it appears to be the pace of time itself, the march of history “here and now”, no matter who or what is 'tagging along', or trying to, theology-, philosophy- or ideology-wise, and to which degree. Whatever setups across the basic drives, either on an individual or collective level, might come about, these will be brought to their logical conclusion both under their own momentum and via the relentless march of history in its purest, metaphysical sense. In this light and for brevity's sake, from now on I will be referring to the pull towards Self as Way, understood both in micro- and macrocosmic terms. As for the basic drives, these might well be called “being” and “non-being”, although the reader should feel free to use any of their respective aliases of his or her liking, masculine and feminine principles for one. (Rest)
...“Being” and “non-being”, or whichever their names are, call for more differentiation. Either of them can be subdivided into two major parts, the grosser and the subtler, the latter having the upper hand over the former in an ideal scenario. That is to say, one's higher cognition, the subtler aspect of “being”, will be taming his or her grosser self-assertiveness with its inherent 'tunnel vision'. In the same vein, sublime emotionality of “non-being” will be keeping in check its grosser sentimentality and lusts. For the purposes of this writing, I will be differentiating between more proactive self-assertiveness as coming from “being” and reactive self-entrenchment of “non-being”, though the latter, in a roundabout way, is “being”, too. The grosser and subtler parts of “being” and “non-being” will also be viewed as having higher- and lower-frequency respectively somewhat later in the text.
Be that as it might, once subtle aspects of “being” and “non-being” join together, each of them will be imparting the other, apart from other 'gifts' to exchange, with the lordship over its in-built grosser aspect. Simply put, higher cognition, if paired up with sublime emotionality, will become less excitable with sentiments and carnal impulses. Sublime emotionality, in turn, will be less prone to self-entrenchment and/or outer suppression. Should subtler aspects of “being” and “non-being” find themselves in a harmonious 'marriage', they will be dancing their way towards Self in the smoothest way possible. If I were to give a name to this kind of setup, “The Prince and the Princess” would be very much fitting.
Just a word on what might be lying still beyond it. Depending on the tradition, it may well be called as “enlightenment”, “liberation”, “resurrection”, “sainthood”, “Philosopher's stone” and so on, where “The King and the Queen”, the matured “The Prince and the Princess” – essentially the purest forms of “being” and “non-being”– will reign supreme. Way should well be expected to see it through whatever it takes, provided that the ennobled or enlightened one is cooperating. Speaking of the traditions, some of their pivotal pronouncements could be paraphrased as follows: “There is no way but Way”; “There is a middle Way between indulgence and self-denial”; “Nobody comes to the Father except through Way” and so on. (Rest)
...With “The Prince and the Princess” put up as an ideal, it now becomes possible to talk about pretty much any major deviation from it, my name-giving spree still going strong.
Higher cognition as somewhat distancing itself from sublime emotionality, may well be called “Flight of Icarus”, in more simple terms – idealistic individualism or liberalism. Apparently, 'Icarus' can go too far, with ultra-liberalism being the final destination before an imminent pullback towards what he has been trying to liberate itself from, essentially “non-being” now showing its grosser face. To the point, the mythological Icarus falls into the water, a universal symbol of femininity, that smashes him to death, unlike giving a gentle embrace. By and large, it stands for taking to sensuality and materialism overall, which is, essentially, a dead-end of individuation.
In more specific psychological or, rather, psychopathological terms yet, the fall of 'Icarus' may translate into anything between depression and severe dementia. Nietzsche for one exemplifies the latter scenario – he came to be swallowed by the abyss the hard way. It can be safely assumed that insanity is a sure sign of one's having sidetracked too far.
Another danger of “Flight of Icarus”, this time on the side of “being”, is 'Icarus', or 'Prince on the loose', as it were, actually becoming prone to grosser self-assertiveness, which kind of turns everything upside down – normally, 'Prince', or higher cognition, is supposed to have the upper hand with the grosser “being”. To the point, the same 'topsy-turvydom' yet on the side of “non-being”, will happen to the 'Princess' he has abandoned or, perhaps, never had a chance to meet. I am getting ahead of things though.
Sublime emotionality lacking in higher cognition might strike an image of a princess in the dungeon, quite an archetypal one at that. So “The Princess in the Dungeon” it is. Essentially, it signifies a deeply felt but somewhat misguided, entrenched or stifled piousness, love, empathy and admiration, or some combination of these. Without her 'Prince', or subtler aspect of “being”, the 'Princess' may take to self-entrenchment and/or become more susceptible to outer suppression and manipulation. It appears to be easier for “non-being”, of which the 'Princess' is the subtler part, to be a 'thing in itself', in its own “being”, since there is more substance to it, as it were. Whether it is self-entrenchment or outer suppression, it will be coming from the grosser “being”, in a roundabout way or directly, making up for the lack of the subtler one.
Speaking of the grosser part of “non-being”, sentimentality, that is, somewhat blown-up, ungraceful, misguided emotions and feelings, as well as sensuality, will be spiraling out of the 'Princess's' control. The said 'topsy-turvydom' that is.
One way or another, “The Princess in the Dungeon” setup is very much inherent in traditionalism in its broadest sense, religious fundamentalism being one of its starkest manifestations. Another entrapment of sorts, largely stifling the piousness part, would be a communist ideology in its atheistic rendition. The dungeon may turn out a much darker place yet, if the suppression of the 'Princess' assumes more extreme, abusive, more like outward forms rather than coming from within the psyche itself.
Bringing in Tolkien themes this time, narrow-mindedness and self-assertiveness, coupled with sentimentality, sensuality, and self-entrenchment, all in varying degrees but all the same bereft of a higher nobility, would be “Bungo and Belladonna”. These were parents of Bilbo the hobbit, who, unlike their more adventurous offspring, led a more 'two-dimensional' life. 'Hobbitness' or simply normality still stands a chance of being ennobled, as symbolized by Bilbo Baggins. It also runs a risk, alas, of sliding down in the bandwidth of “being” and “non-being” to something like Gollum essentially representing the corrupted normality. A more real, unlike literary example of the corruption, would be supremacism in its different shades, from entrenched nationalism to fascism where evil looms really large and cannot be confined or explained by “Bungo and Belladonna” alone. In this setup, evil is embraced not directly though but more like through naiveté, that is, misguided admiration and/or empathy, and “shadow”. In fairness, neither “Flight of Icarus”, nor “The Princess in the Dungeon” are spared of this dire possibility.
The basest and darkest setup of the major five, an inversion of “The Prince and the Princess” of sorts, shall be “Bonnie and Clyde” or “Clyde and Bonnie” for consistency's sake. Let it stay “Bonnie and Clyde” though, which kind of adds more to the inversion part. Simply put, it is a conscious, willful embrace of evil, and this goes down to devilishness. If I were to define evil, it would be some mix of unjustified and/or inhumane cruelty, coarseness, mockery, vulgarity, obscenity, blown-up sexuality and sexual perversion. Being entrenched and assertive in all or some of these on top, can well be the single-most important marker of devilishness. Apparently, beyond a certain point, “Bonnie and Clyde” can no longer be pulled in and graced by the abominated Way, receiving its insuperable 'centrifugal' pushback.
What I have been laying out thus far might feel overwhelming with the reader. Every bit of it counts in the solving of the puzzle though, so I apologize not. (Rest)
...“Shadow” it is. Basically, whatever remains unlived on the way towards Self and/or isn't allowed into the conscious mind for it to be properly processed, slips into the individual unconscious and forms what Jung called “shadow”. It proves a major obstruction to individuation, or simply ennoblement, which needs to be dealt with great care. Besides, it is a source of yet greater and/or more immediate perils, physical, psychological and/or spiritual, other than not being on the right track as per Way's lights.
To illustrate the makeup and dynamics of “shadow”, however simplified, I shall be using jealousy.
Say, one is lacking in self-assertion, or agency, which is an important precursor to developing competence in whatever walk of life. When coming across somebody who seems more fulfilled that way, he feels a bout of jealousy and, unlike doing something more wholesome, simply suppresses this reaction. Before long, a “shadow” springs into existence, which, unless burst, will only grow and darken.
Jealousy or not, Way's negative or positive stance towards the fulfillment in question, as well as some mix of abrasive reactions issuing from “being” and “non-being”, will define pretty much any shadow. As the for the jealousy-laden one, a sense of inferiority and frustration as coming from “being” and anything from sadness to depression, the 'gifts' of “non-being”, will define it.
Self-check: a sure sign of one's having a “shadow” will be his getting invariably triggered when coming across the object of jealousy, especially if the latter is pretty much in the same league, that is to say: a similar fulfillment is well within the reach of the 'shadowed' one or could have been achieved, had the circumstances been right.
Is jealousy the only possible reaction though to the fact of somebody being more fulfilled? A natural counterbalance to a jealous “being” would be an admiring “non-being”. In most cases, there appears to be some mix of these, especially if the object of jealousy is in a whole different category or order of magnitude. For one thing, parents tend to admire children rather than feel jealous of their achievements, should the latter outstrip the former in some major pursuits.
