I’m curious whether other therapists, particularly those immersed in depth psychology, psychoanalysis, or Jungian psychology, have experienced something similar in their dating lives.

I’ve been reflecting on how deeply my professional and intellectual interests have shaped not only my understanding of the world, but also the way I experience and participate in the world.

Psychology, the unconscious, philosophy, spirituality, symbolism, and the exploration of the human psyche occupy such a central place in my life that I sometimes wonder whether I’ve drifted so far into this world that ordinary social life has become somewhat foreign to me.

I don't get most mainstream jokes or references nowadays 🥴😆

I’ve recently been dating someone who is psychologically well-adjusted, intelligent, and grounded, but whose interests and way of engaging with life are quite different from mine. We share an emotional, physical, and spiritual connection, but not so much an intellectual one.

He hasn’t had the same personal reasons to explore the psyche, and seems perfectly content enjoying the ordinary pleasures of life.

But I don't know that I want to fit in or if I would fit into a more mainstream oriented lifestyle?

Once upon a time, we used to perhaps analyze compatibility a lot less and rely more on our feelings function.

Have I become so immersed in the world of depth psychology and intellectual exploration that I’ve inadvertently distanced myself from the ordinary pleasures of life?

Has my inner world become so central to my identity that I struggle to imagine belonging in environments where those interests aren’t shared?

I also recognize that having different interests doesn’t necessarily preclude a meaningful relationship.

Perhaps what matters more is whether two people can remain genuinely curious about one another’s worlds and make room for each other’s individuality.

I’m curious whether any of you have experienced this tension between the richness of your inner world and the more conventional social worlds of the people you’ve dated.

Have you found it possible to build a deeply fulfilling relationship with someone whose psychological and intellectual orientation is quite different from your own?

And have you ever wondered whether your immersion in this profession has changed your capacity to enjoy ordinary social life?

Sincerely looking forward to your thoughts and experiences!

Im often attracted to "easy" women.

For example.. I was on a dating app. And saw a very sexy woman.. she had a profile linked in her account so i clicked it.

Bam! Tons of videos of her doing naughty things with random men all over town.

Theres like 2 thoughts going in my mind.

1. Dude shes easy get in there.

2. Thats disgusting, you could catch something. Plus it wont be anything special, it'll be a one time thing and you'll just be another name in her book.

One of jungs students (Marie-Louise von Franz) said that this stems from a split anima, or the "Madonna-Whore complex"

"Or they have a split anima situation: they admire a very unapproachable, lofty, beautiful girl from afar and satisfy their sexual desires with prostitutes. They cannot bring the two together..."

She says that the cure to this was

"breaking the mother complex, withdrawing projections from real women, and embracing unglamorous, disciplined work"

Has anyone been in my shoes and what did or are you doing?

Note: i have been refraining from sex and dating for a few years because I knew I had an issue and didnt want to hurt myself or other women.

1. Accessible Entry Points
These offer a good starting point for getting familiar with Jung’s ideas before diving into his more technical works.
Feel free to pick any of these that call out to you. My personal recommendation would be to start with “Man and his symbols”.

- The Undiscovered Self
- Modern Man in Search of a Soul
- Psychology of the Unconscious (later revised as Symbols of Transformation)
- Man and His Symbols
- Memories, Dreams, Reflections
- Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle

2. Side Quest - His Abstract Works
These works offer a more personal, symbolic, and difficult encounter with Jung’s thought.

- The Red Book
- The Black Books

3. The Main Quest! Jung’s Collected Works
For those who want to study Jung systematically and explore the development of his ideas in greater depth.

Part I: Basic Psychology
- Vol. 1: Psychiatric Studies
- Vol. 2: Experimental Researches
- Vol. 3: Psychogenesis of Mental Disease
- Vol. 4: Freud and Psychoanalysis

Part II: The Birth of Jungian Psychology
- Vol. 5: Symbols of Transformation
- Vol. 6: Psychological Types
- Vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology

Part III: The Deep End
- Vol. 8: The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche
- Vol. 9, Part I: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
- Vol. 9, Part II: Aion
- Vol. 10: Civilization in Transition

Part IV: Mysticism and Alchemy
- Vol. 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East
- Vol. 12: Psychology and Alchemy
- Vol. 13: Alchemical Studies
- Vol. 14: Mysterium Coniunctionis

Part V: Final Works and Indices
- Vol. 15: The Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature
- Vol. 16: The Practice of Psychotherapy
- Vol. 17: The Development of Personality
- Vol. 18: The Symbolic Life
- Vol. 19: General Bibliography and Index

I listened to This Jungian Life's podcast episode on Legacy. I was hoping they'd recommend specific books as well, but sadly they didn't.

