Jung's Shadow

[gooey]

Is the "shadow" present in one's life always? Or does it develop later? Because I remember that the process of individuation supposedly beings at around age 30-35 when one begins to integrate the shadow into consciousness but I'm wondering if it's ever present before that? Thanks.

[Leader]

Jung's Shadow..

What's that...a Chinese ninja?

[Gilly]

Is the "shadow" present in one's life always? Or does it develop later? Because I remember that the process of individuation supposedly beings at around age 30-35 when one begins to integrate the shadow into consciousness but I'm wondering if it's ever present before that? Thanks.

The shadow represents a gap between one's inner self and what one projects onto the world, both in the form of persona and how one perceives the world in gestalt from the perspective of the ego. The shadow is a vacuum existing in place of deliberation and acknowledgment in one's psyche that strains to pull the two halves together, and in our most unaware state (what enneagram would call "disintegration"), the shadow exercises its greatest amount of control over us. Think of the shadow as a rubber band between your own inner, inexplicable, knowing core of your self, and the views you take on the outer world and your place in it: its pulling force increases as the two halves diverge. In Lacanian terms I think the shadow would equate to the cumulative gaps between the Real and the Symbolic.

To say it is always present would be a mistake, because I think in some people there is a real, fully developed schizm between the inner and outer self. I would say that everyone probably has one at some point, though.

I think the rubber band metaphor is a good one, because when the shadow is penetrated by consciousness at a moment of great division between the self and the ego, it definitely "hurts." I think this gap is one that can be managed, with knowledge of one's shadow; everyone makes the division between external and internal, and most make deliberate "use" of it by way of the ego, and the clarity of cognizance of this gap is the only thing that can relieve the tension that results from this gap.

This is why people who just go about life doing what they are told and living by a rule book are haunted by their shadows: they are forced by society and the norms of interaction to make this divide, but not everyone is naturally aware of it as a real divide; only when you acknowledge this gap and are truly self-effacing and ingenuous about it, giving heed to this fact implicitly through your self-presentation and actions and morals (doing so explicitly makes you either an over-confessor or a moralizing asshole...or both, and neither are truly genuine because they merely seek relief) does the internal strain lessen.

[gooey]

thanks gilly, that was awesome and really informative. what i meant by ever present was...is the shadow "in" me if i'm younger than 35? (which is supposed to be the age that you unify the shadow with your ego...or try to anyways)..this might be a stupid question because it seems unlikely that you would form your shadow right before you're supposed to integrate it with the ego and you are probably forming it throughout life, but i thought i would ask anyways.

[Raver]

thanks gilly, that was awesome and really informative. what i meant by ever present was...is the shadow "in" me if i'm younger than 35? (which is supposed to be the age that you unify the shadow with your ego...or try to anyways)..this might be a stupid question because it seems unlikely that you would form your shadow right before you're supposed to integrate it with the ego and you are probably forming it throughout life, but i thought i would ask anyways.

I doubt there's a magical age, for some people the shadow may never emerge or not until old age. For others it may happen while they are young out of some crisis.

This song comes to mind when I think of Jung's shadow:

[Gilly]

I doubt there's a magical age, for some people the shadow may never emerge or not until old age. For others it may happen while they are young out of some crisis.

This song comes to mind when I think of Jung's shadow:

I disagree. The shadow is the result of many things, including people's adaptiation to social norms; even just in interacting with people the shadow develops.

[Gilly]

I modified my original post to make my response a little clearer.

[Raver]

I disagree. The shadow is the result of many things, including people's adaptiation to social norms; even just in interacting with people the shadow develops.

Probably true, I don't know much about this topic to be honest, I just find it intriguing and like that song, haha.

[717495]

[Gilly]

Personally the factors I think differ the most in each individuals case are when the shadow becomes accessible to oneself, and how long it takes to integrate it.

[rat1]

Charles manson was born in almost the total darkness of societies shadow. It's not correct to say the shadow is just a part of the self. Society has a shadow, and when you look at others you can see their shadows. The more you see the shadow in the world around you, the more you are compelled to unite others on a large scale social level. So to say morality and confession merely seek relief is incorrect; the shadow exists in both the self and in others, and can be seen there. Self confession will induce the confessions of others, moral standards will realign the two halves in the self and in others. Its not about self integration its about self-other integration; and never self compromise. Its a strong leadership drive that can be overwhelming.

