Super-Ego and Jung´s 'Shadow'

[Airman]

Some weeks ago a friend who knows Socionics much more than me told me that my 'shadow' or something like that, which I had to work with or de-repress or something, is an ENFJ. He said it´s because it´s my Super-Ego in the relations. It would be something similar to Jung´s 'shadow', something which stands in the unconscious and has to be brought to concious, otherwise it grows bigger and darker.

I´d like to know if anyone has any info on this or would like to comment.

[norph]

Is your friend on this or any other board?

[Beautiful sky]

It depresses itself naturally doesn't it? You don't have to work at it necessarily because super-ego relations normally don't have common interests, so they, to make a relationship work, will have to strive towards that. I've never seen an LSE married to an EIE before. I think that likelyhood of a good statistics for this is looking at media stars and their marriages; I've never seen any LSE movie star be married to and EIE.

Emotionally, verbally, compliments made to each other from either party don't go anywhere; the other person doesn't care much about them so they don't listen to them. Any compliments, for example, will not be returned with the right or comfortable response suited to your psyche or there will be no response, like a dead end is created at every corner.

Typically Fe (EIE) will pick up on the humor of an LSE and other feelings are picked up, but one of them usually, LSE, feels more unsatisfied with their position because EIE does not pay attetion to them the way they expect them to.

You can try the above by observing your compliments to, who I believe still is EIE (although I'm respecting her by not showing it), Redbaron.

Every time you make a compliment to her, you will see that she will either not respond, or laugh it off.

Your duals would typically, hug you or show some sign of appreciation for your kindness. Fi sort of affection and careing for the relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology)

[Airman]

I know full well what is Jung´s Shadow concept, thanks Ananke.

I would like to know whether anyone else has heard of such a thing.

He said every beta has a delta inside him and every delta a beta inside of him, kind of 'hidden' which is according to him the Super-Ego of Socionics type.

So my shadow-self would be an ENFJ, this is not related to any type of SUPER-EGO RELATIONSHIP, it has nothing to do with having to 'date' ENFJs (in fact most people I see use socionics here just as something to help them with their datings and other promiscuities) and it has nothing to do with being friends with any ENFJ.

It has to do with 'letting the sleeping ENFJ in me awaken' to put it simply. Until I do this I´ll never be fully integrated personally, because there´s a little ENFJ inside of me which is my shadow self which I repress.

I don´t know how to put it more blatantly than that, I guess most people here just don´t have enough IQ to understand what I´m saying to I´ll have to deal with just a few responses from people who got it wrong.

And yes he´s in this forum I´ll call him to tell more abt. that if he wishes to do so and has enough time.

[Beautiful sky]

I know full well what is Jung´s Shadow concept, thanks Ananke.

I would like to know whether anyone else has heard of such a thing.

He said every beta has a delta inside him and every delta a beta inside of him, kind of 'hidden' which is according to him the Super-Ego of Socionics type.

So my shadow-self would be an ENFJ, this is not related to any type of SUPER-EGO RELATIONSHIP, it has nothing to do with having to 'date' ENFJs (in fact most people I see use socionics here just as something to help them with their datings and other promiscuities) and it has nothing to do with being friends with any ENFJ.

It has to do with 'letting the sleeping ENFJ in me awaken' to put it simply. Until I do this I´ll never be fully integrated personally, because there´s a little ENFJ inside of me which is my shadow self which I repress.

I don´t know how to put it more blatantly than that, I guess most people here just don´t have enough IQ to understand what I´m saying to I´ll have to deal with just a few responses from people who got it wrong.

And yes he´s in this forum I´ll call him to tell more abt. that if he wishes to do so and has enough time.

That was clear. Fe role and Ni poLR, would make you a Beta, inside a delta...but why would you want to awaken lesser strong functions? It would serve no purpose. It's like me forcing myself to make one system after another when in reality, by DS is Te, choosing an efficient method. You would force yourself to look at Fe when what you really need is Fi to help you decern or recognize how you affect others.

