Below is the 1956 text of a private correspondence between an elderly Jung and a woman who asked for an answer to the problem of an unconscious, ignorant creator-god and if this did not imply “some principle, some Ground of Being, beyond such a demiurge.” In it Jung leans into his Answer to Job notion that the God image evolves over time to become more conscious; this is quite different from his earlier conception within his Liber Novus that God (or the God-image, at least - a Kantian term he firmly insisted on using) was Abraxas, the terrifying unity of all good and all evil combined. Under the Abraxas conception, humanity exists to experience consciously the split opposites (because consciousness only arises from limitation, and therefore it is the one thing it lacks), and all experiences - good, bad, it doesn’t matter - increases Abraxas’s totality.

Jung steps back from Abraxas as a limit condition God image as he aged, because he saw how destabilizing such a conception would be for most people - it would either shatter them or turn them into identifying with totality or amorality. So he accepts incoherence of argument (because he had attacked the privatio boni viciously) while implicitly reintroducing elements of it to maintain ethical and psychological containment for most people. And even Edinger brushes up against this line and recoils from it.

Yet in the present era, I see no alternative God-image capable of accounting for the crucifixion of opposites without evasion. Any image that preserves coherence by denying totality does so at the cost of falsifying experience.