Seen from a somewhat different angle yet, admiration is, essentially, an energy that, once projected onto the object, would connect the admirer to it, or to whatever metaphysical entity standing behind it, for better or worse. This, in turn, would facilitate his or her own progression and fulfillment in the yearned-for direction, for worse or better. To the point, the ability to 'glue up' to an object and absorb whatever is there to absorb from it applies to empathy, too. When admiration and empathy come to be misapplied, this seems a more straightforward way to evil than through “shadow”. (Rest)
...Whatever the dynamics between jealousy and admiration comes to be, the first step in 'dissipating' the “shadow” will be honest recognition of jealousy itself. The very act of recognition should bring about initial detachment from whatever being recognized, in case of jealousy – one's sense of inferiority and jealous aggravation projected onto “the other”.
There is another step to take though, and there appear to be only three sound {dis}solutions here: either one pulls himself or herself together and actually starts doing something towards the yearned-for fulfillment while keeping admiration for those fulfilled or, at least, their fruit; or, completely takes to admiration without any ambitiousness and hard, abrasive feelings; or... gives up on the pursuit altogether if found unworthy.
As is said, Way doesn't seem to hold all fulfillments in life or applications of agency, or, say, projected admirations, to be meaningful and/or graceful. It can be safely assumed that the more vigorously one pushes away what has been predestined by Way as a fulfillment and/or embraces something unmeritorious, the farther he or she slides to the 'spiritual periphery', his or her “being” and “non-being” getting more abrased. For this reason, being on more or less close terms with Way is key to having proper discretion, including in the 'shadow work'. And just for recalling: whatever leads to “The Prince and the Princess” and beyond appears to be rated by Way as the most worthwhile fulfillment.
Coming back to “shadow”, obviously, jealousy is not the only source of it, with pride, resentment, guilt, and self-entrenchment being other potential culprits adding to a very complex “shadow” dynamics and, naturally, the 'shadow work' to be done. The differentiation of “shadow” into negative and positive, as well as individual and collective, would yet take the complexity up a notch or two. I shall undertake it nonetheless. (Rest)
...Essentially, “Flight of Icarus” and “The Princess in the Dungeon” are attempts to take to nobility, that is, some highness, in a somewhat skewed fashion. From whatever heights they find themselves in and in however slippery positions, each will be casting a negative “shadow”, that is, subconscious 'lump sums' of his or her susceptibilities and deficits, aggravated with whatever hard feelings, misguided admiration and/or empathy, onto the grosser 'bottoms' of both “being” and “non-being”.
Just for recalling, susceptibility of 'Icarus' as pertaining to the grosser “being” would be his hyper assertiveness (simply put, pride), that's apart from a greater risk of his falling prey to the grosser “non-being”. His obvious deficit is the 'Princes', sublime emotionality, as well as a yet higher wisdom of Way. Split up, his shadow will be 'longer' and 'thicker' as cast on the grosser “non-being”.
With the 'Princess' in her dungeon, it is, again, a greater susceptibility to sentimentality, the grosser “non-being”, which will add to the lesser part of her “shadow”. Its greater part will be defined by her self-entrenchment, a reactive grosser “being” of sorts, alone or coupled with a more proactive assertiveness of the grosser “being” as coming from outside of the psyche. The “Princess”, of course, will be missing her “Prince”, higher cognition that is.
Those living in the grosser 'bandwidth' anywhere between “Bungo and Belladona” and “Bonnie and Clyde”, will actually have positive “shadows”, meaning their unlived highness with whatever applied or misapplied admirations, jealousies, resentments and so on. These will be cast 'upwards', onto the subtler aspects of “being” and “non-being”, more like closing in on “Flight of Icarus” and “The Princess in the Dungeon” setups. To the point, it must be harder for “shadows” of outright evil ones to hit a steadier “The Prince and the Princess” setup graced by Way, with its notorious vigorous pushback to whatever evil, its “shadows” included.
Provided that “shadow” is, essentially, a projected energy having its 'charge' and a rather low 'frequency' – for one thing, one's being positioned closer or farther away from Self will determine the frequency range – opposite-charge “shadows”of similar frequencies are bound to interlock through intense gravitation streaming between them. The dynamics of same-charge “shadows” appears to be more complex at that: these will either clash or magnify one another, largely depending on the relationship between their 'owners'. It is through their negative and positive “shadows”, for instance, ultra-liberals and ultra-right nationalists happen to clinch.
A crucial point, well, one of the many: it appears that physical distance isn't of much hindrance for “shadows” to strike a relationship with whatever issuing dynamics in the world of psyche and whichever its physical manifestations. After a certain point, it seems, whether those casting “shadows” fancy it or loathe it, it becomes too late for them to withdraw themselves from the 'shadowy roller-coaster' they find themselves locked in, until the ride, or drama, plays out in full.
The last but not the least differentiation to make: just as there are “individual shadows” in the personal unconscious, so too loom “collective shadows” in the collective unconscious. Basically, one becomes further 'overshadowed' with “the collective shadow, down to being possessed by devilishness, unless some 'shadow work' has been successfully undertaken. Though Jung was of a different opinion on the origins of the “collective shadow”, as per my lights it can be likened to a pocket or cesspool of sorts for whatever spiritual 'by-products' or 'waste', and for whichever reasons, placed there or disgorged by Way, more like by its macrocosmic hypostasis. It seems that hard-boiled pride, resentment, and jealousy, among all other low-frequency devilish emanations, define at least some of those peripheral slumps. (Rest)
...Whatever the reader is making of my cogitations in this part, as far as some practicalities are concerned, like the 'shadow work' on venting out jealousy, there might be more merit to it than to anything else. For this reason, I would like to offer more practical tips on how pride, resentment, and guilt, other major 'shadowy' culprits could be meaningfully processed. One should keep in mind though that, unless graced and informed by Way, these approaches will prove a limited value.
Just like with jealousy, the first step in the 'shadow work', no matter the issue at hand, is always about honest recognition. As simple, and so too hard, as that.
In keeping with honesty, pride, among other things, can be seen as one's taking credit for what actually doesn't belong to, or created by, him or her, whether it be some inborn talents or life happenstances. Pride is a spiritual theft of sorts, unlike a more obvious physical appropriation. If one honestly and earnestly admits that, at least part of the pride, along with the associated lump of the “shadow”, may well drop off.
Resentment it is. Well, just as with jealousy, there appear to be only three meaningful {dis}solutions here: letting go of a grievance, which would restore, at least to some extent, the previously severed warm relationship; letting go of something in a cold, detached way in case the relationship is not viable and, perhaps, for valid reasons; acting out the grievance fairly (discretion as coming from Way is key) and then letting go of it either in a warm or cold fashion. At least, that's how Way seems to be dealing with his own grievances. In a way, he is a simple fellow.
The last culprit on the list is guilt. It can be seen as a form of resentment projected onto oneself and more like suppressed than having undergone the dissolution in the stream of Way, which is more commonly known as contrition, and/or worked out in some sort of penance. Again, it is up to Way to decide on the 'solubility' of one's guilt and might-be penalties to assign. Certain transgressions seem to be unpardonable, of which a major sign would be the total lack of contrition, essentially an invitation from Way to the guilty one to rectify himself or herself. Unprocessed or undissolved guilt, among other things, will be causing abrasion of “being” and “non-being”, throwing them down the bandwidth of frequencies with whatever susceptibilities defining them.
Now everything seems to be in place for me to proceed with what has yet to come the reader's way.
Part 3. Still Beyond
If the reader expects me to go back to Ukraine and analyze the recent, and so too faraway events in this land through the prism of “shadow” and all, he or she is ridding himself or herself of this very opportunity. I have provided plenty of cues, including of the metaphysical recesses in which Ukrainian collective consciousness, more like its nationalistic and pro-Western brands, might have become embedded through the sum of individual “shadows” and misapplied admiration. Ukrainians seem to be wallowing in the heightened attention to them in the world anyways, so if a fellow like myself chooses to skip up on Ukraine and mind his own business, my Ukrainian fellow-travelers in time and space would barely notice any difference. (Rest)
My business lies elsewhere indeed. I would like to offer the reader another exercise in abstraction, this time in mapping out my derivations from the previous part onto world history, its last several thousands of years or so. Perhaps, the point of departure could be moved still farther.
Whatever purely human has been happening in this world, there could have been, and still is, a much deeper layer looming, first and foremost – Way, its workings, its expectations of us humans, and, among other things, its attempts to straighten out whatever has gone 'out of whack'. It wouldn't be an oversimplification of me to say that the collective East at some point came to represent “The Princess in the Dungeon”, with the collective West tasked to make up for the missing 'Prince' and liberate the 'Princess'. In other words, for whatever reasons translating into self-entrenchment, spirituality in the East proved to be lacking in higher cognition with its inherent tamed self-assertion, or agency, a critical component of “The Prince and the Princess” setup. The 'Princess' was still there though, with occasional flares of the 'Prince' and a handful of “The King and the Queen” instances. And the West took up the slack, so to speak, for better or worse. This vision alone of the whole world partaking of a higher collective destiny and tasks as coming from Way, and mistakes of some individual parts leading to collective spiritual disasters, may help one transcend his or her nationalistic and other entrenchments. For one thing, the West ending up as 'Icarus' has brought no good to the rest of the planet.