[silverchris9]

I disagree. Based on "Psychological Types", I would more readily associate the shadow with the superid. I don't know if Jung himself associated his idea of "the shadow of the opposite" which falls on our dual-seeking function (EDIT: with his idea of the "shadow" archetype), but I certainly find that in my life, my dual seeking function was/is the aspect of life which I unconsciously desire and to some degree consciously repress. It's the side of you that you don't let see the light of day because if you did it would break stuff and act like a little kid. Similarly, the dual seeking function is the part of you that you desire and that you view instinctively as part of the basic make-up of how things are, but which you can only use ineptly or childishly. Socionics intertype relations can then be seen as an attempt by the ego to partially integrate by finding someone who is willing to perform your "repressed weaknesses, shortcomings, and instincts," and so by exposure to positive expressions of those areas, to partially heal that divide or repression, maybe. Makes sense as a basis for the "becoming one" of a romantic relationship.

However, I would also say that the shadow archetype transcends the socionics use of ego, superego, superid, id. Aspects of each are a part of your shadow, especially your weak functions.

[crazedrat]

The shadow is the superid.

The superid represents the ego balancing the superego & the id. Thus you bring to light your shadow through accepting & reconciling superego & id within yourself.

The superego represents universal rules for how things should work. The id represents interacting with the world in a natural, but erratic / unguided fashion. So the superego is oppressive & conforming, the id is destructive / nonproductive.

For ESTjs, the ENFj superego looks like procedures that other people should follow. These procedures are not in line with other peoples values, and as such they're merely inhibiting to others. The ISTj id looks like systematic ways of doing things which become ingrained. This gives an unwillingness to change / reconcile.
Fi & Ne fixes both of them.

[Absurd]

Chicken McNuggets is Maritsa's shadow and Obersturmführer plays cricket with the Chipmunks.

[Airman]

I disagree. Based on "Psychological Types", I would more readily associate the shadow with the superid. I don't know if Jung himself associated his idea of "the shadow of the opposite" which falls on our dual-seeking function, but I certainly find that in my life, my dual seeking function was/is the aspect of life which I unconsciously desire and to some degree consciously repress. It's the side of you that you don't let see the light of day because if you did it would break stuff and act like a little kid. Similarly, the dual seeking function is the part of you that you desire and that you view instinctively as part of the basic make-up of how things are, but which you can only use ineptly or childishly. Socionics intertype relations can then be seen as an attempt by the ego to partially integrate by finding someone who is willing to perform your "repressed weaknesses, shortcomings, and instincts," and so by exposure to positive expressions of those areas, to partially heal that divide or repression, maybe. Makes sense as a basis for the "becoming one" of a romantic relationship.

However, I would also say that the shadow archetype transcends the socionics use of ego, superego, superid, id. Aspects of each are a part of your shadow, especially your weak functions.

At last, comes someone who knows what I´m talking about. Silvercrhis you and Redbaron have me rethinking my generalizations about IEIs. Thanks for the feedback.

[Airman]

The shadow is the superid.

The superid represents the ego balancing the superego & the id. Thus you bring to light your shadow through accepting & reconciling superego & id within yourself.

The superego represents universal rules for how things should work. The id represents interacting with the world in a natural, but erratic / unguided fashion. So the superego is oppressive & conforming, the id is destructive / nonproductive.

For ESTjs, the ENFj superego looks like procedures that other people should follow. These procedures are not in line with other peoples values, and as such they're merely inhibiting to others. The ISTj id looks like systematic ways of doing things which become ingrained. This gives an unwillingness to change / reconcile.
Fi & Ne fixes both of them.

Being destructive and unproductive is exactly what makes the Id be the so-called 'shadow' of the psyche in my view. For example it is clear to me that my 'shadow' reppressed side manifests in my bursts of anger (demonstrative Se) in which I can think very objectively and coldly (Ti there on Id). This became very clear in my argument with my IEI aunt on friday. I could see how I became energetic and harsh with words(Se) and coldly indifferent towards her attempts to apologize or change the situation, thinking somehow distantly from the situation, coldly. I remembered Dr. Behrens , one of the LSIs I know, now, because I was just like he is all the time (except he doesn´t look pissed off). But he has this cold detached reasoning, a little bit impatient if you look at it carefully.

[Airman]

in fact I just had an enlightenment abt what Ti is.

it is logical consistency and objectivity. it cares about being reasonable, so it is a 'colder' form of thinking than Te. this is also because it is Introverted Thinking, so more detached from outside world, while Extraverted Thinking more expansive, broad, on interaction with outside world.

this confirms my whole theory about LSIs and that I am not one and WHY THE FUCK I DO ADMIRE THESE ASSHOLES (LOL)... I admire them because they´re my fucking shadow-self. Their base functions are the ones I repress.