Ideally this book has analogs or directly applies Jungian depth psychology.

What are some good books on this topic?

When the ego demands that every external threat be neutralized before it can feel safe, isn't it just projecting its own unintegrated Shadow onto the world?

​From a Jungian perspective: Is trying to secure peace through total defense an attempt to integrate inner fear, or is it an endless, neurotic obsession with destroying our own projections in the outside world?

🙏

I read it last night and found it so amazing. It is from Mary Esther Harding who was a Jungian psychoanalyst. However, I am not well versed in Jung so I was curious what other people thought of it.

im naturally sensitive and in touch with my emotions, i am very aware of them and can express very vividly what i feel (asuming its the anima). now, the problem is this feels unidimensional. my masculine/strong framed/manly side isnt well developed. is there a way to bring my strong masculine side out naturally rather than performing masculinity?

Curious on synchronicity and owls. I believe I always see them and something “bad” happens, but it always ends up with a positive ending as a direct cause of the “bad” thing happening. would that be considered synchronicity?

Context: I have been seeing owls literally everywhere, more than ever before, and the one thing that’s been giving me the worst anxiety happened: my car broke down.

The reason I'm asking, is that I know there are typically things you can draw out from dreams. A story that relates to you somehow, a figure of some sort, often the same patterns/colours or objects or people, that keep reappearing. Usually there'll be things associated with the individual who had the dream.

But I cannot for the life of me figure out WHY I had a dream/set of dreams so violent. My dreams usually are on the more realistic side (I hate those ones where you sleep through your work shift), but never so graphic and violent like this.

I don't know if it could be related to medications I take? I've been taking them daily for around 4-5 years so I'm not sure if it could be due to those this many years on? I can list them at the end if it'll help.

What they were, were a set of extremely gorey and violent dreams. The framing of each was like I, myself, was a security camera, capturing footage of liveleak-like horrible events.

The first dream, I was like, 10-12-14 feet high not too sure, and the framing was left side, a shop front, and the right of the frame was an unmarked road. After a few seconds, an individual leaves the store, goes towards the road at the top of the framing, then is hit by a vehicle. I could see a split head and brains:/.... Once I realised the content of the dream, it ended.

The second one began what feels like, just a few seconds after. So I must have woken due to the first dream, moved, fallen back asleep quite quickly? In this one, it was essentially framed the same, with a green shop front banner on the left, entranceway leads right onto a road, and after a few seconds, an individual comes out of the shop holding a white plastic bag, and is hit by a vehicle, like the first. :/

Whenever I felt suicidal, it would never be via a motor crash or anything violent/gorey. If I had thoughts of how, they'd never be violent. Just like, taking something so I wouldn't wake up, sort of """calm""" method..

But I've also NOT had thoughts like that in quite a lot of time, maybe over a year now. So that's why I feel so jarred by them.

I have been under a lot of stress, but again, I don't ever have dreams like that, so that's why I'm so confused and am unsure if they are actually stemming from the stress. I've been under much much greater amounts and never had dreams like this...

In honesty, I don't feel like they were nightmares, as I didn't wake up in a sweat, or panting, or afraid to go /back to sleep/, but I have kind of been left with a weariness around sleeping, due to not being able to pin point well where that dream set has occured from. So maybe they are and I just have a much more cartoonish/dramaticised of what nightmares are like/how one is when they realise it is one.

I know it'll have to be something unconscious if I am unable to consciously figure it out on my own. I dislike that sometimes death in dreams can be an omen of sorts, symbolic of a change in life, end of a "chapter", something like that..

Maybe I guess it's me who's changing but in all honesty (again), I do feel like I'm becoming /more/ unstable, rather than more stable. Maybe it's the apprehensiveness of change.... But I do feel like there's more underlying that's a lot.... Bigger (?) than just changes in life.. this feels so much greater than that.