Speaking of 'Icarus', America, more like its better self, appears to have been predestined as the flagship in the higher task of the West to become the 'Prince', with its pragmatic “whatever works” geared, among other things, to breaking away from all the overburdening, 'not working' baggage in the progression towards Self or individuation, or ennoblement. I have been intentionally refraining from quotes thus far, but now I wish to make an exception for Jacob Needleman, his “The Soul of America”, which seems a very good fit here:
“...To love America is not to love one’s roots – it is to love the flower that has not yet blossomed, the fruit as yet unripened. To love America is to love the future, and perhaps it is this that sets the love of America apart from what men and women of other nations feel about their native land. One is born Greek or German or Japanese. But to be born American does not mean the same thing. One becomes American. One cannot become German or Greek or Japanese in that way, just as one cannot change one’s bones or the color of one’s skin. But there is something in oneself that can be changed. What is it? There is something in oneself that can develop and evolve.” At the same time, the motif of being enchanted with the East (all owing to the 'Princess'), taking to its ancient wisdom and then excelling or getting on a par with it at the least, essentially becoming the 'Prince', has been a 'thing' of the West's unconscious, and America in particular, all along, finding its expression in art, literature, films. Presently though, as is already pointed out, the West's 'royalty' is more like a fig-leaf for whatever tumblings of 'Icarus' and yet grosser and more sinister setups. (Rest)
...Lying between the East and the West is my motherland Russia. What could be a higher significance of her geographical vastness and juxtaposition in the grander scheme of things?
In an ideal scenario, it could be a safety mechanism, as it were, from whatever excesses of the East and the West, an appeal to sanity and common sense, as well as the ability to stand up for these.
Seen from a somewhat different angle, this should be also imparting her with flexibility: while the East and the West are coasting too much under their momentum, whatever setups taking root in Russia seem to be brought to their logical conclusion much faster, with whichever 'fruit' to showcase to the rest of the planet.
Geographical vastness, ideally, would translate into the vastness of soul, largesse, nobility. For one thing, unlike Ukrainian nationalists with their entrenched resentments over real or imaginary misdoings of the Russians, the latter harbor barely any grudges against Germans as a people for whatever their forefathers did during the Great Patriotic War in 1941-1945 when millions upon millions of Russians had been decimated. Or, when the Soviet leaders of the late 1980s gave up on the Iron Curtain with whatever relinquishments and allowances to follow, all in the spirit of genuine cooperation with and sympathy towards the West, there had been barely any historical precedents of this kind of nobility when a superpower would basically lay down arms and offer its hand to the adversary, another superpower. I suppose the West took it more as a sign of foolishness than anything else.
One might ask: has Russia always been her better self? And to this I would answer: hell no. For one thing, the collapse of the Soviet Union and all hardships that befell the Russians in the aftermath, may have dissolved a large portion of whatever wrongs committed by them. What Russia is currently doing though appears to be much more in line with her heavenly destiny or Way, basically challenging the frenzied and somewhat demonized 'Icarus' and being the lodestone for whatever sanity and normality left Earthside. (Rest)
...Yet another experiment in abstraction, the last one. Suppose, the adversary gets defeated, with the planet becoming a safer and saner place with different poles of power nicely mushrooming. To put it differently, a complex configuration of “Bungo and Belladonna” and “The Princess in the Dungeon” of all stripes having some shades of “Bonnie and Clyde” at that, emerges on the scene. As per Way's lights, could that be seen as nothing but a springboard for something yet greater and loftier? Apparently, its centripetal pull would be as streaming as ever and settling for nothing less than “The Prince and the Princess”. Would this setup become a more viable possibility? Or would the multipolar configuration, once entrenched, prove yet another hurdle on the path of individuation understood both as a personal and collective destiny? Perhaps, I will make another exception for a quote, this time coming from Jung, that could provide here an informed answer:
“I have failed in my foremost task, to open people’s eyes to the fact that man has a soul and there is buried treasure in the field and that our religion and philosophy are in a lamentable state.” What would I personally reply? I don't have an answer apart from doing my 'thing' however small, of which this writing of mine is an emanation. And what precisely I am doing is not its topic.
October, 2024
Meet "Ukraine and Beyond". It comes as plain text, .pdf, and three links, each to one of its three parts.
Have a good read!
Part 1. Ukraine: https://telegra.ph/UKRAINE-AND-BEYOND-Part-1-Ukraine-10-07
Part 2. Beyond: https://telegra.ph/UKRAINE-AND-BEYOND-Part-2-Beyond-10-07
Part 3. Still Beyond: https://telegra.ph/UKRAINE-AND-BEYOND-Part-3-Still-Beyond-10-08
Ukraine? Or Russia? Who is (more) culpable for the scrimmage between the neighbors, essentially two kindred peoples? Are there any 'outsiders' partaking in the culpability? Is there an ideological or civilizational clash resounding along? Is it purely about the human plane or there might be a bigger preternatural drama unfolding behind what meets the eye? A former Ukrainian national, currently Russian citizen, but, most importantly, a human being in quest for a higher truth, I am going to present my personal take on the standoff between my former and current motherlands. In all this, I will be equipped with common sense and reasoning skills, lots of evidence from those on the ground, tons of 'media chaff' sifted through for the grains of truth, some general knowledge, some more specific, including Jungian ideas, and a number of spiritual insights, personal and otherwise, pertaining to the events. And just for starters: I do understand the reasons behind Russia's “unmotivated invasion” into Ukraine in February 2022. If my reader is patient enough – those too impatient and entrenched can hardly be my target audience anyways – my perspective might unroll before his or her eyes as a meticulously woven and, perhaps, somewhat intricate tapestry. It is, of course, up to the reader then to decide whether to put it to any good use.
Part 1. Ukraine
For those who are staying with me, I shall begin with my brief autobiography to be then complemented with the 'exegesis' on what has been happening outside of my immediate surroundings yet close enough to be passing through my heart and feeding my thought, both geared towards the main topic of this piece.
I was born in the Soviet Union, more precisely in the Crimea that was to become the southernmost and somewhat autonomous 'annex' to the independent Ukraine seven years later (geographically, the Crimean peninsula was connected to the Ukrainian mainland through a narrow neck of land, hence 'annex'). I lived in the Crimea for some seventeen years before going for university to Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, and willy-nilly receive the degree I did. I didn't settle down in Kiev though. Instead, I came back to my hometown and stayed there for another three or four years before setting out for more distant lands this time: my next school awaited me in Canada, all thanks to my parents' money and their enamourment with the West, as well as to my adventurous spirit and some clear promptings that I got... never mind.
Fast-forwarding to 2013, while still in Canada I grew highly skeptical of the uprising and social unrest roiling in Ukraine, the so-called Euromaidan, and the coup that soon followed it. A new pro-West Ukrainian government, ultra-right nationalists having its back, emerged on the scene, its legitimacy far from enshrined with a larger societal agreement, not coming from the southeast of Ukraine at the least, my Crimea included.
In March 2014, I found myself peeking at the newspaper of another passenger on a subway train, its title reading “Gunpoint Referendum in the Crimea” or something along these lines. Worth a mention is my being blissed out for several days on end – to my own surprise – upon the 'annexation' of the Crimea, or its reunion as seen by the Crimeans and Russians. My 'Crimeanness' had turned out to be more integral to me than I could have expected or, perhaps, this very pure reaction had come from yet deeper parts of my being.
In 2015, I came back to the Crimea, now a part of Russia, and took Russian citizenship. Have been officially Russian ever since. (Rest)
...The 'exegesis' part. Needless to say, I kept a close eye on what was going on in Ukraine all along. By then the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation (the ATO) against the Donbass “insurgents” (the actual death toll was the highest for the civilians), essentially Eastern Ukrainians, had been launched by the new Ukrainian government. Other 'exploits' too were in full swing in the country, including people being imprisoned, tortured and burned alive (e.g. the Odessa massacre on May 2, 2014) just for their pro-Russia stances and sentiments. Rape and pillage of civilians in the zone of the ATO by paramilitary ultra-right Ukrainian formations was common and apparently winked at by the Ukrainian military leadership. A 'fun' fact: some Ukrainian militaries on the ground were so appalled with the doings of their ultra-right 'comrades-in-arms' that they would spill deployment positions of the latter to artillery crews on the other side of the barricade.