I suggest everyone who reads this tries to see if it is this way for him/her(that is, if they somehow admire people who have their ID functions as base functions in the same order e.g. LSE vs LSI). Could be something worthy.

[Beautiful sky]

Being destructive and unproductive is exactly what makes the Id be the so-called 'shadow' of the psyche in my view. For example it is clear to me that my 'shadow' reppressed side manifests in my bursts of anger (demonstrative Se) in which I can think very objectively and coldly (Ti there on Id). This became very clear in my argument with my IEI aunt on friday. I could see how I became energetic and harsh with words(Se) and coldly indifferent towards her attempts to apologize or change the situation, thinking somehow distantly from the situation, coldly. I remembered Dr. Behrens , one of the LSIs I know, now, because I was just like he is all the time (except he doesn´t look pissed off). But he has this cold detached reasoning, a little bit impatient if you look at it carefully.

That seems more of what occurs when Te becomes hyperactive (shooting out facts and information) and where Fi (consideration of other's emotions, consideration of relationshipal bonds) gets suppressed. So in essence your super-id is the shadow self not the id or the ego, or super-ego.

Socionic Model of the Psyche

When you see or feel this episode occur, just stop and ignore your self and walk away, now that you have consciously realized when and how it happens that way you will not suppress your Fi and cause this conflict to excel.

[Airman]

That seems more of what occurs when Te becomes hyperactive (shooting out facts and information) and where Fi (consideration of other's emotions, consideration of relationshipal bonds) gets suppressed. So in essence your super-id is the shadow self not the id or the ego, or super-ego.

Socionic Model of the Psyche

When you see or feel this episode occur, just stop and ignore your self and walk away, now that you have consciously realized when and how it happens that way you will not suppress your Fi and cause this conflict to excel.

Thanks honey. I am sure there are the 2 Id functions involved in such episodes, but there is also a suppression of Fi probably, as you stated. The suppression of Fi seems to act though as a blocking mechanism against physical violence or continuation of the confrontation. Simply suppressing Fi will make you feel you have no or little emotional connection to the person therefore you´ll not care to argue much, just get out of there ASAP. It gets you colder. I think it´s a rather clever mechanism to stop husbands from beating their wives and so on.

[crazedrat]

Being destructive and unproductive is exactly what makes the Id be the so-called 'shadow' of the psyche in my view. For example it is clear to me that my 'shadow' reppressed side manifests in my bursts of anger (demonstrative Se) in which I can think very objectively and coldly (Ti there on Id). This became very clear in my argument with my IEI aunt on friday. I could see how I became energetic and harsh with words(Se) and coldly indifferent towards her attempts to apologize or change the situation, thinking somehow distantly from the situation, coldly. I remembered Dr. Behrens , one of the LSIs I know, now, because I was just like he is all the time (except he doesn´t look pissed off). But he has this cold detached reasoning, a little bit impatient if you look at it carefully.

Conflict in the shadow can come to the surface and express itself through the id or superego.
The reaction of the id isnt the shadow, the repressed emotions which motivated the reaction is the shadow. The id functions neighbor the ego functions, and we are semi conscious when using them.

[Gilly]

Well, if you think about it, the shadow represents two things: fear and weakness. On one hand, we wish to become what we fear because we want to identify with something that we perceive as being stronger than us. I think our Ego is essentially what we see as the "proper" strategy concerning a problem that we are often confronted with, and that the Id represents what we are reacting to, what we know we need to be aware of, what must be taken into consideration, and yet must keep below the surface because it is antagonistic to our favored approach. This, to me, represents what we see as the "evil" in us, what we are impelled to do subconsciously that goes against our own personal values.

The weakness side of the shadow is the thing we try to cover up, our greatest, deepest, most constantly present but deliberately avoided (as opposed to the outright repression of the other kind) points of insecurity. I think these are usually areas that we try to work on, to some degree, and may overestimate ourselves in, since we put effort into them but aren't instinctively invested in their outcome. We may feel that they are things that we have felt pressure to develop, but have always fallen short in, of which we are conscious yet embittered and/or indifferent to, until the full magnitude of our shortcomings catches up with us.

[Airman]

Conflict in the shadow can come to the surface and express itself through the id or superego.
The reaction of the id isnt the shadow, the repressed emotions which motivated the reaction is the shadow. The id functions neighbor the ego functions, and we are semi conscious when using them.

yeah makes sense.

