Jung theorizes that men (or the male archetype) represent* God to women; so as soon as a man doubts that he is attractive to a woman he doesn't represent God anymore.
In other words, I can be a chronic
masturbator who lives with his mother and is unemployed, but as soon as I
feel that this makes me unattractive to a woman, I cease representing God.
To make this clearer, God is invisible. The male (the representation of God) can easily feel invisible to women because he is not usually wanted by women in the obvious way of -- let's say -- pornographic magazines. Women's sexuality is mysterious because she is not responding essentially to the male form but to an archetype: the visible representation of the invisible God. (i.e. Man). Unless a man knows this, he can easily get 'lost in space' and exclaim like the character in Revolutionary Road who asks his wife, "What am I"; to which his wife replied, "You are the most wonderful thing in the world. You are a man"; or like the Seinfeld episode where the woman told Elaine how she loses interest in a man: "They whine... and 'tell me' (subconsciously perhaps) that they are not good enough for me and -- you know what-- I believe them". Attractive women usually don't have to do much to attract men; and likewise, a man (any man, even a physically unattractive one) usually doesn't have to do much either to attract a woman other than trust that he is "the most wonderful thing in the world": the visible representation of the invisible God.
* R. Hirsch comments that the root of the Hebrew word for likeness (damah) in the verse "In His likeness" (Gen.1:26) explains why Adam is called 'Adam'. 'Adam' is NOT referring to earth (adamah) or blood (dam) or the combination 'red earth', but to man's likeness to God. He thus translates 'Adam' as "a representative", not simply a creature of earth and blood.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Mythical man's (i.e. the Orthodox) need for Tanakh to be historically true and the secular position that opposes him both miss the point.
History alone (and here the Orthodox and their secular opponents both err in their dedication to 'history') is not enough. Man does not have to live by history alone, but can live with a mythical overlay in, under, and over history -- the mythical tied to the historical -- a mythical patina over historical consciousness.
This leads to orthopraxy.