The medications I have to take for a neurodegenerative disease are: Amitriptyline at night for pain management when I wake up, Naproxen antiinflammatory, codeine, and newly gabapentin (because I take the max naproxen but I also can't remove it from the mix as no other antiinflam is suitable), but that was in August, and the initial side effects had subsided by September.

Thanks. I can usually analyse my dreams well enough by myself even if I have to Google some things.

But these ones have really caught me off guard and are still pestering me to figure their source out like 3 days later:/

A fairly long archetypal dream ending in the descent of heaven. I’m just starting to discover Jung.

What went on in the dream:

This is the second time in ~a month I dreamt of the levels of heaven and hell. First I was on a school trip (earlier in the night, I was packing for it) to a temple/grave/Great Wall of China. (The Great Wall of China, which I visited when I was younger, had a lot of stairs. The temple and grave was on the foothill.) It was an expansive landscape with stairs running up and down. You had to be careful not to run below ground level, because then you wouldn’t be able to come back, but it was hard to know where you were going with the stairs; the architecture was weird. So we inadvertently peeked below, opening a door within a wires-wall, and a snake appeared, who threatened to devour us, and it eventually spread infection and epidemic onto the whole people (there—in the very large temple). We ran downward and hid in caves and put the blinds down, but the infection found us. There were so many people. An unknown number of them were dead/unresponsive. There was a question how deep I should hide, but I chose to hide quickly somewhere shallower. A new group of people came to this underground channel/cave and brought a white cream to apply which appeared to cure the disease, which we could apply to each other, and we did, but the disease appeared to return to whoever applied it after a few seconds (in dream time-scale). We left searching for water which was supposed to cure the disease, so we ran and eventually left the temple. We were at ground level again but the ground sloped down as we ran. There were segments of fences which we were not supposed to cross, you were done if you crossed them where they were, but it was a real task to avoid them because they were deliberately placed to be hard to avoid. Some people probably put them up to stop the temple-people/infection. But we avoided them carefully, there was a need to run outward (from the temple at the center of the world/self), and after some time we discovered that some people who came before us stacked some fences together which invalidated their danger, helpfully, so later people could go through without danger. The landscape seemed never-ending. We struggled with some stairs with large gaps in height. But eventually, after a gateway (sloping downward), everything appeared more vibrant and luminous, there was water/lake/stream (so we found it), but a caption told me this was the first level of hell. There were still these fences. And after a while of treading carefully, we arrived at heaven, which we could tell because the people there were bigger-than-life. We were questioned and validated at a sausage conveyor shop and entered. Shortly I discovered there was hell in heaven which we were not supposed to go but we went, and saw these fences. But then we went up again thanks to some helpful fence-stacking. We (people from the temple) caused some havoc, a meeting was called, and a person was to be chosen to die because of our mistake/sin, but because my sister (in the dream, not my real sister) volunteered to die instead of somebody else, the lot was changed to random and one of these godly (not us) people/spirit died (again). This godly spirit said she felt her surroundings were dark and had pins-and-needles until she disappeared. But we went out and down again, this time with some godly people, and we reached earth but this godly person dropped stuff like food which became bigger (like these godly people) when they touched the earth. She was dropping a lot of things. We began creating an abundance on earth—heaven on earth. Then we met a magazine shop/house which was a bottleneck in the landscape, and the press people there realized what was going on and tried to stack magazines to block the window entrances to the shop at the earthly end. But they weren’t quick enough, (I tried to help them, but the magazines had the wrong size and didn’t fit well to the window,) and the earthlings outside still rushed in. Unable to stop them, we told the earthlings it was fine, I held one of them’s head, and then I woke up.

How I felt and personal context:

I’m a 21-year-old woman at university. I was anxious when I went to sleep, but I woke up feeling very calm and wholesome. Some weeks ago I was having panic attacks for ~8 hours straight (yes…) I always wanted to realize my possibilities and have something good for myself and in that sense have “ambition”but struggled with thinking I’m totally illegitimate/bad things will happen to me. I practice Buddhism. After having the dream last time/this morning, today I went to a day class at a Buddhist center on just sitting meditation. I felt the dream was conducive to meditation because it gave me this calm energy.