[Airman]

Well, if you think about it, the shadow represents two things: fear and weakness. On one hand, we wish to become what we fear because we want to identify with something that we perceive as being stronger than us. I think our Ego is essentially what we see as the "proper" strategy concerning a problem that we are often confronted with, and that the Id represents what we are reacting to, what we know we need to be aware of, what must be taken into consideration, and yet must keep below the surface because it is antagonistic to our favored approach. This, to me, represents what we see as the "evil" in us, what we are impelled to do subconsciously that goes against our own personal values.

I totally agree. I have always felt a strange fear of and immediately recognize an LSI, of course this fear became just a kind of respect for their fortitude and cold logic later. I have this strange admiration for them nowadays and will often try to have some interaction with them when I meet them as kind of trying to absorb some of their 'wisdom', which is my Id functions and their Ego functions. Now that I know that, much better.

The weakness side of the shadow is the thing we try to cover up, our greatest, deepest, most constantly present but deliberately avoided (as opposed to the outright repression of the other kind) points of insecurity. I think these are usually areas that we try to work on, to some degree, and may overestimate ourselves in, since we put effort into them but aren't instinctively invested in their outcome. We may feel that they are things that we have felt pressure to develop, but have always fallen short in, of which we are conscious yet embittered and/or indifferent to, until the full magnitude of our shortcomings catches up with us.

Yeah... do post more, your comments seemed insightful and precise to me.

[DividedsGhost]

Well, if you think about it, the shadow represents two things: fear and weakness. On one hand, we wish to become what we fear because we want to identify with something that we perceive as being stronger than us. I think our Ego is essentially what we see as the "proper" strategy concerning a problem that we are often confronted with, and that the Id represents what we are reacting to, what we know we need to be aware of, what must be taken into consideration, and yet must keep below the surface because it is antagonistic to our favored approach. This, to me, represents what we see as the "evil" in us, what we are impelled to do subconsciously that goes against our own personal values.

Cool, I was going to post this, but you already did. So basically the Id is like our contradictory other half in its opposing quadra? It makes a lot of sense to me and I relate immensely to this as having an SEE evil shadow self.

[Airman]

Cool, I was going to post this, but you already did. So basically the Id is like our contradictory other half in its opposing quadra? It makes a lot of sense to me and I relate immensely to this as having an SEE evil shadow self.

This is a bit of the point that I was trying to get to in this thread.

The Id functions are said to be as strong as the Ego functions, but not so much used. They are said to be both strong AND conscious functions, like the Ego functions. My question is, 'why are they not used a lot'? There must logically be some form of repression there.

I agree nevertheless that the 'Shadow' of Jung is the Super Id.

There is also the question of the demonstrative function being a sort of 'safety' function, as I have observed. People use demonstrative and restricting functions when they are under stress, the difference I have noticed is that I use Ti to make people back off from my life and affairs, and Se to correct what I see is wrong with my own self. Like for example when I thought that writing a lot on this forum was a total waste of time and energy and decided to increase my physical activity. I was very mad and sad. To me Se is used when things need to 'get into place', when I need to step down to earth and be more pragmatic. Then I get higher levels of will to do the necessary stuff, I simply take away from me people who are not doing me good, I stick to the essentials, I feel stronger, stop being in any way emotional, to sum up all this. To me this is Se in use. Sometimes I overuse it and I hurt people's feelings, get into arguments, etc.

[Reuben]

I believe that Jung's shadow exists in both the Super Id and Id. The shadow is one of the archetypes that manifests itself in our unconsciousness. Since both the Super Id and Id are parts of our unconsciousness, they are capable of holding our shadow. The light aspect of our shadow is the Super Id; the person we strive to become, the values we admire in other people. The dark aspect of our shadow is the Id; the raw, untamed chaos that we repress, although it is our strongest side. Both the Super Id and the Id must be brought into consciousness before one can master the shadow side of himself, and this is usually done through exposure to your duals.

My theory is that your duals will activate your Super Id, while you learn to reign in your Id because it will harm your dual. By activating the light aspect of the shadow, you gain new awareness and strength; by controlling the Id you gain hidden power that can be tapped upon when necessary.

[tcaudilllg]

We tend to think of Model A in terms of blocks... but there are actually eight blocks, not just four....

[Reuben]

how does that relate to this particular discussion?

