HEM - Copyright ©2008 SBSK
Return to Main Page

Guided Tour

Index of

The 12 Books of Abraham


    Enatiodromia and
    the Supramale:
    Where Carl Jung
    Went Wrong

    Somehow I thought your eyebrows would go up when you read the title. And unless you are acquainted with psychology, you've probably never heard of enatiodromia because it isn't in most dictionaries of the English language.

    Unlike Sigmund Freud who tried to interpret all human behaviour in terms of the sexual, Carl Jung had a much broader view of the libido than his erstwhile rival in Vienna, regarding the libido as the life energy in toto. Unlike Christians/Messianics who poisit a spiritual dimension, both Jung and Freud viewed human behaviour as an exclusively psychic phenomenon connected only to physicality. Like all occultists, though, Jung was very fixated on the concept of opposites which in true Yin-Yang fashion he saw in exclusively monogamous terms.

    The concept of enatiodromia is not, actually, Jungian but owes its origin to the Greek Anatolian philosopher Heraclitus (540-480 BC), best remembered for his cosmology in which fire forms the basic material principle of an orderly universe.

      "Though he was primarily concerned with explanations of the world around him, Heracleitus also stressed the need for men to live together in social harmony. He complained that most men failed to comprehend the logos (Greek, 'reason'), the universal principle through which all things are interrelated and all natural events occur, and thus lived like dreamers with a false view of the world. A significant manifestation of the logos, Heracleitus claimed, is the underlying connection between opposites. For example, health and disease define each other. Good and evil, hot and cold, and other opposites are similarly related. In addition, he noted that a single substance may be perceived in varied ways - seawater is both harmful (for men) and beneficial (for fishes). The relation of opposites to each other enabled him to overcome the chaotic and divergent nature of the world, and he asserted that the world exists as a coherent system in which a change in one direction is ultimately balanced by a corresponding change in another. Between all things there is a hidden connection, so that those that are apoarently 'tending apart' are actually 'being brought together'" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1981, Micropaedia, Heracleitus, Vol.IV, p.1035).

    Like so many pagans of his time, Heracleitus viewed Elohim (God) as neither a Creator not omnipotent but was limited to an identification with the opposites, which persist through their changes and thus are able to perfectly comprehend their own unity. He believed in the complete extinction of the soul at death and in that respect differed from his fellow religionists, attracting considerable scorn and hostility.

    Carl Jung picked up on Heracleitus' theory of enatiodromia - by which he meant that everything must ultimately flow to its opposite - and incorporated it into his psychological theories. He wrote:

      "The transition from morning to afternoon means a revaluation of the earlier values. There comes the urgent need to appreciate the value of the opposite of our former ideals, to perceive the error in our former convictions ... It is of course a fundamental mistake to imagine that when we see the non-value in a value or the untruth in a truth, the value or the truth ceases to exist. It has only become relative. Everything human is relative, because everything rests on inner polarity, without which there could be no energy. There must always be high and low, hot and cold, etc., so that the equilibrating process - which is energy - can take place ... The point is not conversion into the opposite but conservation of precious values together with recognition of their opposites" (Psychology of the Unconscious: 1916, pp.67f).

    Thus according to Jungian psychology, the current rise of feminism is owed to the fact that the masculine principle in western society has suffered a 'burnout', causing the feminine to rise and dominate, to lend her strength until the two principles are reconciled and unite to forge a new cultural 'thrust' for the next age. Thus occultists who subscribe to the Jungian model would claim that now is the time for the 'sacred feminine' to re-emerge to play her rôle in the waning hours of the Age of Pisces, for her opposite cannot be whole without her.

    That such thinking accounts in part for the rise in promiscuity, the collapse of the family unit, and the ascent of feminism is undeniable. It follows an old occult script which requires the union of male and female, black and white, good and evil. Occultism seeks to form a balance between Good and Evil, between 'Jehovah' and 'Lucifer', so that the universe can carry rolling on in its merry way. Polygamy, they would claim, was an abberration caused by the unnatural ascent of the masculine in the form of Patriarchy, but because this is unnatural, there has, over the millennia, been a major swing towards the last bastion of patriarchy, monogamy (with male headship), which is now moving in the direction of the feminine. The rise of the pagan Wicca religion, which exalts the female deity, is a natural development of this pendulum swing - not towards an unnatural female dominance but to MATRIARCHY. For nearly all occultists claim that the 'original' and true religion was Matriarchal, one which exalted the Mother for whom the man was her consort.

    That such an historical movement is underway from male to female is scarcely deniable, but that it is heading towards some feministic paradise where the 'brutal' male principle is subdued by the more enlightened and gentle female one is, I would suggest, pure bunkum. Predictably, no distinction exists in this model between the male and female psyche (the carnal part of man) and the male and female spirit (which lies above it). Such observations that philosophers like Jung and Heracleitus make are only 'valid' (to a certain degree) on the plane in which they operate but fail to take into account that 'other realm'.

    For example, to equate heat and cold as though they were substantive opposites is, as any reputable scientist will tell you, nonsense. Cold is simply an absence of heat - there is no such measurable or containable quality as 'cold'. The same is true of darkness which is no more than an absence of light. Similarly, evil is simply an absence of good, and is not a qualtity in itself - there is no such thing as 'absolute evil' which can in some way 'balance' 'absolute good'. The doctrine, taken to its logical conclusion, posits that there are two deities - a good and a bad one - that need each other for existence in some sort of perverse Yin-Yang.

    False occultic Yin-Yang dualism

    In the beginning there was Yahweh and nothing and nobody else. He had no 'opposite', no 'alma mater' (bountiful mother), Gaia, Hecate, Lilith or other independent female deity. As the model of Adam and Eve show to us, male and female are not strictly speaking 'opposites', though they are this too, because male contains female, just as the male sex chromosome pair 'contains' the female X chromosome alongside the male Y. By contrast, the female consists of a pair of X's.

