Jung (In the weeds): Part One

Do you have a conversation topic that doesn't seem to fit any of the other conversations? Here is where we discuss ANYTHING about Joseph Campbell, comparative mythology, and more!

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Jung (In the weeds): Part One

Post by Neoplato » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:43 pm

Jung (In the Weeds): Part Two can be found HERE and Part Three HERE for those interested in subsequent discussions about the basics of Jungian Analytical Psychology.

Also see the Jungian thread entitled Cats & Flowers HERE.


Image


Below is a list of topics covered in this thread in order of appearance. (Thanks Cindy for putting in the time to do this!) The thread's first post appears just below:


Jung (In the Weeds): Part One: General List of Topics (in order of first appearance):

Persona

Campbell, Jung, and Freud: Clarification of Terminology

Jungian Models of the Psyche

The Syzygy

Archetypes and the Persona

Archetypes and Creativity

Personality

Instincts, Archetypes, and the Collective Unconscious (Jung and Campbell, link)

The Psyche and Balance of Functioning

Individuation (Part 1)

The Collective Unconscious and Self

The God-image and Atheism in Analytical Psychology

Consciousness and the Ego

The Personal Unconscious and Complexes

Example of Jungian Fairy Tale Interpretation: Little Red Ridinghood

The Shadow

Dreams and Dreaming

Habit and the Personal Unconscious

Jung: “The individual is the only reality.”

Enantiodromia and Opposites (Jung and Campbell)

Anima and Animus

Jung and Campbell: Comparison of Individuation and Following One’s Bliss/Hero's Journey

Jungian Introductory Readings

Jung’s “confrontation with the unconscious”

* On to Jung (In The Weeds): Part Two...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree, we should probably move to “conversation with a thousand faces”, but I don’t believe the topic of “Jung” is forbidden on the website. I believe the first episode of “Mythos” begins with Joe talking about “The Shadow”, “Anima/Animus” and the Ego.

I just read this morning (in Jung’s words) that the Shadow and Anima/Animus are “archetypes”. I understand his notion of this. The next section deals with archetypes and ego (which I won’t get to until later today). I’ll let you know what I discover.
Hello all. I'm moving a conversation Cindy B. and I were having on another thread here. I'm trying to get "into the weeds" on Jungian terminology. This may be really boring for some, but to me it's fascinating.

_______________________________________________________________________

I had forgotten about the persona or the "mask" people put on to interact with society. This complicates things for me a bit; kind of like adding an extra layer. Jung implies that the ego is a victim of two separate forces acting upon it; the persona and the unconscious. The stronger the ego identifies with the persona, the stronger the unconscious will react against it (and he cites some good examples).

So in my terms "egothink" is confused by it's expected role and actions within society and the constant 'tugging" from the unconscious (the call?). So then this makes me wonder if inner peace actually results from the elimination of the ego, or a "fusing" of the "mask" with the unconscious?

More to follow. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Jung (In the weeds)

Post by Cindy B. » Sun Jun 28, 2009 1:05 am

Neoplato wrote:I had forgotten about the persona or the "mask" people put on to interact with society. This complicates things for me a bit; kind of like adding an extra layer. Jung implies that the ego is a victim of two separate forces acting upon it; the persona and the unconscious. The stronger the ego identifies with the persona, the stronger the unconscious will react against it (and he cites some good examples).

So in my terms "egothink" is confused by it's expected role and actions within society and the constant 'tugging" from the unconscious (the call?). So then this makes me wonder if inner peace actually results from the elimination of the ego, or a "fusing" of the "mask" with the unconscious?
Neoplato,

Remember in the other thread my pointing out that it’s important to keep in mind the differing perspectives of East and West, and also the differences in terminology as used by Jung and Freud (and Campbell which I’ll clarify in a moment)?

I’m reminding you of this again since from the perspectives of Campbell and Jung, "the elimination of the ego" is not the aim when following one’s bliss or pursuing individuation. The ego is essential to the Western psyche’s development and expression as the center of consciousness, as the link between an individual’s outer and inner worlds and between the conscious and the unconscious. The Eastern psyche in its development and expression is a complementary way of being, with the ultimate aim of transcending the trappings of the world and ego rather than actively engaging with them; and please know that I’m not implying this way is somehow inferior to the West’s just different. The Westerner who finds value in Eastern ideas must keep in mind that Oriental beliefs, concepts, and practices, despite the occasional similarities to the Occidental, require a process of translation and flexibility to accommodate the Western mind set.

(Go here for related information in my MythNow Blog entry, A Bit of West Meets East, of Jung and Campbell, of Psychology.)


