Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Archetype discussion?
    #5483773 -

I have just been reading on Jungian archetype models, speciffically the shadow, anim and animus.

I think it's true that we are always at a battle with our inner contradictions, the inner masculine (Logos) and the inner feminine (Eros) seem even more contradictory with ideas such ass social spheres..

I also find the idea of inheritance of these archetypes insanely interesting. That your mother, for the son, gives him Logos, the protection of leaving the nest infirming traits of faith, constancy and whatnot, as a defense so they have the strength to carry on mothers projections upon departures.

And on the other end the daughter recieves her Eros from her father, the hard masculine outside and the personal knowing shows a soft caring side, recognizing a sword as having a heart, and then subconsciously associating strength and firmness with emotions.

This is extremely taboo ( I wonder why?) but conversation would be cool.

Also how the individual is always having Eros that doesn't find Logos justified, or rather inadequate for social and emotional survival.

Vice Versa, the Logos Finds Eros weak and inable to achieve anything through emotions, logic and strength being it's faith, and in it's faith its subconscious infallibility.

And on top of that, without dissolution of the archetypes, we don't understand these inner conflicts, when thought processes change so quickly and with no apparent cause, we are baffled and fall into a trap of inferiority complexes because we can't see other peoples identical internal debates, or the we fall into megalomania as we think we are always right, and these conflicts are a test that we alone have.

Also the biblical allusion to Jesus being the father and the Church being the mother. This means that Jesus himself is the more emotional of the two, constantly grasping out for us but knowing of our inevetable falling away, and the church embodies them with the strength of the religion, without the church, we aren't compelled...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: wery67564]
    #5484082 -

You might be interested in this: I have had about 8 years of Jungian analysis by 3 Zurich-trained analysts. My second analyst, the late Roger Radloff, was trained by Jolanda Jacobi, who in turn was analyzed by Freud, Adler and Jung!

What Jungian[s] are you reading?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #5484238 -

Do you have any opinions on a good book to begin with if you're interested in learning about Jungian psychology?

Edited by MushmanTheManic (04/05/06 09:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #5484359 -

Impressive. What's your opinion on Jungian psychology as it compares with Freudian and other schools? Personally I think a more integrative approach such as Humanistic Psychology and Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology are the best of the current approaches.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: dblaney]
    #5484848 -

I'm in agreement with much about what Wilber says, and I have my differences. He would be the first to agree with my own theory (and dissertation) about the place of certain theorists in the chakra-ladder of motivation. Freud is the unparalleled spokesman (for example) about the 'natural' level of the anal-genital or Root Chakra (the Kargyutpa Buddhist chakra psychology which combines the Muladhara and Svadhisthana). Adler speaks clearly to the Manipura Chakra and Jung for the Anahata chakra motives which are symbolized by the hexagram and represent the Conjunction of the upper and lower centers at the Heart. But I digress.

Jungian psychology is important but "The Jung Cult" has been very negative. For reasons brought out in Richard Noll's books The Jung Cult and Aryan Christ, I was also rejected from analytical training. It is all good despite some sour grapes, because as Wilber himself pointed out, Jung used to be 'the only game in town' when it came to Transpersonal Psychology, but no longer. Moreover, all archetypes, while universal, are not necessarily transpersonal. Most importantly is Wilber's "Pre-Trans fallacy," which Jung makes. The Union which lies above consciousness is superconsciousness, not the unconscious oneness whence consciousness arose. Jung does not recognize this, and when he had an opportunity to meet Sri Ramana Maharshi in the flesh, (who probably lived in superconscious samadhi), Jung declined and said: "I know the type." His theory would've required radical restructuring if he allowed himself a further development beyond consciousness. Jung knew of mescaline and probably LSD (a Swiss himself, in a small country, must have known of Dr. Hofmann) but Marie Louise von Franz suggested that Jung wasn't all that interested in the psychedelic 'Fourth Way.' No kidding. It was one major reason the Jungians rejected me!


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: MushmanTheManic]
    #5484857 -

A great 'picture book' is Man and His Symbols, and I recommend it as a great illustrated introduction to Jungian Psychology.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #5485011 -

MarkostheGnostic said:
I'm in agreement with much about what Wilber says, and I have my differences. He would be the first to agree with my own theory (and dissertation) about the place of certain theorists in the chakra-ladder of motivation. Freud is the unparalleled spokesman (for example) about the 'natural' level of the anal-genital or Root Chakra (the Kargyutpa Buddhist chakra psychology which combines the Muladhara and Svadhisthana). Adler speaks clearly to the Manipura Chakra and Jung for the Anahata chakra motives which are symbolized by the hexagram and represent the Conjunction of the upper and lower centers at the Heart. But I digress.