To be fair, not always the 'insurgents' showed their... noble side, so to say, some of them being outright criminals, psychos, or too aggravated and vengeful to be guided with their better self. Still in terms of magnitude of evilness, their misdoings would pale in comparison to those of the Ukrainian nationalists, if such a measurement can be undertaken. It can be safely asserted, all things considered, that 'Russian-friendly' or neutral Ukrainians were, and still are, well, just normal human beings with their rights and wrongs, ups and downs, virtues and vices, with hardly any of them driven with a zealotic, petty-minded ideology magnifying 'the normally distributed' hatred and indecency, as it were. In their normality, these people didn't wish to accept 'heroes' like Stepan Bandera who had orchestrated inhumane killings of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, now an icon of the new Ukraine. In their normality, they abhorred the slogan “Ukraine for Ukrainians” and the like seeing it as essentially backward and fascist, and now these slogans were on the lips of everyone and their sister in Kiev. In their normality, they didn't want a closer and legally binding association with the European Union with its ultra-liberal values from the one side and inevitable structural adjustments to Ukrainian industry from the other, Bulgaria and some other Eastern European countries, the most recent members of the EU, being far from shining examples of prosperity. In their normality, they were appalled at the idea that some day Ukraine might become a NATO member – nobody could have guaranteed the opposite – with its missiles deployed right at the borders of their historical and spiritual motherland. Weren't these the signs of sanity on their part? All that said, were there any moral, ideological or purely pragmatic reasons for those in the southeast of Ukraine to embrace the new Ukrainian authorities, which hadn't been chosen by them in the first place, except for the pleasure of traveling to the EU without a visa? For one thing, such a trade-off would have been much below their human dignity.
Be that as it might, the ATO with its ebbs and flows had been never called off by the Ukrainian government, not in practical terms at the least, right until February 2022 when it simply gave way to a new, more large-scale round of confrontation. Clearly, from the spring of 2014 to the winter of 2022 there had been a civil war in Ukraine, each side supported by a greater power. (Rest)
...When the Russian army rolled into Ukraine almost reaching Kiev in March 2022, at least two immediate events precipitated this. First, Russian authorities had failed to warrant the non-expansion of the NATO, their call to the rollback of the NATO to its 1991 borders also ignored. It can be safely assumed that had the US leaders found themselves in a similar position with a nuke-armed military bloc advancing towards the US borders, they would have been very outspoken about its security to say the least. Second, there had been a massive attack on the Donbass on the part of the Ukrainian military, its shells and missiles targeting, as they had normally done, civilian areas. These events standalone should be calling the “unmotivated invasion” version into question.
Judging by the structure and relatively poor preparedness of the Russian army to a full-scale military standoff, as well as the Russian society being far from war-mongered as of the start of the Special Military Operation – had I been an insidious and nefarious Russian ruler, I would have taken care of all this well in advance – the original plan of Russian authorities, apparently, was to simply show off power and have Ukraine give up on the long-suffering Donbass, as well as any of its claims to the Crimea. Military neutrality of Ukraine, giving more freedom to Russian culture and prohibition of the neo-Nazi ideology was another part of the deal. At least, all this was being negotiated between the parties in March 2022 when some third ones intervened, essentially the West, and got Ukraine to back down on whatever agreements reached. This very pattern was to reiterate in the next round of the negotiations a few months later. That's basically how the Special Military Operation launched by Russian authorities has strayed away from the intended route, with Russia 'bogging down' in Ukraine and claiming along more and more of its territories.
About savagery, or 'savagery', of the Russian military. At least as far as the top Russian military leadership was, and still is, concerned, there was no, and neither is, any embitterment or cynical, coldblooded calculation on its part – after all, Russian military commanders see Ukrainians as a kindred people – that would translate into things like Bucha and Irpen in 2022. For one thing, much later, in July 2024, a Czech mercenary that fought for the Ukrainian armed forces in March-April 2022, will have been tried in the capital of his country for war crimes, including killings of civilians, all shoulder to shoulder with his fellow soldiers from the Ukrainian army, in the sadly remembered townships. This outlook on the events as coming from the West itself, will have been much at odds with its mainstream version holding the Russians as the culprit.
Coming back to 2022, the plan of the Russian military leadership, by all the looks of it, was to 'tiptoe' with Ukrainian civilians, and Ukrainian military for that matter (as far as this could get), all to 'win their hearts' for whatever humanitarian and practical purposes. As for the Russian military on the ground, it was very much in sync with the commanders in this regard and for pretty much the same reasons. To put it differently, Russian soldiers were, and are, no different in their humanity from, say, the Donbass insurgents, just normal human beings with whatever unfortunate outliers in the 'bell curve'. For one thing, when the first round of the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine failed, and new chunks of Ukrainian land, Kherson region and part of Zaporozhye, were soon claimed by Russia, what the locals experienced there as the aftermath – the majority of them had embraced Russia, and the rest was free to go to Ukraine without any hindrances on the part of Russian authorities – was nowhere near the treatment that the residents of Kursk region in Russia were to receive in August 2024 on the part of the Ukraine military, with lootings, humiliations, forced detentions, and killings of people going at full throttle.
It is October 2024 now. My 'extended' autobiography is stopping here, only to go into another retrospective spiral some sections away. (Rest)
...In writing all this, I presume that not so many people busy with their daily rounds thousands of kilometers away from the scene, have had an opportunity to familiarize themselves with some important in-betweens and outs of the conflict, like what it essentially means to be Ukrainian for Eastern and Western Ukrainians (the geographical divide is provisional). Well, I have laid this trouble upon myself, for this distinction, apart from all other considerations to be discussed later in varying degrees, is key to understanding not only the civil war in Ukraine of the late years but also the current hostilities much as its 'sequel'. Some of the details have already transpired, so I will just supply the rest.
For many those in the east, south and center of Ukraine, or what used to be Ukrainian territory up until recently, to be Ukrainian is (or used to be) much about being embedded in the Soviet past and the “Russian World” in general, with whatever good and bad to it, while retaining certain ethnic and temperamental distinctions. Say, Ukrainians have been known in their 'extended' Russian family for their emotionality or being more 'on the heart' side, for better or worse. There is even a joke that once a Ukrainian takes to logic, he becomes Russian, for worse or better.
Ukrainian identity as hailing mostly from the west of Ukraine is obviously a different kettle of fish with more nationalistic undertones or outright Nazi or neo-Nazi coloration. Apparently, there are a number of ultra-right groups out there differing in their stance towards the primacy of Ukrainian language and ethnic purity, in religious beliefs, in the degree of antisemitism, or say, in their take on Western ultra-liberal values. What all of them have in common though is flagrant intolerance to pretty much anything pertaining to Russia, and this had been the case much before February 2022 or March 2014.
And here's again a major contention of mine: Ukrainians associating themselves with the “Russian World”, and the Russians for that matter, are much better off in their general humanity and sanity than those espousing and practicing nationalism, more like its neo-Nazi variation. I do contend that it has never been a magnifying glass for virtues of its bearers but, quite the contrary, for their wickedness, of which I have already provided some examples featuring uncalled-for, inhuman cruelty.
Cruelty aside, it is about losing whatever human decency there is to lose. It appears to be a psychic infection of sorts that had spread in Ukrainian society far beyond its most hard-boiled nationalistic nucleus and much in advance of the Special Military Operation. Sticking in my memory here is what surrounded the Odessa massacre in 2014 when pro-Russia activists were burned alive. Namely, there was a lot of derision in the Ukrainian media landscape about “potato beetles” nicely roasted (the activists wore Georgian ribbons having black and orange stripes that resembled the coloration of the beetles). Alas, this is just one in a barrage of examples of how collective Ukrainian consciousness came to be desensitized and debased, largely 'thanks to' the nationalistic ideology holding it in its clutches. I will be busy probing into this uncanny 'embrace' for some time now. (Rest)
...Obviously, Ukrainian nationalism has a history to it. Digging deeper into it should be all the more edifying as, apart from some curious but very context-specific details, this will help me raise more universally meaningful themes like good and evil, which will certainly add more dimensions to whatever is being laid out.
For now, just to make it more personable, I will share some of my first-hand random and hardly bearing impressions and experiences of Ukrainian nationalism in my youth, a waft off the 'flowers' that were to blossom somewhat later in the conflagrated Ukraine and a distant echo of much earlier events that I familiarized myself with in earnest only in my late 20s and early 30s. This somewhat belated research of mine, highly compressed, will come on the heels of my immediate recollections.
Growing up in Ukraine after 1991, the year it got its independence in its borders of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic with the Crimea in tow, I always felt some apprehension about my new country. It was just in the air but I couldn't really put my finger to it. Actually, something once happened that helped to shape this apprehension up. One day, an inspector from the education department was visiting my school. He had come from the mainland Ukraine, and the hearsay had it that he was a very 'Ukraine-spirited' fellow. Once in school, he attended a few classes, basically pitching Ukrainian language and Ukraine as it was to the pupils. It was then all over school that during one of those pitches he had stepped on the foot of a young pupil sitting in the first row, and, no matter the attempts of the latter to release it, the inspector never budged and just went on and on.