Now, again, a bit about terminology, and please note the use of capitalization or not:

* Campbell’s “hero or Hero” is the same as Jung’s “ego” and Freud’s “self.” Each is an essential conscious factor in psychic functioning.

* Jung’s “Self” is the central archetype of the collective unconscious from which the ego develops as a conscious extension. Jung conceptualized the Self as the archetype of wholeness and orchestrator of psychic functioning at all levels, and also as the unconscious factor that gives rise to instinctual spirituality. It’s the stirrings of Self that are at the root of individuation and following one’s bliss, the development of consciousness, and the generation of myth. Also, recall that I mentioned in the other thread that initially Jung did not capitalize the term “Self”; however, whenever you’re reading Jung and come across the lower case “self,” do think “Self-as-archetype” as he intended. (Freud had no concept similar to Self, nor did he posit a level of psychic functioning comparable to the collective unconscious.)

* Campbell frequently speaks of both Jung and Freud, of course, and while he certainly had a thorough understanding of both men’s theories, Campbell does not necessarily employ each’s terminology when referring to their ideas. Most importantly, sometimes Campbell uses the term “ego” and sometimes “self” when discussing Jung; and when generalizing about depth psychology or the development of personality, he commonly uses "self." So when reading Campbell, if the focus is on conscious functioning, think Jungian “ego” and Freudian “self.”

* At the heart of Campbell’s thinking, of course, is the notion of spirituality and its link to myth-making, whether collective or personal. He draws heavily on Jung’s notion of Self and its implications, but Campbell tends to use the term “self” in a general sense when addressing these ideas and the implications for a particular individual, that is, he uses the term in a layperson’s sense. So when reading Campbell, if the focus is on unconscious processes at the level of myth and the collective unconscious, keep in mind that the Self-as-archetype creates the story, so to speak, and motivates the main character who is the conscious “hero/ego/self."

The term "Self"* seems a suitable one for the unconscious substrate whose actual exponent in consciousness is the ego. The ego stands to the Self as the moved to the mover, or as object to subject, because the determining factors that radiate outward from the Self surround the ego on all sides and are therefore supraordinate to it. The Self, like the unconscious, is an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves. It is, so to speak, an unconscious prefiguration of the ego. It is not I who create myself; rather, I happen to myself. (From Jung's "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass" in CW 11, par. 391.) (*I capitalized "Self" since in this excerpt Jung had not.)



Do you, Neoplato, have a copy of Pathways to Bliss? There Campbell also addresses much of what I've said so far.


***


I’d planned to go into the persona for you, too, Neoplato, but I’ve run out of time. Sorry. So for now, keep in mind that the persona has both positive and negative characteristics and implications. As social beings in relationship who need to get along, we must learn to play certain roles in society to function and create meaningful and successful lives for ourselves and our families, and also to contribute to the well-being of society as a whole, and one way we do this is to adopt various personae to meet the demands of the social situations at hand. What is key is developing the insight to consciously choose among various personae with the recognition that we’re playing prescribed roles for specific purposes, and then being able to set aside those masks and their associated beliefs and behaviors until needed again or perhaps discarding them entirely when they no longer serve. More about this later if you’d like.

Cindy
Last edited by Cindy B. on Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

To Jungian Models of the Psyche

Post by Cindy B. » Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:35 pm

Neoplato,

This you'll find helpful--go here to view various "Jungian Models of the Psyche": http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 0551#90551


Cindy
Last edited by Cindy B. on Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:03 pm