    A male star (sun) may exist with or without female planets but a female planet cannot exist without a star. Of course, on our physical plane man cannot do without woman, and vice versa, but that is not my point here: the question is what issues from what, and how. And in the divine system of things female issues from male and then recombines with it in a different way to multiply both.

    It is my view that on the spiritual plane, and in a perfect physical world such as Eden, different principles obtain to that in this fallen one. Harmony in the higher realms of the Almighty does not consist of one-to-one but of one-to-many ... in a word, polygamy.

    This is no more graphically represented than in the relationship of the Father, Yahweh(1)-Elohim(many) to the Spirit Mother (which, as I have argued elsewhere, is female), which is described as being 7-fold (see, Yah'shua the Messiah and His Place in the Godhead). Thus the relationship between Male to Female is 1:1 and 1:7, just as is depicted in Isaiah 4:1. And no one is going to say that heaven is a place of entantiodromia.

    We are, as dual spirit-physical beings, dealing with dual realities where different harmonies obtain. There can be no doubt that for the purely psychic man, monogamy is the natural and ideal state in which the sexes can coexist. But in the spiritual realm, where higher laws obtain, polygamy is the norm.

    These two realms are not the best of friends. In fact, at times they are mortal enemies. The harmony of one is the disharmony of the other. That is why the Scriptures make is perfectly claim that you cannot live both a spiritual and a carnal life, but must choose one or the other. To be spiritual, means to bring the carnal to heel and into a submissive position; to be carnal, means to repress/oppress the spiritual altogether. And it's not just a question of 'one of the other - take your pick', the issue is one of life and death, for the spiritual is eternal but the carnal (psychic) is mortal and perishes.

    Of his own accord, man cannot reconcile these hostile opposites - opposities that can never be 'harmonised' or 'balanced'. Our true earth history consists not so much in the changing equilibrium of natural opposites (male/female, hot/cold) but of the war between mortal antagonists. The question is "either/or", not some kind of pantheistic conjurer's balancing act.

    There is no such thing as 'male vs. female' - it's just a smoke screen devised by the devil who wishes to upset the cosmic apple cart at every opportunity. The eternal principle is a 'Cosmic Male' -- not the natural earthly 'male' - but a Supramale which is male, and yet male and female at the same time. It is not androgenous or hermaphrodite either, both of which terms serve only confuse (and are used as a justification for homosexuality and lesbianism).

    We can put it this way: female is male, but male is not female. The female is an extension of the male, and is the male. The only 'equilibrisation' that has yet to take place is the return of the female to the male - of the Church (Messianic Community) back to Christ, of Israel back to the Father, of plural wives back to their singular husbands, of the Sevenfold Spirit back to Elohim.

    It is no accident therefore that God is called 'Elohim', a uniplural word denoting both unity and plurality. Elohim's (God's) Name, Yahweh, is invariably attached to this uniplural concept as 'Yahweh-Elohim' - the One who is also many. And only the polygyny model really explains what this means, in my view.

    This 'harmonisation' can only be accomplished by an act of divine atonement, by what we call the death and resurrection of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Man, by his rebelliousness, split the cosmic unity; God (Elohim), by His infinite grace and mercy, restores it through the sacrifice of His life-blood.

    The reason for the success of a true polygamous family and the complete harmony between the wives their husband, is, I believe, their apprehension of this cosmic principle. Without it, plural marriage (polygyny) would have no ultimate meaning and be no more than an exercise in self-discipline or a temporary earth-bound remedy for the social evils of misogamy, misogyny, androphylia, feminism, macho male chauvanism, and all the other spiritual and psychological disfunctions that obtain between the sexes.

    The Bride of Christ is monogamous and polygamous - one and many

    Our attitudes towards marriage are very much shaped by these considerations. What is remarkable (for us, at least) is to see how smoothly the model works in practice once you have adapted to the biblical way of thinking. Once you start thinking and feeling spiritually, what was once attractive on the psychic plane becomes quite repulsive. The 'drives' that lead carnal man by the nose no longer apply. Thus the attraction to monochrome TV vanishes as one becomes accustomed to the superior polychrome (colour) version and one simply would never go back to what one had before.

    Seen in its proper light, polygyny is not about the man on one side of the scales and the wives on the other, for there are no 'scales' in this dimension. People get so fixated in weighing, measuring and comparing that they forget to live. Polygamy is not, in any case, primarily about multiple human units, but about the whole. We are One (Echad) and we are Many, but it's the Oneness that means the most to us. Just as Elohim (God) is Three (or Nine, if you remember the Holy Spirit is Seven), we primarily think of Him, and experience Him, as One. Can anybody claim to have felt the presence (Shekinah) of Elohim (God) and been able to distinguish between the Father, Son and Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit)? No, of course not! It is one encounter and one experience.

    The carnal man puts things on scales, as Nimrod did when he introduced the first weights and measures. In the perfect society, such things do not exist.

    My wives and I are one Supramale, and without each other we are incomplete. "One for all, and all for one". Our collective head is Christ, just as the head of Christ is the Father. And all the Supramales together - the families of the justified - are collectively another order of (non-sexual) Supramale with the Godhead as head.

    If your eyebrows are still raised, I'm not surprised.

    Author: SBSK

    Return to Articles Index Return to Complete Index Page

    First created on 5 July 2001
    Updated on 12 February 2016

    Copyright © 1987-2016 Chavurat Bekorot All Rights Reserved
    Wszelkie Prawa Zastrzeżone | Alle Recht vorbehalten