One way or another, from bits and pieces I picked here and there I could conclude that some Ukrainian nationalists out there, in the mainland, weren't particularly friendly towards Russians, and the Crimeans in particular, just for the fact of many of them being Russians or pro-Russia no matter their personality or deeds. For one thing, when I rented a room in a flat in Kiev, a neighbor lady apparently didn't fancy my Crimean origins once they had transpired. My landlady told me later that the neighbor was a Ukrainian nationalist, hence her being cold with me. Well, it was odd but I couldn't care less about my being disliked by some neighbor – after all, it didn't translate into something more menacing than wry glances or sullen silence in the elevator from her end.
Fast-forwarding to my stay in Canada, I was told a curious story by a Russian acquaintance pretty soon after my arrival. She used to be friends with a girl from the Ukrainian community and, according to her, they really got along... right until the moment when other Ukrainians found out about their friendship. The girl got an earful from them for taking up with a Russian. Sure enough, my Russian acquaintance and the Ukrainian girl parted their ways over their ethnic 'incompatibility', the latter having the upper hand in this.
Still in Canada a few years later, I worked for a landscaping company laying sod and doing other landscape-changing acts as a general laborer. A coworker of mine was a Canadian of the Western European origins. Once in our conversation he referred to Canadian Ukrainians as “backward” without any call from my end and any further elaboration on his. It must have been the year 2015, and by then I had already done some research, on top of my more or less scrappy impressions, into what this backwardness actually signified apart from mere disliking or hating someone for his or her association with Russia. I am about to share my findings as coming below. (Rest)
...The reader, if he or she is still with me unaware of all the backstory at that, would be curious to find out that the cradle of Ukrainian nationalism is a relatively small westernmost part of the contemporary Ukraine that, over the last several centuries, had changed hands of different 'masters', including Poland (in its different incarnations), Austria (in its different materializations), the Nazi Germany (for a brief yet momentous period), and the Soviet Russia. For convenience's sake, this land can well be called “the nucleus Ukraine” and its inhabitants – “the nucleus Ukrainians”.
Apparently, being pushed back and forth wasn't a nice thing to experience on the part of the people. Of a note is the fact that of all the 'masters', perhaps, only the Russians didn't look down on the nucleus Ukrainians as on ethnic or racial inferiors, which, of course, didn't prevent the latter from experiencing the 'pleasantries' of Stalin's rule for one, all on equal terms with their Russian fellow sufferers (if that is of some comfort).
The reason I am bringing this up, in terms of historical grudges over the last several centuries, Russians had by no means been worse off to the nucleus Ukrainians than, say, Poles. It just happened so that the Soviet experience with its forced collectivization, deportations and other adversaries stayed the freshest in their memory. To the point, over scores of years these memories came to be somewhat... confabulated, that is, deliberately boosted and colored up here and there. Say, so-called “Holodomor” was mispresented as an attempt of the Soviets to famish ethnic Ukrainians, unlike a much more complex malefaction and tragedy. For one thing, the nucleus Ukrainians had barely been touched by the famine.
One way or another, in the 1930's the most nationalistically minded ones in the nucleus Ukraine came to equally hate Russians and Poles, along with Jews . This hatred wasn't long to flesh out in sweeping and equally cruel killings, with mostly civilians targeted. I would rather not go into the gore part of this sparing the reader of horrifying details. Suffice it to say that even German Nazis, their then masters, were appalled with brutality of the minions.
Apparently, there had been, or have been, some better-off masters as per their lights, too. 'Bearing the palm' here would be Austrians with their relatively mild politics and democratic allowances (they actually cherished Ukrainian nationalism, chiefly to spite Russia in the larger geopolitical game). These were later changed by German Nazis that used rogue Ukrainian nationalists in the said punitive expeditions and in some of their military operations against the Soviet Union. The most recent 'good master' comes to be the United States and the collective West in general. Curiously enough, Canada gave refuge to a lot of Nazi collaborators from Western Ukraine after Germany was routed by the Soviets, with some help from the Allies, in 1945. They were then utilized in the ideological warfare with the Soviet Union and, later on, in fueling anti-Russia sentiments, Soviet or not, in the independent Ukraine, of which the said “Holodomor” was but a part. As for Poles and Jews as other major objects of their hatred, apparently these were 'zoomed out', much at the bidding of Americans, so that only Russians would remain its major recipients, all in accordance with the geopolitical agenda of the new master. (Rest)
...My presentation may have been somewhat one-sided thus far. Whatever Ukrainian ultra-rights' devilish doings in the first half of the twentieth century had been (again, I am focusing exclusively on the nucleus Ukrainians), now I shall attempt to play the role of the devil's advocate.
From what I have learned, at least some Western Ukrainians were coerced to take part in punitive operations by their more frenzied countrymen under threat of death, theirs or their close ones'. Occasionally, Ukrainian nationalists would save their Jewish, Polish, or Russian friends, their humanity prevailing over ideological froth. Apparently, the majority of them were embittered with what Poles and Russians had done to them and/or their ancestors and craved for justice.
With Jews my 'advocacy' comes to a standstill though, for the acts these poor people received hadn't been precipitated by any prior major wrongs directed to Ukrainians on their, or their forefathers', part. It was a purely ideological 'thing' in tune with the Nazi spirit of the time, which was sheer unmotivated evil or, rather, motivated with its evilness alone.
Coming back to Poles and Russians, the amount of cruelty received by them seemed to be way beyond the “tooth for tooth” retaliation as the Bible, more like the Old Testament, prescribes. It is not by chance that I am throwing in biblical themes, for the overwhelming majority of Western Ukrainians identified themselves, and still do, as Christians. Oddly as it might sound, there were priests in Ukrainian SS divisions and punitive squadrons, which was nothing but a reflection of a very bizarre cross-breed of Christianity and unbridled nationalism, essentially two incompatibles, in the first place.
Changing now my advocate gown for that of a judge, whatever justice dwelt with Ukrainian nationalists in the nucleus Ukraine before the 1930's, human or Divine, it appears to have been nullified with the subsequently committed atrocities, along with a deep ideological entrenchment justifying these. It would be safe to say that they ended up in the negative balance, as it were. (Rest)
...Before I proceed any further, the yearned-for independent state of Ukrainian nationalists as informed with their ideology of its 1920's-1930's version, merits a closer and, at the same time, broader and deeper look.
Here, I would like to offer the reader an exercise in abstraction. Apart from the 'justified' violence against the enemies, what would have been life like in a might-be Ukrainian state in the mid-twentieth century, had it ever materialized, with enemies, real or perceived, nicely 'cleansed out' and other major ideological tenets brought to their logical conclusion?
Religion-wise, the already mentioned cross-breed of the incompatibles – Christianity and flagrant nationalism – would apparently have provided the bedrock, a rather shaky one at that, for the rest of the 'superstructure'. What kind of leaders would have ruled it? What kind of art and literature would have been cultivated? What kind of education system would have been put in place? What saints, philosophers, and thinkers would have emerged there or been studied? Would largesse and creativity have been encouraged and to what extent? Or would it have been living in a spiritually stifling atmosphere, not unlike, say, that of North Korea? For one thing, the Spirit, according to the Bible, transcends national boundaries, it breathes where it wills and doesn't seem to grace institutionalized hatred and its deeds. Neither does it grace narrow-mindedness with its lack of metacognition and imagination and, as a matter of course, fallacious ideation, in the first place. This calls for a broader question yet: as idealistic as it sounds, shouldn't a state with its laws, customs, beliefs and core values, be judged, first and foremost, against its being more or less on close terms with the Spirit, that is, God, or what is called in China "Mandate of Heaven"? I will return to this question in due course.
Coming back down to earth where cynical 'interests' oftentimes prevail over goodwill, Ukrainian ideologists like Stepan Bandera didn't seem to be people of imagination and largesse, among other things. For this very reason, their ideology, if stripped of hatred and calls to inhuman violence, would have shrunk into a vision marked with pettiness and backwardness and profusely decorated with paraphernalia like vyshyvanky or pysanky no matter their might-be deeper symbolism.
Even if Ukrainian nationalists had succeeded in securing a piece of land for their political and cultural experiments in line with the spirit of the time, the defeat of their then master Nazi Germany and the rise of America, a future one, with its commitment, real or trumped-up, to spreading democracy and pluralism all over the planet, would have rendered the nationalistic experiments backward, that is, not being in the lockstep with time or “on the right side of history”. Thinking back to my Canadian colleague in the delights of landscaping and his 'diagnosing' Canadian Ukrainians with being backward, it doesn't take a very deep analysis – I am going to undertake it nonetheless – to see through their mindset.
Be that as it might, neither did Austrian masters allow in their time, nor would Nazi Germans have allowed the nucleus Ukrainians to have their own independent state, for they saw them simply as instruments in a greater scheme of things and looked down on them, particularly Nazi Germans, as expandable racially inferior ones. For one thing, Hitler didn't make a secret of this.