[Morcheeba]

I can see what you're saying, but I always thought the shadow had more to do with the superego rather than the id. Or perhaps it could be a struggle between those two blocks, idk. I just know for myself that a typical neurotic (which I am) has an overly developed superego, that's why most neurotics come across as too conscientious and shameful, whereas people who have underdeveloped superegos are typically very manipulative and the extreme would be sociopathic.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm just saying... that the information attributed to Model A is probably not enough to draw a final conclusion with regard to the shadow's identity. Therefore this conversation, while possibly illuminating of this fact, is otherwise superfluous.

For example, most people would consider the Antichrist figure portrayed in Protestant Christian fiction as a perfect image of the shadow. What functions would you attribute to him?

[chip]

hmm this is a very interesting topic. I've done my homework but the shadow is elusive and difficult to comprehend. From what I can recall Jung regarded the shadow as without intention. Intentionality is certainly a powerful suggestion and essential to taking personal responsiblity. However the shadow appears regardless of our true intentions but yet we still have an impending sense of identity derived from the shadow.

A simple explanation is that you can identify what something is by the shape and size of the shadow. When your familiar with someone you can even recognize them by their shadow. However a shadow appears regardless of the person wanting to cast a shadow. That may have importance to unlocking the meaning of the analogy.

There is a strong identification with the ego based upon intentionality, desire, and will. However there remains an aspect of ourselves that slips our notice but remains visible to others. In a poetic fashion, characteristic of Jung, he describes the subconscious as beyond our sight inwhich to be cognizant of the subconsious would be like having eyes in the back of our head. To have eyes in the back of our head would mean we can perceive our intentions and unintentions, desires and non-desires, will and non-will, etc.

The 'shadow' is polymorphic in meaning. As colliquially said: "a shadow of doubt". Here we find a slightly different line of reasoning. Doubt is a dubious psychological state of mind inwhich Descartes famously remarked: "I can not doubt that I am doubting". That is a triumph of reasoning inwhich expresses his complete trust in himself. He is without a doubt. Interestingly enough he can not be deceived by an evil demon who would deceive him at every turn (for those familiar with Descartes meditations). With a degree of liberty, I would like to suggest that the evil demon is a manifestation of Descartes shadow. He arrives at certain knowledge only through facing the uncertainty of knowledge.

Another aspect to the shadow is a dark reflection. That is we are a dark reflection of another's light until we ourselves become illuminated or reach a state of enlightenment. Within Carl Jung's psychology that would mean to be a whole person or to be complete in one's own individuality.

An interesting but perhaps too far-reaching notion is Plato who had used the analogy of the shadow. For anyone familiar with the allegory of the cave inwhich a small group of men have lived the entirety of their lives bonded in a cave. All that is known to them is a fire which casts shadows on the wall. One day one of the men breaks free of his bonds and leaves the cave to discover the world above and bears witness of the sun for the first time in his life. He returns to the cave and tells the other men of the real world above and not to believe in this shadow world below. They refuse his offer of freedom and choose to remain in bonds.

I just find that to be an interesting coincidence. I went off topic or well maybe. Carl Jung was fairly liberal minded.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The shadow is just this:

How can you help the world without getting on anybody's nerves unless you are aware of your own natural desire to do evil? The First Evil lives inside everybody.

ie: You want others to love and care about you, but are you loving and caring about them?

ie: You want the freedom to explore your sexuality. Are you giving other people that same consideration? Or are you judging too harshly and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong?

ie: You want other people to do the right thing and to treat you kindly. Are you doing the same thing to them. Really?

ie: Is the person you're calling a narcissist really a narc, or are you just jealous of their success? (Both of these things can be true of course. )

To vanquish evil one must first vanquish it in one's self. And evil is everywhere, all the time, 24-7. It's a tough job being a Shaman superhero. =p

[Reuben]

@tcaudillg

We don't attribute functions to the shadow, but under model A, the shadow will fall under the unconscious/subconscious blocks i.e. superid and id. If say, you are using another model, the shadow will fall under its unconscious/subconscious blocks as well. That is the first characteristic of the shadow: it resides in the unconscious/subconscious realm.

I get what you mean, because the shadow can be found anywhere in almost anything, but in model A, that's where it's found.

@Morcheeba

No it's not in the superego. The superego is still part of our consciousness. I believe the Anima/Animus has a role to play between the struggle of our superego and our Id, because she/he helps to facilitate the unconscious and the unconscious. At least according to jung. Likewise the ego and the superid. This is why jung placed greater emphasis on mastering the Anima/Animus instead of just the shadow, but you will master both eventually. Hopefully.