Jungian psychology is important but "The Jung Cult" has been very negative. For reasons brought out in Richard Noll's books The Jung Cult and Aryan Christ, I was also rejected from analytical training. It is all good despite some sour grapes, because as Wilber himself pointed out, Jung used to be 'the only game in town' when it came to Transpersonal Psychology, but no longer. Moreover, all archetypes, while universal, are not necessarily transpersonal. Most importantly is Wilber's "Pre-Trans fallacy," which Jung makes. The Union which lies above consciousness is superconsciousness, not the unconscious oneness whence consciousness arose. Jung does not recognize this, and when he had an opportunity to meet Sri Ramana Maharshi in the flesh, (who probably lived in superconscious samadhi), Jung declined and said: "I know the type." His theory would've required radical restructuring if he allowed himself a further development beyond consciousness. Jung knew of mescaline and probably LSD (a Swiss himself, in a small country, must have known of Dr. Hofmann) but Marie Louise von Franz suggested that Jung wasn't all that interested in the psychedelic 'Fourth Way.' No kidding. It was one major reason the Jungians rejected me!



that's interesting, i had always assumed that carl jung did meet ramana maharshi because he wrote the forward to a book about him saying " ?What we find in Sri Ramana is the purest of India ...He is the whitest spot in a white space". why would he decline to meet him if he believed that?

Edited by Deviate (04/06/06 01:23 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: Deviate]
    #5485487 -

Paying lip-service. Jung fit Sri Ramana into his own theory and believed that the Yogi was consciously aware of his immersion in the Unconscious - a Conjunctio Oppositorum. Jung never addressed the continuum of superconsciousness beyond the conscious. He said that we lose consciousness to the extent that we transcend consciousness. He did not believe in ego-loss. He could imagine a "depotentiated" ego, but not the loss of ego and still maintain conscious awareness. For Jung only unconsciousness would remain.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #5487720 -

I think the idea of characters inherent to the human condition recurring everywhere through history needs integrating.
You other scholarly posters have to forgive this guerilla ontologist: I have only rudimentary knowledge of the Jung Experience.
However, on the street and in my practice, I use archetypes to organize my world.
Like stereotypes without the sting of prejudice.
May I recommend the Thoth deck of the Tarot?
I fully recommend integrating the shadow.
To do so realizes the falsehood of all belief systems presupposing a god of evil, e.g., the Devil.
When we remove the illusions of Good and Evil, then we enter a new world of modernity, IME.
Currently, I practice believing that any perspective only describes part of the Whole.
Anywho, food for thought.
Take it er leave it.
Peace.


--------------------
.oOo. Are you high? .oOo.
.oOo. You look like you're on some kind of drug .oOo.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: Harmonic_Order]
    #5487944 -

"Currently, I practice believing that any perspective only describes part of the Whole."
-Harmonic_Order

that created a really cool visual that I was able to easily... see :smile:

I see the sum whole of all perspectives as a sort of graphical representation, and I see each person as making up a part of that whole perspective; indicated by a section lighting up as if selected.


--------------------
You are the microcosm of the macrocosm.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Archetype discussion? [Re: Harmonic_Order]
    #5488155 -

Perhaps you would enjoy Edward Edinger's Depth Pychology and a New Ethic, it is right up your alley (if you are focused on the integration of the Shadow). I appreciate the suggestion, but I've been working on this for a good couple of decades now (which is why I call myself 'Elder' here). As to the Tarot - even though I have used it since the 70s, and even though it does embody certain archetypes, it is not my path. I am a Tarot 'simp' and still use the Rider-Waite deck. The Crowley Thoth deck is psychedelic but I'm still writing with block letters, not script, if you know what I mean. I'm really only interested in Tarot with regard to insight it might cast on the Kabbalistic Tree glyph.

Peace and Good Will.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Can someone recommend a book on Jung's Archetypes? MOTH 1,911 11 07/06/06 10:31 AM
by kotik
* Anima / Animus archetypes vs "shadow"? kotik 2,571 6 06/08/06 03:28 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Carl Jung's Aion it stars saddam 1,812 2 09/15/05 10:24 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Everyone is becoming archetypes.
( 1 2 all )		 leery11 2,847 25 07/06/06 02:12 PM
by kotik
* OK now i am going to discuss 'egolessness' as well
( 1 2 all )		 egghead1 2,824 38 03/21/05 10:52 AM
by egghead1
* Any Experience with the Archetypal World ? Earth_Droid 1,169 7 01/24/03 03:38 PM
by Adamist
* Archetypes Ravus 713 2 04/29/04 02:56 AM
by Sclorch
* Do you own your transpersonal (psychedelic, cosmic, mystical) experiences or do you project them?
( 1 2 3 all )		 redtailedhawk 5,994 43 11/07/11 07:09 AM
by Infinitys Minute

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,205 topic views. 1 members, 77 guests and 56 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.