Power or love

This is somewhat of a continuation (or may be elaboration) of the post "Relationships and individuation" - I saw the following quote while reading:

Power and eros exclude each other totally. Jung writes, "Where love reigns, there is no will to power; and where the will to power is paramount, love is lacking." You cannot combine the two; it's either one or the other. Jung said that no man can ever assimilate or even get to know what the anima is before he has overcome power-schemes in connection with feminine contacts, purely sexual drive or purely aesthetic considerations. As long as a man looks at a woman for sex or for her good looks, or maybe for her bank account, there is no question of love and therefore no question of getting to know what the anima could even be.

For a woman it would be if she falls off course in her search for the truth. You see, the animus in its positive essence is a healing spirit, a spirit of truth. So if a woman falsifies her inner search for truth by getting enmeshed in power games, or by pursuing a man simply because he has money, the same catastrophe will ensue. For example, you go to university and have to write a thesis. You have an idea for that thesis but you know it's one your professor will not accept. If you don't write about that idea because it is more important to you to get good grades than to write what you believe is true, then you have betrayed your truth - just as a man betrays his love by having an eye on the woman's bank account. Again it's power. . . .

Seen in the light of the anima problem of men, the question ultimately becomes that of having to to decide between love - one's heart, one's feelings - and social status or some other worldly value.

This is followed by the following quote by Jung

It is really the individual's task to differentiate himself from all others and stand on his own feet. All collective identities, such as membership in organizations, support of "isms," and so on, interfere with the fulfillment of this task. Such collective identities are crutches for the lame, shields for the timid, beds for the lazy, nurseries for the irresponsible.

(1, p. 118)

This passage struck me as important. My first thought, of course, was in relation to my tendency to "push" those I cared for to do what I thought best for them, and how that was at heart a power play, even though it was done with the best of intentions. 

On a purely personal level the conflict between power and love, and which one one chooses, is at the heart of our everyday lives. Which is it going to be? How are we going to approach others and our lives? But the question of power or love goes beyond that. It's a question of the attitude one takes to one's entire life, everything we do. Our very goals. It's always a question of intention: Why am I doing this? Am I doing it to advance myself, or because I feel deep down that it's the right thing to do?

The question of which we choose, power or love, strikes at the heart of the conflict between the ego and the Self... and also why the ego must die. It has to die to it's desires for "worldly" success. And it has to die before it can be reborn; if the ego cannot survive without the Self - cannot even exist without the Self, as the ego is merely a structure which grows out of the ground of the Self - then the Self cannot fully flower without the ego and the ego's consciousness. But in order for the ego to be able carry out this task it has to die and be reborn.


Books referenced

1. von Franz, Marie-Louise, Archetypal Patterns in Fairy Tales.