@chip

A whole bunch of interesting ideas there. Nonetheless, descartes' reasoning only led him to the conclusion that the ONLY thing he could not doubt was that he exists, because he was doing the doubting. It is so highly restrictive that it seems to imply that the demon can deceive him about every other single thing that isn't a 'clear and distinct idea' or is immediately built upon it i.e. anything derived from our senses. His shadow, I believe, is his over-reliance on rationalism. By facing the fact that he is too one-sided on this, he would have been able to unite the rationalist and empiricist school of thought way before empiricism became popular. Unfortunately, he didn't, and hence we're learning about unbalanced, bull philosophy in class today.

Carl Jung is very liberally minded. That is probably an understatement. All the ideas you've listed exemplify the different aspects of the shadow, and you can categorize them into light and dark aspects as you wish, as jung notes as well. The fact that the shadow has no intentions is merely the result of the fact that it resides in our unconsciousness. Our unconsciousness cannot have intentions because intentions require one to be conscious first. You cannot intend something unconsciously, although you can desire it, as according to freud. Having eyes behind your head a.k.a. mastering your shadow will allow you to see what you really desire, and then take conscious steps towards reproducing it.

Via model A, the ego will be the one taking steps to ensure that superid goals are met, and the superego will be the one taking steps to ensure that the id desires are kept in check. Knowing the shadow will let you see the superid goals and the id desires, but only mastering the anima/animus will allow you to take conscious steps to correctly master your shadow via your consciousness.

Like Tcaudillg said, these concepts go beyond model A, but they can be applied easily to any model so long as it isn't that shabby

[Reuben]

@ B&D

That is not the shadow per se. That is making sure you take the plank out of your own eye before you take out the speck in your brothers. Or say, do unto others what you want them to do unto you.

There are elements of the shadow in it, such as recognizing the repressed evil in you, but generally, self-awareness is not the same as shadow-awareness. For instance, I may not be aware of my own emotions, in say, like your example, regarding the narcissist at work due to ethics being my weaker function although Fe is still in my main conscious block. Nonetheless, I may be aware that my shadow desires to surpass him and use him for my own goals (Se in superid).

But the general feel is actually there, just that it lacks accuracy.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well the shadow boils down to that doesn't it?

Jung also said something about how, the more one ignores or pushes the shadow away or refuses to look at it, the worse their behavior is - which is an interesting insight that is true.

ie: Everybody gets fucking pissed at extreme right-wing Christians.

And likewise, I think the reverse is true. The more one checks themselves and makes sure they aren't letting their animal nature take over in social situations, without pointing the finger at other people, the more likeable they become.

"You're not in the problem. The problem is in you" that sort of thing....

[chip]

hmmm I recall Jung making an example of the connection between the conscious and unconscious but he did this in terms of waking life and dreams. Dreams offer a mediation between the conscious and unconscious. In the example he is in close examination of a female patient whom he describes as perfectly rationale in the Cartisian tradition of reason trumping all other faculties. The female patient describes her dream about a rare insect (I wish I could remember the detail). Jung listens to her recollection of her dream and begins to draw out connections between her dream and her conscious life but she remains reluctant to give any admission. Then he hears a tapping at the window. He goes to the window and opens it up to find a rare insect, the very same insect she has just dreamt about. He does not consider her dream of the insect and the physical apperance of the insect in waking life to be merely coincidental.

The pecularity Jung had with regards to the unconscious bordered upon extra sensory perception. He was even able to stun Freud. Jung explained that the conscious mind is not just a intangible and internal thought process but a real and external phenomenon. He explained that our very mental perceptions alter physical reality. The distinguishment between objective and subjective is grey. I would interpret that to mean that even during moments of introspection or as plato said: "the soul having a conversation with itself", our mental state of mind is affecting our environment and objects within our immediate environment. However Jung had little in proof to validate such claims.

I'm a bit skeptical but have you heard of the secret. I have not read much of it but I recall one of the main secrets is that when you are clear in what you want and think and breathe only for what you realize you want then the universe answers. I can not help but feel an absence of God has been filled with a gimmick but as I said I'm skeptical or maybe I want life to orderly and controlled.