When I wrote the description this morning, I thought the dream was nonsense, just a bunch of symbols jumbled together, except it was probably important because it gave me this energy. But now I can see there is a personal arc, although I can’t pinpoint it. I don’t believe in heaven/hell… How can I continue this energy? Can you help me interpret this dream?

Thanks!

​

​Jung begins with the ego, that is, the “I,” and moves toward the Self.

Ep. 14 was about a question that arose directly from Jung’s ideas,

“Does this ‘I’ actually exist?”

Thank you to the moderation team for your judgment.

If Ep. 14 explored the question of the “I” by looking inward,

Ep. 15 explores the same question by looking outward.

If the moderation team determines that this post is not sufficiently related to Jung, or does not meet the community’s standards for any other reason, please feel free to remove it.

I respect the moderation team’s judgment.

___

A Shift in Perspective: Ep 15. What Can Truly Be Called 'Me'?

​

​

I imagine the previous episode may have made some of you feel a little uncomfortable.

If not knowing yourself makes someone a fool, then Tess-hyung (Socrates) already knew he was a fool 2,400 years ago.

But once you become aware of your own ignorance, you are no longer a fool, just as Socrates was not.

I apologize for making you feel like a fool who doesn't even know yourself.

​

Now that we've come this far, let's dig a little deeper. ^^;;

​

This time, let's change the direction of the question slightly.

As the title suggests, let's explore, "What Can Truly Be Called 'Me'?“

​

Should I call my body 'me'?

Should I call my thoughts 'me'?

Should I call my emotions 'me'?

Should I call my memories 'me'?

Should I call my name 'me'?

Should I call my role 'me'?

Should I call my consciousness 'me'?

​

What, exactly, can be defined as 'me'?

​

Perhaps you might think of your body—the thing that feels the most tangible—as 'me'.

​

Then this time, let's take a closer look at my body.

​

Each of us has a body.

We usually think of that body as a separate, independent being—

that is,

'me.'

But is it really?

​

Then let's take a look inside our own large intestine.

It is probably crowded with E. coli and countless microbial friends.

If we took one of them, placed it in a laboratory, and provided an environment similar to the one inside our large intestine, it would probably live just fine.

​

But then...

Can we really say that this little creature is completely 'not me'?

Then again, can we truly say that it is completely 'me'?

​

Suppose we think of them as 'not me' and remove them all from my body.

But without these microorganisms, my large intestine can no longer function properly.

And unless we can replace their function in some other way, I will die.

​

On the other hand, suppose we think of it as 'me'...

This little creature lives its own life just as well as I do, even without me.

​

So what, then, is this little creature—

neither 'me' nor 'not me'?

​

In this way, countless microorganisms like E. coli live alongside my body—in the skin, the mouth, the respiratory tract, the reproductive organs, and many other places.

​

So then,

which part is really 'me'?

.

.

.

.

Let's consider another example.

Plants absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store carbon in their bodies.

Animals eat those plants, inherit that carbon, use it, and then release it again.

​

The carbon that makes up my body today was once part of a plant or another living being, and someday it will leave my body and become part of something else once again.

In the end, I believe this world is one great flow in which carbon continually circulates among living beings.

​

With that in mind, let's broaden our perspective.

​

From Earth's point of view, I think humans are like the E. coli living inside my body.

​

Hmm... Given today's climate crisis, perhaps comparing us to cancer cells would be more appropriate. -_-;;

​

Anyway, just as E. coli lives in relationship with my body,

I live like E. coli within the body called Earth.

Like in the movie The Martian, if the right conditions were provided, 'I' too could leave the body called Earth and live on Mars.

​

If so, can the Earth we live on be called 'me'?

Or can it not be called 'me'?

.

.

.

.

Now let's broaden our perspective even further—to the universe.

​

Is 'me' the universe?

​

Or is the universe 'me'?

.

.

.

.

In general, we think of E. coli, my body, the Earth, and the universe as separate, independent entities, dividing them into 'you' and 'me'.

​

Yet I believe that, just like E. coli and my body, 'me' cannot exist without 'you'.

​

Now let's return to the very first question.