* Campbell’s “hero or Hero” is the same as Jung’s “ego” and Freud’s “self.” Each is an essential conscious factor in psychic functioning.
Got it. That makes perfect sense.
* Jung’s “Self” is the central archetype of the collective unconscious from which the ego develops as a conscious extension. Jung conceptualized the Self as the archetype of wholeness and orchestrator of psychic functioning at all levels, and also as the unconscious factor that gives rise to instinctual spirituality.
I’m good here too. I like to say “TrueSelf” to keep it straight in my mind.
It’s the stirrings of Self that are at the root of individuation and following one’s bliss, the development of consciousness, and the generation of myth. Also, recall that I mentioned in the other thread that initially Jung did not capitalize the term “Self”; however, whenever you’re reading Jung and come across the lower case “self,” do think “Self-as-archetype” as he intended. (Freud had no concept similar to Self, nor did he posit a level of psychic functioning comparable to the collective unconscious.)
“Self as Archetype”. Got it.
* Campbell frequently speaks of both Jung and Freud, of course, and while he certainly had a thorough understanding of both men’s theories, Campbell does not necessarily employ each’s terminology when referring to their ideas. Most importantly, sometimes Campbell uses the term “ego” and sometimes “self” when discussing Jung; and when generalizing about depth psychology or the development of personality, he commonly uses "self." So when reading Campbell, if the focus is on conscious functioning, think Jungian “ego” and Freudian “self.”
Yes I noticed that too, which is why I’m glad you clarified this.
* At the heart of Campbell’s thinking, of course, is the notion of spirituality and its link to myth-making, whether collective or personal. He draws heavily on Jung’s notion of Self and its implications, but Campbell tends to use the term “self” in a general sense when addressing these ideas and the implications for a particular individual, that is, he uses the term in a layperson’s sense. So when reading Campbell, if the focus is on unconscious processes at the level of myth and the collective unconscious, keep in mind that the Self-as-archetype creates the story, so to speak, and motivates the main character who is the conscious “hero/ego/self."
I like that analogy. :D
The term "Self"* seems a suitable one for the unconscious substrate whose actual exponent in consciousness is the ego. The ego stands to the Self as the moved to the mover, or as object to subject, because the determining factors that radiate outward from the Self surround the ego on all sides and are therefore supraordinate to it. The Self, like the unconscious, is an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves. It is, so to speak, an unconscious prefiguration of the ego. It is not I who create myself; rather, I happen to myself. (From Jung's "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass" in CW 11, par. 391.) (*I capitalized "Self" since in this excerpt Jung had not.)
I think this has the same meaning. It is not the “ego” that creates the “Self”, the “ego” happens to the “Self”.
Do you, Neoplato, have a copy of Pathways to Bliss? There Campbell also addresses much of what I've said so far.
Haven’t gotten to that one yet. It’s possible that if I stick with Campbell, all my concerns will be addressed, but I’m an extrovert, I like to talk.
So for now, keep in mind that the persona has both positive and negative characteristics and implications. As social beings in relationship who need to get along, we must learn to play certain roles in society to function and create meaningful and successful lives for ourselves and our families, and also to contribute to the well-being of society as a whole, and one way we do this is to adopt various personae to meet the demands of the social situations at hand. What is key is developing the insight to consciously choose among various personae with the recognition that we’re playing prescribed roles for specific purposes, and then being able to set aside those masks and their associated beliefs and behaviors until needed again or perhaps discarding them entirely when they no longer serve. More about this later if you’d like.
I’d like to think that I don’t identify with my “masks” anymore. However, just like an actor I can still get caught up in a role. What I’m hearing is that from Jung’s point of view, the “ego” can’t be eliminated, but it can be subdued into living in harmony with the unconscious as long as it knows the “masks” for what they are. Mmm… :idea:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
SteveC
Associate
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Post by SteveC » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:18 pm

Those models seem to resemble my model. Not surprising, since we are all trying to describe the same thing.

The only difference between people is what they are aware of.
You can only see the height of a mountain from its valley.


The radical myth towards which the helix aspires is beyond the desire for money or power, yet which has greater returns than all the power and money in the world could not achieve.
Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:42 pm

Neoplato wrote: The term "Self"* seems a suitable one for the unconscious substrate whose actual exponent in consciousness is the ego. The ego stands to the Self as the moved to the mover, or as object to subject, because the determining factors that radiate outward from the Self surround the ego on all sides and are therefore supraordinate to it. The Self, like the unconscious, is an a priori existent out of which the ego evolves. It is, so to speak, an unconscious prefiguration of the ego. It is not I who create myself; rather, I happen to myself. (From Jung's "Transformation Symbolism in the Mass" in CW 11, par. 391.) (*[Cindy] capitalized "Self" since in this excerpt Jung had not.)


I think this has the same meaning. It is not the “ego” that creates the “Self”, the “ego” happens to the “Self”.
Actually, try it this way: "It's not the ego that creates the Self, the Self happens to the ego."

Neoplateo wrote:I’d like to think that I don’t identify with my “masks” anymore. However, just like an actor I can still get caught up in a role. What I’m hearing is that from Jung’s point of view, the “ego” can’t be eliminated, but it can be subdued into living in harmony with the unconscious as long as it knows the “masks” for what they are. Mmm… :idea:


And so by no longer identifying with the persona, Neoplato, you have already taken what is typically that first step along the path of Jungian individuation and becoming the unique individual whom you're meant to be. While there's no getting around human nature and the fact that we're social beings who'll always be part of a collective with various roles to play, the individuating person, or one who gives himself permission to follow his bliss, consciously decides for himself which roles to play, when, and how. It's when the nonreflective ego identifies with the persona that problems can pop up and leave the individual at the mercy of the collective and his own unconscious.