Perhaps Jung was overambitious when he tried to connect internal reality, external reality and super-reality all within one psychological theory. I'm not sure anyone aside from Carl Jung has taken up the thoery of collective consciousness. I do hear psychologist discuss the unconscious but I have heard different accounts. I often hear psychologist describe the unconscious as the natural inclinations of the human body inwhich the body receives so much sensory input that only a fraction of that can be consciously filtered and brought up to the level of conscious awareness. However the unconcious still acts like a mind of its own. That is the body naturally responds to certain pleasant stimulations and repulses to certain painful stimulations. The person when asked about why they choose to eat this meal and not that will have a conscious explanation but when psychologist study patients over and over they discover that the unconscious appears more influential and that patients act identical but give different conscious explanations.

[Reuben]

@B&D

Yep you are completely right in a sense which is why I did say that the general feel is there, I was just griping on some points of accuracy and the fact that the shadow is also a much larger concept. But yea, your explanations are very highly relatable to (:

@chip

Haha interesting post there. I see you're expounding more into Jung's theory of the unconscious and collective consciousness, however once again you're not linking it back to the shadow. I'm completely fine with that, although it's not the main point of the thread.

Jung's beliefs were very, very extraordinary. The thing is, he actually experiences them happening. There is therefore some aspect of truth in what he is saying, but I believe that he has gone into some very dark areas that I'd rather not discuss here.

You are right; 'The Secret' is a gimmick. Nonetheless, it has some principles that do make sense. If you know what you want, chances are you will place yourself in positions to receive it. The universe does not align itself to you; you align yourself to the universe (that's where The Secret is wrong). Also, I do believe in God.

Collective consciousness has been very well expounded by Jung, however he tends to take once again, a very extreme and dark direction. I do not doubt the authenticity or even veracity as to what he claims about the collective consciousness, but I'd rather not going into the same depth as he here, because once again, it will open up very dark things that are actually rather dangerous. The safer aspect of the collective consciousness merely scrapes the surface: culture mentality, similar values across physical/cultural/mental landscapes, simultaneous development of ideas by people at different places but similar timezones (mainly due to the presence of related stimuli concentrated particularly at a period of time.

[tcaudilllg]

Reuben I'd like for you to review the "Political Type" theory thread in Alternative Theories, to see if we're on the same page regarding the "darkness" of Jung's explorations.

[Reuben]

Link please (:

And trust me, I did search for it.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I never thought the shadow was 'bigger than that' though, it was just in a nutshell, the inner darkness in everybody that they can't ever get completely rid of.

I don't even know if the actual functional building blocks even exist in the shadow, as I view it more as this black misty abscess that is the center of all our narcissism and sociopathy and cruelty and brutality. A literal Black Hole shadow? (I'm a purist)

[chip]

I likely need to review or research my Jung collection but it's in canada and I'm here in korea. As often the case theorist are brilliant and original in their work however it usually takes a specilialist to communicate and elucidate what they were trying to say. Sometimes a lack of originality can be very beneficial because you can communicate what the author had only tried to say and make this more accessible. Basically I would like to read a specialist giving an explanation of Jung as sometimes examining a work detached from the theorist can offer better objectivity and without all the eccentricities that run rampant throughout Carl Jung's work.

Friedrich Nietzsche is often considered to be impenetrable. In that sense that his work can not be easily reduced to simple communication. Funny sometimes the worst person to learn a theory from is the original theorist. That is they can theorize but not teach but a specialist can teach but not theorize.

[tcaudilllg]

LOL with supersocion theory I can interpret Nietzsche easily. So easily in fact I got bored with reading him.

[tcaudilllg]

Link please (:

And trust me, I did search for it.

You didn't look very hard. I don't think it's been moved from there...

I posted in early last year sometime, so I'm a little loathe to look for it. Should be 10 pgs back, though.

[Reuben]

Lol tcaud. If you loathe looking for it what makes you think I don't Go find it, think of all the potentially interesting and intellectually stimulating conversations we can have! Think of all the new theories and conclusions it will spark off!

Then copy and paste the link here kthxbai

[tcaudilllg]

Lol tcaud. If you loathe looking for it what makes you think I don't Go find it, think of all the potentially interesting and intellectually stimulating conversations we can have! Think of all the new theories and conclusions it will spark off!

Then copy and paste the link here kthxbai

or not given that it's right in front of your face already.

[Reuben]

@B&D

It's not the blocks that exist in the shadow, it's the shadow that exists in the blocks.

Actually after revising the information, I realized you are entirely right about what the shadow is. Somehow I over-read it.