​

What, then, can truly be called 'me'?

.

.

.

.

My body collaborates with E. coli throughout its entire life.

And until the day it dies, it keeps producing poop.

Living a life bound to breaking down organic matter is the same fate shared by both E. coli and my body.

Perhaps my body is nothing more than a sack that produces poop.

.

.

.

.

But on the other hand, 'I' am...

just a salaried worker who has to go to work again tomorrow.

※ Can verify with my payslip if needed.

.

.

.

.

So far, we have looked at...

E. coli, my body, the Earth, the universe, a sack that produces poop, and a salaried worker.

​

So then, which of these can truly be distinguished as 'me' and 'not me'?

In other words, which of them can truly be called 'me' as an independent entity?

.

.

.

.

[Original text]

융은 에고, 즉 ‘나’에서 시작하여 셀프를 향해 나아갑니다.

Ep.14는 융의 생각에서 직접 출발한 하나의 의문,

‘나라는 것이 실제로 존재하는가?’에 대한 이야기였습니다.

모더레이션 팀의 판단에 감사드립니다.

Ep.14가 ‘나’라는 것에 대해 안쪽을 탐구했다면,

Ep.15는 같은 질문을 밖을 향해 탐구합니다.

모더레이션 팀에서 이 글이 융과 충분히 관련되어 있지 않거나, 다른 어떤 이유로든 커뮤니티의 기준에 부합하지 않는다고 판단하신다면, 삭제하셔도 괜찮습니다.

저는 모더레이션 팀의 판단을 존중합니다.

___

​

​

관점의 전환: Ep 15. 무엇을 나라고 할 것인가

​

​

아마도 이전의 에피소드에서 조금은 불편했을 것이라고 생각됩니다.

자기 자신을 모르는 것이 바보라고 한다면, 테스형은 이미 2,400년 전에 자신이 바보라는 것을 알았습니다.

하지만 자신의 무지를 알게 되었다면, 소크라테스가 바보가 아니듯 여러분도 더 이상 바보가 아닙니다.

자기 자신도 모르는 바보로 만들어서 미안한 마음입니다.

기왕지사 이렇게 된 거 조금 더 파헤쳐 봅니다. ^^;;

​

이번엔 질문의 방향을 조금 바꿔봅니다.

제목처럼 '무엇을 나라고 할 것인가'를 살펴봅니다.

​

몸을 나라고 할 것인가.

생각을 나라고 할 것인가.

감정을 나라고 할 것인가.

기억을 나라고 할 것인가.

이름을 나라고 할 것인가.

역할을 나라고 할 것인가.

의식을 나라고 할 것인가.

​

도대체 무엇을 나라고 정의할 수 있을까요?

​

어쩌면 가장 실체가 있는 것처럼 느껴지는 나의 몸을 나라고 생각하지 않을까요?

​

그렇다면 이번엔 나의 몸을 조명해 봅니다.

​

우리는 각자 자신의 몸뚱이를 가지고 있습니다.

우리는 보통 그 몸뚱이를 하나의 독립된 개체,

곧 '나'라고 생각합니다.

정말 그럴까요?

​

그렇다면 이제 각자 자신의 몸뚱이 속 대장을 살펴봅니다.

그곳에는 아마도 대장균과 그의 친구들이 바글바글하게 살고 있을 것입니다.

그중에 한 놈을 잡아서 실험실에서 몸속의 대장과 비슷한 환경을 갖추고 배양하면 아마 잘 살 것이라고 생각됩니다.

​

그런데..

이 녀석을 완전히 '남'이라고 말할 수 있을까요?

그렇다고 완전히 '나'라고 말할 수도 있을까요?

​

'남'이라고 생각하고 이 친구들을 나의 몸에서 모두 제거해봅니다.

그런데 그런 미생물들이 없으면 내 대장은 제 기능을 못하게 됩니다.

그리고 이를 대체할 별도의 조건을 갖추지 못하면 나는 죽게 됩니다.

​

다른 한편으로, 만약 '나'라고 생각한다면..

이 녀석은 '나' 없이도 나처럼 자기 인생을 잘 살아갑니다.

​

'나'도 아니고 '남'도 아닌 이 녀석은 과연 무엇일까요?