One might profitably ask: are the current masters any different in this regard? Judging by their acts and pronouncements, say, that Ukrainians should fight Russia to the last drop of their blood, this barely resembles a love affair, to say the least.
Astonishing, on the other side, is the eagerness of Ukrainians, if not of common people then the authorities, to make all these irrational sacrifices (hadn't all this come to the gore though, the majority of common Ukrainians would have remained very much enamored with, or hypnotized by, the 'master'), that's apart from all other apparently psychotic outpourings of today's 'Ukraineness'. Could these have come from a place other than some infernal recesses? If yes – and this is basically my answer to this question and yet another contention of mine – what kind of torch would be bright enough to illuminate them?
Part 2. Beyond
At this juncture, I shall begin putting forth what I have had up my sleeve all along, with Carl Jung's ideas being a major, but not the only, illuminating torch. Basically, I will be elaborating on the said Spirit breathing where it wills, the archetype of Self in Jungian terms, chiefly on what its workings and expectations of us humans seem to be, and how we might not be living up to them. All my explications, in turn, can well be applied as to the events laid out in the previous part, so to the entirety of human life as it is, given the opening panoramic, and so too abysmal, view. This part, unlike the previous, could be much harder to understand – for one thing, it took me a number of years to see all the pieces of the puzzle fall into place. That said, the reader should brace himself or herself for a rather thorny and bumpy passage. (Rest)
...According to Jung as paraphrased and somewhat 'jazzed up' by me, the human psyche doesn't just hang loose in the air but has a predestination of sorts, an inner calling or pull as coming from the archetype of Self that can well be matched to the image of God in the Christian tradition. The progression towards this Self and coming on close terms with it, was called by Jung as “individuation”.
As far as humans are concerned, they, or, rather, we, have the right to take a pass on this deeper calling and be content with whatever 'smaller fish' out there in relatively 'shallow waters', drifting more like horizontally than inwardly. In a sense, this is the state of a 'normal', unpretentious existence.
There is also a freedom, for better or worse, to go in a pretty much opposite direction, ending up being possessed by the devil, or devilishness for that matter, if self-conscious personified evil sounds too much with some.
To recap, we are free to go down three major 'tracts' with whatever dynamics issuing from this. Only one of the three though can fulfill one's destiny in earnest and, perhaps, as importantly, with the most pleasurable, or least unsavory, afterlife experiences. (Rest)
...Suppose, the inward progression, or individuation, is there. This will essentially mean harmonization of cognition, emotions, intuition and physique in such a 'setup' for any given individual, which would lead to his or her greatest fulfillment and ennoblement. To put it differently, the primacy of the Spirit across the said layers or aspects of one's being will be manifesting in the least abrasive, most meaningful and most gracious way. What I basically refer to here and further in the text by “abrasion”, is all unnecessary hurt and/or grief.
In more practical terms, it is as simple, and so too hard, as taking up different roles in life (e.g. that of a child, a student, a spouse, a parent, an expert, a citizen, a ruler, a warrior, a sage, etc.) with their associated joys and/or responsibilities. All this, ideally, will be mediated by the unconscious, more like the Divine part of it, through a leveled-up cognition, sublime feelings, deep and intense emotions, or certain bodily states of the individuated one, all propelling him or her to a yet greater fulfillment.
In parallel to all this one ought to be developing a congruous mindset, marked with honesty, alertness and courage from the one side and humility and grace from the other, leading to, or emanating from, correct ideas about the Divine Principle, about life, about oneself. Honesty and courage will also be much needed in facing one's “shadow” (if any), a topic of later discussion.
Pretty much all inner states, in turn, can be mapped out onto two basic drives in their various 'setups': the drive for autonomy (“being”, masculine principle, “yang”, “rajas”) will be checked and balanced with the drive for belonging (non-being, feminine principle, “ying”, “tamas”). The pull towards Self, ideally, will be overlapping with these drives, informing them of 'spiritual competence', or higher nobility, and whirling them inwards in a centripetal kind of fashion. If the drives don't happen to be cooperative enough though, they may well find themselves on the periphery as cast away by the centrifugal push and sort of left to their own devices.
Essentially intuitive or instinctive pull towards Self appears to be a manifestation of a yet more cosmic, that is, independently existing of us humans, reality. With a smaller or greater degree of distortion, it must have been materializing in major religious traditions though not being confined by them. Physically or, rather, metaphysically, it appears to be the pace of time itself, the march of history “here and now”, no matter who or what is 'tagging along', or trying to, theology-, philosophy- or ideology-wise, and to which degree. Whatever setups across the basic drives, either on an individual or collective level, might come about, these will be brought to their logical conclusion both under their own momentum and via the relentless march of history in its purest, metaphysical sense. In this light and for brevity's sake, from now on I will be referring to the pull towards Self as Way, understood both in micro- and macrocosmic terms. As for the basic drives, these might well be called “being” and “non-being”, although the reader should feel free to use any of their respective aliases of his or her liking, masculine and feminine principles for one. (Rest)
...“Being” and “non-being”, or whichever their names are, call for more differentiation. Either of them can be subdivided into two major parts, the grosser and the subtler, the latter having the upper hand over the former in an ideal scenario. That is to say, one's higher cognition, the subtler aspect of “being”, will be taming his or her grosser self-assertiveness with its inherent 'tunnel vision'. In the same vein, sublime emotionality of “non-being” will be keeping in check its grosser sentimentality and lusts. For the purposes of this writing, I will be differentiating between more proactive self-assertiveness as coming from “being” and reactive self-entrenchment of “non-being”, though the latter, in a roundabout way, is “being”, too. The grosser and subtler parts of “being” and “non-being” will also be viewed as having higher- and lower-frequency respectively somewhat later in the text.
Be that as it might, once subtle aspects of “being” and “non-being” join together, each of them will be imparting the other, apart from other 'gifts' to exchange, with the lordship over its in-built grosser aspect. Simply put, higher cognition, if paired up with sublime emotionality, will become less excitable with sentiments and carnal impulses. Sublime emotionality, in turn, will be less prone to self-entrenchment and/or outer suppression. Should subtler aspects of “being” and “non-being” find themselves in a harmonious 'marriage', they will be dancing their way towards Self in the smoothest way possible. If I were to give a name to this kind of setup, “The Prince and the Princess” would be very much fitting.
Just a word on what might be lying still beyond it. Depending on the tradition, it may well be called as “enlightenment”, “liberation”, “resurrection”, “sainthood”, “Philosopher's stone” and so on, where “The King and the Queen”, the matured “The Prince and the Princess” – essentially the purest forms of “being” and “non-being”– will reign supreme. Way should well be expected to see it through whatever it takes, provided that the ennobled or enlightened one is cooperating. Speaking of the traditions, some of their pivotal pronouncements could be paraphrased as follows: “There is no way but Way”; “There is a middle Way between indulgence and self-denial”; “Nobody comes to the Father except through Way” and so on. (Rest)
...With “The Prince and the Princess” put up as an ideal, it now becomes possible to talk about pretty much any major deviation from it, my name-giving spree still going strong.
Higher cognition as somewhat distancing itself from sublime emotionality, may well be called “Flight of Icarus”, in more simple terms – idealistic individualism or liberalism. Apparently, 'Icarus' can go too far, with ultra-liberalism being the final destination before an imminent pullback towards what he has been trying to liberate itself from, essentially “non-being” now showing its grosser face. To the point, the mythological Icarus falls into the water, a universal symbol of femininity, that smashes him to death, unlike giving a gentle embrace. By and large, it stands for taking to sensuality and materialism overall, which is, essentially, a dead-end of individuation.
In more specific psychological or, rather, psychopathological terms yet, the fall of 'Icarus' may translate into anything between depression and severe dementia. Nietzsche for one exemplifies the latter scenario – he came to be swallowed by the abyss the hard way. It can be safely assumed that insanity is a sure sign of one's having sidetracked too far.
Another danger of “Flight of Icarus”, this time on the side of “being”, is 'Icarus', or 'Prince on the loose', as it were, actually becoming prone to grosser self-assertiveness, which kind of turns everything upside down – normally, 'Prince', or higher cognition, is supposed to have the upper hand with the grosser “being”. To the point, the same 'topsy-turvydom' yet on the side of “non-being”, will happen to the 'Princess' he has abandoned or, perhaps, never had a chance to meet. I am getting ahead of things though.
Sublime emotionality lacking in higher cognition might strike an image of a princess in the dungeon, quite an archetypal one at that. So “The Princess in the Dungeon” it is. Essentially, it signifies a deeply felt but somewhat misguided, entrenched or stifled piousness, love, empathy and admiration, or some combination of these. Without her 'Prince', or subtler aspect of “being”, the 'Princess' may take to self-entrenchment and/or become more susceptible to outer suppression and manipulation. It appears to be easier for “non-being”, of which the 'Princess' is the subtler part, to be a 'thing in itself', in its own “being”, since there is more substance to it, as it were. Whether it is self-entrenchment or outer suppression, it will be coming from the grosser “being”, in a roundabout way or directly, making up for the lack of the subtler one.