Also, a suggestion--try thinking of the ego not as a psychic factor to be "subdued" but one to be enhanced. Jung often talked about the individual's need to "make the unconscious conscious" and thereby expand consciousness which is the goal here. The ego is at the center of all conscious experiences--it's one's identity or "I"--and is the essential link both to the world and to the unconscious. The aim is to strengthen the ego and expand its functioning.

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:36 pm

I'm struggling with "ego" a bit because I'm so used to "ego" meaning "persona". Which I think is the buddhist notion and that of Eckhart Tolle. However, I do note your difference between "ego happens to Self" and "Self happens to ego". For me, "ego happens to Self" in the first half of your life, then "Self happens to ego" in your second half".

I just read an interesting section today about the "Syzygy". I'll elaborate later. The diagrams you posted are great. Neo-Platonists love circles. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:19 pm

Today I read a section from "The Syzygy: Anima and Animus" and there were a couple of interesting notions here. Jung associated the achetypes of "Anima and Animus" with "Eros and Logos" (how Neo-Platonian of him :wink: ). Jung suggests that the Eros in men lead to passionate defense of logical thought (That Passion Thing!) and that Logos in woman lead to passionate beliefs (this seemed like dogma).

Also, here's an interesting quote about self-realization (which appears to be synonomous with "enlightenment").
This increase in self-knowledge is still very rare nowadays and is usually paid for in advance with a neurosis, if not something worse.
One more interesting point:
It (social expectations) gives rise to misunderstandings and annoying interpretations in the family circle and among friends. This is because it consists of opinions instead of reflections, and by opinions I mean a priori of assumptions that lay claim to absolute truth. Such assumptions, as everyone knows, can be extremely irritating.
I could have used that quote for "The Kids in the Cave". 8)
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:52 pm

Neoplato wrote:Today I read a section from "The Syzygy: Anima and Animus" and there were a couple of interesting notions here. Jung associated the achetypes of "Anima and Animus" with "Eros and Logos" (how Neo-Platonian of him ). Jung suggests that the Eros in men lead to passionate defense of logical thought (That Passion Thing!) and that Logos in woman lead to passionate beliefs (this seemed like dogma).
In a nutshell, "Logos and Eros" are types of psychic functioning common to all regardless of gender or sex. Logos refers to rationality, intellect, and spirituality, and is traditionally attributed to "the masculine" (including the animus) and men. Eros refers to the inherent disposition to connect through relationship, feeling, and intuition, and is traditionally attributed to "the feminine" (including the anima) and women. These attributions, however, are culturally contrived, something to keep in mind.

And when reading Jung, it’s also important to keep in mind that he was a man of a particular time and a particular society, and like most European men of his era, he, too, was enmeshed in a patriarchal culture that put women second. No psychological theory can be divorced from the mind of its creator, and Jung is no exception. His characterizations of women’s behavior and what he perceived to be their innate tendencies can be downright sexist at times, so we modern women who value Jung’s basic insights and teachings must--when it comes to his discussions of the animus (and psychological types) and "the typical woman"--balance his bias with what contemporary thinking now recognizes to be a more accurate reflection of gender and sex, particularly our own. For example, Jung said: In women, on the other hand, Eros is an expression of their true nature, while their Logos is often only a regrettable accident. Then there’s this gem: No matter how friendly and obliging a woman’s Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she’s ridden by the animus. Often the man has the feeling—and he is not altogether wrong—that only seduction or a beating or a rape would have the necessary power of persuasion. In all honesty, Neoplato, I would’ve relished the opportunity to be a student of Jung’s or a friend, but as a modern woman with a feminist bent, I would not have wanted an intimate relationship with him. ;)

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
sladeb
Associate
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 5:00 am
Location: Harcourt, Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Post by sladeb » Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:45 am

Hi Guys,

A fascinating thread. Timely that I had a quiet monent to drop in to a place I love to be but which I rarely have had time to be due to the demands of working / writing my PhD.

I would like to drop in an alternative viewpoint on the whole issue of persona. My PhD is focussed on human factors and psychology in the design of crisis response environments. In my research (which is also what I do for a living - having been blessed with the opportunity to pursue my bliss...) I work closely with those who manage and respond to large scale human disasters such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

One of the things that has interested me in that work is the plasticity of the persona. Jung himself recorded how the persona could be shaped to meet the demands of the boundary between the individual psyche and the surrounding environment (whether that is a social event, a workplace or a home environment). When I discuss it with those I work with I put it in terms of the persona being angreement - a contract if you like - between what the individual believes themselves to be and what society or the environment believes them to be.