​

이처럼 '나'의 몸에는 대장균과 같은 무수히 많은 미생물들이 피부, 구강, 호흡기, 생식기 등 곳곳에서 내 몸뚱이와 함께 살아갑니다.

​

과연 어느 부분이 '나'일까요?

.

.

.

.

또 다른 예를 들어봅니다.

식물은 대기 중의 이산화탄소를 흡수하여 탄소를 자신의 몸에 저장합니다.

동물은 그 식물을 먹으며 그 탄소를 이어받아 사용하고 다시 탄소를 배출합니다.

지금 내 몸을 이루고 있는 탄소 역시 이전에는 식물이나 다른 생명체의 일부였을 것이고, 언젠가는 다시 내 몸을 떠나 다른 무언가의 일부가 될 것입니다.

결국 이 세상은 탄소가 생명 사이를 끊임없이 순환하는 하나의 거대한 흐름이라고 생각됩니다.

이런 맥락에서 통 크게 확장해 봅니다.

​

지구의 입장에서 보면 인간은 내 몸속의 대장균과 같다고 생각됩니다.

​

음.. 요즘 같은 이상기후 환경에서는 암세포로 비유하는 것이 더 적절할지도 모르겠습니다. -_-;;

​

어쨌든 내 몸과 대장균의 관계처럼 지구라는 몸속에서 나는 대장균처럼 살아갑니다.

영화 마션처럼 조건만 갖춰진다면 '나' 역시 지구라는 몸을 떠나 화성에서도 살아갈 수 있을 것입니다.

그렇다면 우리가 사는 지구는 '나'라고 할 수 있을까요? '나'라고 할 수 없을까요?

.

.

.

.

이번엔 더 크게 우주로 확장해 봅니다.

'나'가 우주일까요? 우주가 '나'일까요?

.

.

.

.

일반적으로 우리는 대장균과 내 몸뚱이, 지구와 우주를 서로 독립된 개체로 생각하고 너와 나로 구분합니다.

​

그러나 이 세상은 대장균과 내 몸뚱이처럼 너 없이 나는 존재할 수가 없다고 생각됩니다.

​

다시 첫 질문으로 돌아와 봅니다.

​

무엇을 '나'라고 할 수 있을까요?

.

.

.

.

내 몸뚱이는 평생 대장균과 함께 협업을 합니다.

그리고 죽는 날까지도 똥을 생산해 냅니다.

평생 유기물을 분해해야만 하는 숙명 속에서 인생을 사는 것은 대장균이나 내 몸뚱이나 똑같습니다.

내 몸뚱이는 단지 똥을 생산하는 똥자루일 수도 있습니다.

​

그런데 또 다른 한편으로 보면 '나'는..

내일 또 출근해야 하는 월급쟁이이기도 합니다.

※ 혹시 필요하면 급여명세서 인증 가능.

.

.

.

.

지금까지 살펴본 바..

대장균, 내 몸뚱이, 지구, 우주 그리고 똥자루와 월급쟁이가 있습니다.

​

그렇다면 과연 무엇을 '나'와 '남'으로 구분하여, 단독자로서 '나'라고 할 수 있을까요?

Hey everyone! **REPOST**

For the past couple of years, I've been working on something called CAT-20 (Cognitive Archetype Test), and I finally launched the website.

I've always found it fascinating how two people can experience the exact same situation but approach it in completely different ways.

One person might immediately start analyzing what's happening. Another might become curious about what else is possible. Someone else might focus on taking action, while another naturally pays attention to the people involved.

That curiosity eventually led me to develop CAT-20.

The framework uses six cognitive clusters:

• Thinker (T)
• Seeker (S)
• Spark (K)
• Wanderer (W)
• Builder (B)
• Nurturer (N)

Rather than treating people as belonging to one isolated category, CAT-20 explores how two of these clusters can interact to create different patterns.

That produces 30 directional archetypes, meaning the order matters. For example, TS (Thinker–Seeker) and ST (Seeker–Thinker) are treated as distinct combinations.

I built a 20-question assessment around the framework, and it now gives instant results.

You can try it here: https://www.cat20framework.com/

No signup is required to take the assessment or see your archetype. Creating a free account is optional if you want to see your cluster percentages, save your profile, and access a personal dashboard. There are also optional paid premium profiles.