Speaking of the grosser part of “non-being”, sentimentality, that is, somewhat blown-up, ungraceful, misguided emotions and feelings, as well as sensuality, will be spiraling out of the 'Princess's' control. The said 'topsy-turvydom' that is.
One way or another, “The Princess in the Dungeon” setup is very much inherent in traditionalism in its broadest sense, religious fundamentalism being one of its starkest manifestations. Another entrapment of sorts, largely stifling the piousness part, would be a communist ideology in its atheistic rendition. The dungeon may turn out a much darker place yet, if the suppression of the 'Princess' assumes more extreme, abusive, more like outward forms rather than coming from within the psyche itself.
Bringing in Tolkien themes this time, narrow-mindedness and self-assertiveness, coupled with sentimentality, sensuality, and self-entrenchment, all in varying degrees but all the same bereft of a higher nobility, would be “Bungo and Belladonna”. These were parents of Bilbo the hobbit, who, unlike their more adventurous offspring, led a more 'two-dimensional' life. 'Hobbitness' or simply normality still stands a chance of being ennobled, as symbolized by Bilbo Baggins. It also runs a risk, alas, of sliding down in the bandwidth of “being” and “non-being” to something like Gollum essentially representing the corrupted normality. A more real, unlike literary example of the corruption, would be supremacism in its different shades, from entrenched nationalism to fascism where evil looms really large and cannot be confined or explained by “Bungo and Belladonna” alone. In this setup, evil is embraced not directly though but more like through naiveté, that is, misguided admiration and/or empathy, and “shadow”. In fairness, neither “Flight of Icarus”, nor “The Princess in the Dungeon” are spared of this dire possibility.
The basest and darkest setup of the major five, an inversion of “The Prince and the Princess” of sorts, shall be “Bonnie and Clyde” or “Clyde and Bonnie” for consistency's sake. Let it stay “Bonnie and Clyde” though, which kind of adds more to the inversion part. Simply put, it is a conscious, willful embrace of evil, and this goes down to devilishness. If I were to define evil, it would be some mix of unjustified and/or inhumane cruelty, coarseness, mockery, vulgarity, obscenity, blown-up sexuality and sexual perversion. Being entrenched and assertive in all or some of these on top, can well be the single-most important marker of devilishness. Apparently, beyond a certain point, “Bonnie and Clyde” can no longer be pulled in and graced by the abominated Way, receiving its insuperable 'centrifugal' pushback.
What I have been laying out thus far might feel overwhelming with the reader. Every bit of it counts in the solving of the puzzle though, so I apologize not. (Rest)
...“Shadow” it is. Basically, whatever remains unlived on the way towards Self and/or isn't allowed into the conscious mind for it to be properly processed, slips into the individual unconscious and forms what Jung called “shadow”. It proves a major obstruction to individuation, or simply ennoblement, which needs to be dealt with great care. Besides, it is a source of yet greater and/or more immediate perils, physical, psychological and/or spiritual, other than not being on the right track as per Way's lights.
To illustrate the makeup and dynamics of “shadow”, however simplified, I shall be using jealousy.
Say, one is lacking in self-assertion, or agency, which is an important precursor to developing competence in whatever walk of life. When coming across somebody who seems more fulfilled that way, he feels a bout of jealousy and, unlike doing something more wholesome, simply suppresses this reaction. Before long, a “shadow” springs into existence, which, unless burst, will only grow and darken.
Jealousy or not, Way's negative or positive stance towards the fulfillment in question, as well as some mix of abrasive reactions issuing from “being” and “non-being”, will define pretty much any shadow. As the for the jealousy-laden one, a sense of inferiority and frustration as coming from “being” and anything from sadness to depression, the 'gifts' of “non-being”, will define it.
Self-check: a sure sign of one's having a “shadow” will be his getting invariably triggered when coming across the object of jealousy, especially if the latter is pretty much in the same league, that is to say: a similar fulfillment is well within the reach of the 'shadowed' one or could have been achieved, had the circumstances been right.
Is jealousy the only possible reaction though to the fact of somebody being more fulfilled? A natural counterbalance to a jealous “being” would be an admiring “non-being”. In most cases, there appears to be some mix of these, especially if the object of jealousy is in a whole different category or order of magnitude. For one thing, parents tend to admire children rather than feel jealous of their achievements, should the latter outstrip the former in some major pursuits.
Seen from a somewhat different angle yet, admiration is, essentially, an energy that, once projected onto the object, would connect the admirer to it, or to whatever metaphysical entity standing behind it, for better or worse. This, in turn, would facilitate his or her own progression and fulfillment in the yearned-for direction, for worse or better. To the point, the ability to 'glue up' to an object and absorb whatever is there to absorb from it applies to empathy, too. When admiration and empathy come to be misapplied, this seems a more straightforward way to evil than through “shadow”. (Rest)
...Whatever the dynamics between jealousy and admiration comes to be, the first step in 'dissipating' the “shadow” will be honest recognition of jealousy itself. The very act of recognition should bring about initial detachment from whatever being recognized, in case of jealousy – one's sense of inferiority and jealous aggravation projected onto “the other”.
There is another step to take though, and there appear to be only three sound {dis}solutions here: either one pulls himself or herself together and actually starts doing something towards the yearned-for fulfillment while keeping admiration for those fulfilled or, at least, their fruit; or, completely takes to admiration without any ambitiousness and hard, abrasive feelings; or... gives up on the pursuit altogether if found unworthy.
As is said, Way doesn't seem to hold all fulfillments in life or applications of agency, or, say, projected admirations, to be meaningful and/or graceful. It can be safely assumed that the more vigorously one pushes away what has been predestined by Way as a fulfillment and/or embraces something unmeritorious, the farther he or she slides to the 'spiritual periphery', his or her “being” and “non-being” getting more abrased. For this reason, being on more or less close terms with Way is key to having proper discretion, including in the 'shadow work'. And just for recalling: whatever leads to “The Prince and the Princess” and beyond appears to be rated by Way as the most worthwhile fulfillment.
Coming back to “shadow”, obviously, jealousy is not the only source of it, with pride, resentment, guilt, and self-entrenchment being other potential culprits adding to a very complex “shadow” dynamics and, naturally, the 'shadow work' to be done. The differentiation of “shadow” into negative and positive, as well as individual and collective, would yet take the complexity up a notch or two. I shall undertake it nonetheless. (Rest)
...Essentially, “Flight of Icarus” and “The Princess in the Dungeon” are attempts to take to nobility, that is, some highness, in a somewhat skewed fashion. From whatever heights they find themselves in and in however slippery positions, each will be casting a negative “shadow”, that is, subconscious 'lump sums' of his or her susceptibilities and deficits, aggravated with whatever hard feelings, misguided admiration and/or empathy, onto the grosser 'bottoms' of both “being” and “non-being”.
Just for recalling, susceptibility of 'Icarus' as pertaining to the grosser “being” would be his hyper assertiveness (simply put, pride), that's apart from a greater risk of his falling prey to the grosser “non-being”. His obvious deficit is the 'Princes', sublime emotionality, as well as a yet higher wisdom of Way. Split up, his shadow will be 'longer' and 'thicker' as cast on the grosser “non-being”.
With the 'Princess' in her dungeon, it is, again, a greater susceptibility to sentimentality, the grosser “non-being”, which will add to the lesser part of her “shadow”. Its greater part will be defined by her self-entrenchment, a reactive grosser “being” of sorts, alone or coupled with a more proactive assertiveness of the grosser “being” as coming from outside of the psyche. The “Princess”, of course, will be missing her “Prince”, higher cognition that is.
Those living in the grosser 'bandwidth' anywhere between “Bungo and Belladona” and “Bonnie and Clyde”, will actually have positive “shadows”, meaning their unlived highness with whatever applied or misapplied admirations, jealousies, resentments and so on. These will be cast 'upwards', onto the subtler aspects of “being” and “non-being”, more like closing in on “Flight of Icarus” and “The Princess in the Dungeon” setups. To the point, it must be harder for “shadows” of outright evil ones to hit a steadier “The Prince and the Princess” setup graced by Way, with its notorious vigorous pushback to whatever evil, its “shadows” included.
Provided that “shadow” is, essentially, a projected energy having its 'charge' and a rather low 'frequency' – for one thing, one's being positioned closer or farther away from Self will determine the frequency range – opposite-charge “shadows”of similar frequencies are bound to interlock through intense gravitation streaming between them. The dynamics of same-charge “shadows” appears to be more complex at that: these will either clash or magnify one another, largely depending on the relationship between their 'owners'. It is through their negative and positive “shadows”, for instance, ultra-liberals and ultra-right nationalists happen to clinch.