In crisis response I have seen this persona through two windows:

1. Some of the most effective individuals I have met in the first responder / international aid community are those who have the capacity to read from the environment just what might work best in dealing with an individual or group of individuals and then adapting their persona appropriately. What I have concluded is that for these individuals - the persona is actually representative of their true Self (what Jung referred to as the Self that exists after self actualization). This they adapt they can adapt the faces which they show (the persona) to represent that which will best meet the needs of those with who they interact. Thus their persona is VERY mouldable.

2. In crisis response teams (and in fact in the victims of crisis), the maintenance of the persona - which takes energy - becomes impossible in the tired / dirty / hungry situation. Thus the next element in the psyche is encountered - the ego and the ego plays free in response to external pressures. What is interesting about this is because the ego sits on the boundary of the unconscious it is a source of strength in problem solving as well as an enacter of the baser elements of the human unconscious. Some of the very best incident controllers or team leaders in crisis management teams are those who, through various exercises and experiences, actually shatter the personas of their team members and understand how each team members ego operates. These incident controllers are a joy to watch. They orchestrate their teams to the strengths of the individual egos and mitigate against the baser aspects of these egos. As a consequence these teams are very creative and seem to have an almost inexhaustible capacity to respond to the crisis. I might add that this is the same thing that great military leaders have done with lone wolf operators - orchestrate their egos. The best modern example is the fighter pilot....

Anyway hope that side view of the persona is interesting... Cheers to all. I look forward to having the time to spend more time back here in the JCF world.
The one thing I have learned about the quest journey is that as soon as you draw to the close of one quest - another calls and the journey begins once more.
sladeb
Associate
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 5:00 am
Location: Harcourt, Victoria, Australia
Contact:

Post by sladeb » Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:47 am

By the way - for those who are newer to the forum, several years ago there was a series of threads on core principles like persona and ego and Self. Some of the discussion in these threads has been invaluable in my own work... You can find these threads through the search function ...
The one thing I have learned about the quest journey is that as soon as you draw to the close of one quest - another calls and the journey begins once more.
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:26 pm

Slade! Good to 'see' you!
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:26 am

Thanks Slade for dropping by.
One of the things that has interested me in that work is the plasticity of the persona. Jung himself recorded how the persona could be shaped to meet the demands of the boundary between the individual psyche and the surrounding environment (whether that is a social event, a workplace or a home environment). When I discuss it with those I work with I put it in terms of the persona being angreement - a contract if you like - between what the individual believes themselves to be and what society or the environment believes them to be.
For myself, I use the masks, but I really detest the fact that I have to. I do feel that I'm aware of when I'm changing masks (which gives me a self-realization) but I have a secondary affect on those who I interact with. I know that people compare notes about me, and there are many opinions on what I'm like. I find this rather interesting because I don't see many of the characteristics that people project on me, within myself.

In a crisis situation, I don't feel that I'm wearing any masks, but I'm very authoritarian in nature. Not sure If I like that fact about myself. :?
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:09 pm

Well...the book is back to discussing philosophical issues (I was really enjoying the defining of the psyche). However, here's a good quote for all you Pythagorus fans out there.
These teachings (Pythagorean) cannot be dismissed as the mystical humbug of "backwoods" philosophers, as Niezche claimed, or as in much sectarian cant, for already in the sixth century B.C. Pythagoreanism was something of a state religion throughout Graecia Magna (Greater Greece). Also, the ideas underlining its mysteries never died out, but underwent a philosophical renaissance influence on the Alexandrian world of thought. Their collision with Old Testament prophecy then led to what one can call the beginnings of Christianity as a world religion. - Jung
How Neo-Platonian of him to say this. Go Jung! :D
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:46 pm

And a suggestion--what if you were to consider the scenarios presented in this thread from the archetypal perspective? How might this view affect your interpretation of why and how various actors play their parts in these collective human dramas? What might this view suggest, for example, about the warrior archetypal image in both its positive and negative expressions?
I don't suppose their is a "Savior" archetype? For me, human drama is something that should be avoided. Ever see "King of Hearts"? Is the role of a warrior an archetype or a persona? The orginal idea for the Jedi came from H.G. Wells in the form of the "samurai".

Unfortunately, I've only gotten to the point where I understand that anima/animus, shadow and persona. I am still not sure of other preprogrammed archetypes. (Mother, Father, etc...)
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
Locked