[Gilly]

In that sense I would say the shadow is just the pain of humanity's shortcomings in reconciling the individual with the collective. But while the experience of pain is common for everyone, the internal programming or language of each person's shadow is different; hence the emergence of archetypes, the heros who overcome the perceived shadow. Unfortunately our archetype is only what we think will best bridge this gap; our scope has become too large for the fulfillment of personal archetypes to be significant enough. They are a self-idealization that is ultimately self-defeating in the broader context of humanity, because it clouds our perception of our true abilities and how they might be best utilized. To transcend the archetype is to unite the ego and the inner self by integrating the shadow; however, the archetype must be embodied if we are to learn the necessary lessons. The will to self-actualization is a roll of the dice that either gets you killed/insane/broken, or lifts you above everything.

[The Ineffable]

If shadow has anything to do with Socionics, than that is the so-called Id block - the strong but subdued functions. The Id is a necessary consequence of the Ego and therefore it is as persistent and "developed" at any moment.

To understand what that "necessary consequence" means in this case: it is an equivalence between a certain type's Ego and Id. Saying "Se Ego" is equivalent to saying "Si Id", according to Model A they are different but inseparable aspects of the same thing.

[DividedsGhost]

Is shadow supposed to be like seeing the actions of the super-ego through the actions of the ego (in a socionics sense)? Kind of like if you have Ti in your ego and realize when you use it in an extreme manner, it creates a paralleling, villainous Fi in the process? Or in the case of someone using Fi in their ego and realize when they use it in the extreme, it also creates a paralleling, villainous Ti in the process?

That would make sense for having to experience it in a negative light before being able to integrate its realization into your being. Having a strong ego is then seen as a naive and harmful resistance that is mostly a factor of inexperience with our nature(s). To be honest, I think Jung's theories seem to conglomerate a lot with Buddhist principles and Buddhist philosophical concepts.

[gooey]

Where it gets really interesting, I think, is if you ask yourself whether the "self" can actually be attained and if the shadow ever completely integrates with the ego or even if it SHOULD. If you're more of a Buddhist type, then you think it should. But if your more a Nietzsche-type, then you think it shouldn't as you feel these contradictions and the friction created out of them are the source of all creative energy.

[DividedsGhost]

Where it gets really interesting, I think, is if you ask yourself whether the "self" can actually be attained and if the shadow ever completely integrates with the ego or even if it SHOULD. If you're more of a Buddhist type, then you think it should. But if your more a Nietzsche-type, then you think it shouldn't as you feel these contradictions and the friction created out of them are the source of all creative energy.

I think it's possible to incorporate both the Buddhist type of thought with the Nietzsche type if you really wanted to. IMO, Buddhism stresses maximum awareness of the world around you (where you realize everything is alive and connected), while Nietzsche stresses the maximum potential you can have on that world (which would then automatically include yourself in the process); I don't see a contradiction, since you can do both and each would probably help each other in terms of awareness. What might be a contradiction is in integrating the "Self". But I'm of the opinion that the "Self" has to do with awareness and positive acceptance to the opposition between what your ego wants and what the world lays out for you in the present (super-id), while also realizing and coming to positive terms with the dual-ignorance of the ego's focus (super-ego).

If by "Self" you mean completely disintegrating the ego, that would definitely be a contradiction though; but it would also be a contradiction to existence because then what would anything be? He probably meant it more in the spiritually holistic sense of awareness. At least that's the impression I get from reading a little about Jung's shadow concept and thinking about it personally as well. It also wouldn't contradict his spiritual emphasis that he uses when explaining what he sees as being Transcendental Functions, which is basically, imo, a spiritual merger of the superego and ego, probably seen by him to be about attaining a high level of awareness of the world and oneself (which is a little annoying when you see that people are of the belief that ego and superego functions can't be philosophically or logically integrated). Some people also think Jung was schizophrenic because of this; but I guess it's a moot point when talking about the spiritual. People can decide what they want, which is kind of the point anyway, right?