A crucial point, well, one of the many: it appears that physical distance isn't of much hindrance for “shadows” to strike a relationship with whatever issuing dynamics in the world of psyche and whichever its physical manifestations. After a certain point, it seems, whether those casting “shadows” fancy it or loathe it, it becomes too late for them to withdraw themselves from the 'shadowy roller-coaster' they find themselves locked in, until the ride, or drama, plays out in full.
The last but not the least differentiation to make: just as there are “individual shadows” in the personal unconscious, so too loom “collective shadows” in the collective unconscious. Basically, one becomes further 'overshadowed' with “the collective shadow, down to being possessed by devilishness, unless some 'shadow work' has been successfully undertaken. Though Jung was of a different opinion on the origins of the “collective shadow”, as per my lights it can be likened to a pocket or cesspool of sorts for whatever spiritual 'by-products' or 'waste', and for whichever reasons, placed there or disgorged by Way, more like by its macrocosmic hypostasis. It seems that hard-boiled pride, resentment, and jealousy, among all other low-frequency devilish emanations, define at least some of those peripheral slumps. (Rest)
...Whatever the reader is making of my cogitations in this part, as far as some practicalities are concerned, like the 'shadow work' on venting out jealousy, there might be more merit to it than to anything else. For this reason, I would like to offer more practical tips on how pride, resentment, and guilt, other major 'shadowy' culprits could be meaningfully processed. One should keep in mind though that, unless graced and informed by Way, these approaches will prove a limited value.
Just like with jealousy, the first step in the 'shadow work', no matter the issue at hand, is always about honest recognition. As simple, and so too hard, as that.
In keeping with honesty, pride, among other things, can be seen as one's taking credit for what actually doesn't belong to, or created by, him or her, whether it be some inborn talents or life happenstances. Pride is a spiritual theft of sorts, unlike a more obvious physical appropriation. If one honestly and earnestly admits that, at least part of the pride, along with the associated lump of the “shadow”, may well drop off.
Resentment it is. Well, just as with jealousy, there appear to be only three meaningful {dis}solutions here: letting go of a grievance, which would restore, at least to some extent, the previously severed warm relationship; letting go of something in a cold, detached way in case the relationship is not viable and, perhaps, for valid reasons; acting out the grievance fairly (discretion as coming from Way is key) and then letting go of it either in a warm or cold fashion. At least, that's how Way seems to be dealing with his own grievances. In a way, he is a simple fellow.
The last culprit on the list is guilt. It can be seen as a form of resentment projected onto oneself and more like suppressed than having undergone the dissolution in the stream of Way, which is more commonly known as contrition, and/or worked out in some sort of penance. Again, it is up to Way to decide on the 'solubility' of one's guilt and might-be penalties to assign. Certain transgressions seem to be unpardonable, of which a major sign would be the total lack of contrition, essentially an invitation from Way to the guilty one to rectify himself or herself. Unprocessed or undissolved guilt, among other things, will be causing abrasion of “being” and “non-being”, throwing them down the bandwidth of frequencies with whatever susceptibilities defining them.
Now everything seems to be in place for me to proceed with what has yet to come the reader's way.
Part 3. Still Beyond
If the reader expects me to go back to Ukraine and analyze the recent, and so too faraway events in this land through the prism of “shadow” and all, he or she is ridding himself or herself of this very opportunity. I have provided plenty of cues, including of the metaphysical recesses in which Ukrainian collective consciousness, more like its nationalistic and pro-Western brands, might have become embedded through the sum of individual “shadows” and misapplied admiration. Ukrainians seem to be wallowing in the heightened attention to them in the world anyways, so if a fellow like myself chooses to skip up on Ukraine and mind his own business, my Ukrainian fellow-travelers in time and space would barely notice any difference. (Rest)
My business lies elsewhere indeed. I would like to offer the reader another exercise in abstraction, this time in mapping out my derivations from the previous part onto world history, its last several thousands of years or so. Perhaps, the point of departure could be moved still farther.
Whatever purely human has been happening in this world, there could have been, and still is, a much deeper layer looming, first and foremost – Way, its workings, its expectations of us humans, and, among other things, its attempts to straighten out whatever has gone 'out of whack'. It wouldn't be an oversimplification of me to say that the collective East at some point came to represent “The Princess in the Dungeon”, with the collective West tasked to make up for the missing 'Prince' and liberate the 'Princess'. In other words, for whatever reasons translating into self-entrenchment, spirituality in the East proved to be lacking in higher cognition with its inherent tamed self-assertion, or agency, a critical component of “The Prince and the Princess” setup. The 'Princess' was still there though, with occasional flares of the 'Prince' and a handful of “The King and the Queen” instances. And the West took up the slack, so to speak, for better or worse. This vision alone of the whole world partaking of a higher collective destiny and tasks as coming from Way, and mistakes of some individual parts leading to collective spiritual disasters, may help one transcend his or her nationalistic and other entrenchments. For one thing, the West ending up as 'Icarus' has brought no good to the rest of the planet.
Speaking of 'Icarus', America, more like its better self, appears to have been predestined as the flagship in the higher task of the West to become the 'Prince', with its pragmatic “whatever works” geared, among other things, to breaking away from all the overburdening, 'not working' baggage in the progression towards Self or individuation, or ennoblement. I have been intentionally refraining from quotes thus far, but now I wish to make an exception for Jacob Needleman, his “The Soul of America”, which seems a very good fit here:
“...To love America is not to love one’s roots – it is to love the flower that has not yet blossomed, the fruit as yet unripened. To love America is to love the future, and perhaps it is this that sets the love of America apart from what men and women of other nations feel about their native land. One is born Greek or German or Japanese. But to be born American does not mean the same thing. One becomes American. One cannot become German or Greek or Japanese in that way, just as one cannot change one’s bones or the color of one’s skin. But there is something in oneself that can be changed. What is it? There is something in oneself that can develop and evolve.” At the same time, the motif of being enchanted with the East (all owing to the 'Princess'), taking to its ancient wisdom and then excelling or getting on a par with it at the least, essentially becoming the 'Prince', has been a 'thing' of the West's unconscious, and America in particular, all along, finding its expression in art, literature, films. Presently though, as is already pointed out, the West's 'royalty' is more like a fig-leaf for whatever tumblings of 'Icarus' and yet grosser and more sinister setups. (Rest)
...Lying between the East and the West is my motherland Russia. What could be a higher significance of her geographical vastness and juxtaposition in the grander scheme of things?
In an ideal scenario, it could be a safety mechanism, as it were, from whatever excesses of the East and the West, an appeal to sanity and common sense, as well as the ability to stand up for these.
Seen from a somewhat different angle, this should be also imparting her with flexibility: while the East and the West are coasting too much under their momentum, whatever setups taking root in Russia seem to be brought to their logical conclusion much faster, with whichever 'fruit' to showcase to the rest of the planet.
Geographical vastness, ideally, would translate into the vastness of soul, largesse, nobility. For one thing, unlike Ukrainian nationalists with their entrenched resentments over real or imaginary misdoings of the Russians, the latter harbor barely any grudges against Germans as a people for whatever their forefathers did during the Great Patriotic War in 1941-1945 when millions upon millions of Russians had been decimated. Or, when the Soviet leaders of the late 1980s gave up on the Iron Curtain with whatever relinquishments and allowances to follow, all in the spirit of genuine cooperation with and sympathy towards the West, there had been barely any historical precedents of this kind of nobility when a superpower would basically lay down arms and offer its hand to the adversary, another superpower. I suppose the West took it more as a sign of foolishness than anything else.
One might ask: has Russia always been her better self? And to this I would answer: hell no. For one thing, the collapse of the Soviet Union and all hardships that befell the Russians in the aftermath, may have dissolved a large portion of whatever wrongs committed by them. What Russia is currently doing though appears to be much more in line with her heavenly destiny or Way, basically challenging the frenzied and somewhat demonized 'Icarus' and being the lodestone for whatever sanity and normality left Earthside. (Rest)
...Yet another experiment in abstraction, the last one. Suppose, the adversary gets defeated, with the planet becoming a safer and saner place with different poles of power nicely mushrooming. To put it differently, a complex configuration of “Bungo and Belladonna” and “The Princess in the Dungeon” of all stripes having some shades of “Bonnie and Clyde” at that, emerges on the scene. As per Way's lights, could that be seen as nothing but a springboard for something yet greater and loftier? Apparently, its centripetal pull would be as streaming as ever and settling for nothing less than “The Prince and the Princess”. Would this setup become a more viable possibility? Or would the multipolar configuration, once entrenched, prove yet another hurdle on the path of individuation understood both as a personal and collective destiny? Perhaps, I will make another exception for a quote, this time coming from Jung, that could provide here an informed answer:
“I have failed in my foremost task, to open people’s eyes to the fact that man has a soul and there is buried treasure in the field and that our religion and philosophy are in a lamentable state.” What would I personally reply? I don't have an answer apart from doing my 'thing' however small, of which this writing of mine is an emanation. And what precisely I am doing is not its topic.
October, 2024