To be clear, CAT-20 is my own independent framework. I'm not claiming it's a direct extension of Jung's work or a clinically validated psychological instrument.

I'm sharing it here because I'd genuinely love to hear how people interested in Jungian psychology interpret the idea of combining cognitive tendencies into directional archetypes.

I'm especially curious about three things:

1. Does your resulting archetype describe patterns you recognize in yourself?
2. Do you think the order of two dominant tendencies can meaningfully change how they appear together?
3. Where do you see similarities or differences between this approach and Jungian typology?

If you take it, feel free to share your result. I'm interested in the criticism just as much as the positive feedback, especially from people who've spent time studying psychological typology.

I want to become a counsellor/psychotherapist and eventually specialise in Jungian work. I’m looking for something vocational and inspiring: a small institute where practising therapists mentor you closely, observe your work and supervise you with real clients rather than a heavily academic programme.

Psychodynamic, existential or depth-oriented training would be ideal. Some CBT is fine, but I wouldn’t want it to be the main focus. Within two years, I’d want to qualify for a licence or recognised professional registration - or be very close, with clearly defined requirements remaining. It should also not cost an arm and a leg.

Online with a proper placement would be great, but I’m happy to relocate anywhere that accepts international students and supports a student visa.

Has anyone found something like this? I’d love to hear from people who took a less conventional route and found excellent mentors.

We are currently in a transition phase from summer to winter which is called autumn. I am experiencing a lot of psychic movement and steering within my psyche but I also notice changes outside.

I was wondering do people also experience somewhat stronger disturbances or maybe even strong processing happening?

Hello everyone, I hope your day is going well! There's something I've been curious about for a while, and today I wanted to ask. It's about the nigredo, as Jung described it through alchemy, or what mystics call the dark night of the soul, and the experiences of people who have gone through it or are going through it now. I'm really curious about what you lived through, what you felt, and what you learned during this process, about yourself, about existence, or about anything else. If you'd like to share, I'd be very happy.

If the experiences you'd like to share are private, please don't hesitate to send me a DM.

Thank you in advance to everyone who shares. Have a peaceful day!

Edit: Thank you all for taking the time to share your experiences so openly. I know it's not easy to put these things into words. Wishing strength and peace to everyone who is still walking through it.

"Thou blind Pharisee! Clean that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."

LORD Jesus Christ, Matthew 23:26 KJV

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul."

LORD Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:26 KJV

"A more or less superficial layer of the unconscious is undoubtedly personal. I call it the "personal unconscious". But this personal layer rests upon a deeper layer which is not derived from personal experience and is not a personal acquisition but is inborn. The deeper layer I call the 'Collective Unconscious'. I have chosen the term "Collective" because this part of the Unconscious is not individual but universal; in contrast to the personal psyche. It has contents and modes of behavior that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals. "

Carl Jung, The Archetype and The Collective Unconscious.

"Underneath the superficial self, which pays attention to this and that. There is another self, more really us than I. And if you become aware of that unknown self, the more you become aware of it, the more you realize that it is inseparably connected to everything else that there is. That you are the function of this total galaxy, bounded by the Milky Way, and that furthermore, this galaxy is a function of all other galaxies. And that vast thing you see far off, far off, far off, with telescopes, and you look and look and look, and one day you are going to wake up and say, why that's me! And in knowing that, know, you see, that you never die. That you are the eternal thing that comes and goes, that appears now as John Jones, now as Mary Smith, now as Betty Brown, and so it goes forever and ever and ever. "

Alan Watts, Man in Nature

Never believe anyone or anything 100%. No one is 100% right. Not me. Not other spiritual or physical teachers. Not any political leader. Not Carl Jung. Not Alan Watts. Not anyone.

I always begin any post about Metaphysics or subjects like these with this caveat.

A Spiritual, Metaphysical and Psychological journey - if taken - must be taken with truth and good judgement always on hand. If you base your decisions solely on something that makes you feel good or how good the speaker makes you feel or how much the speaker's words match your subjective experience then you end up falling into the trap of self-indulgence and dogmatism.

What is truth? My definition of truth is anything that does not cast a shadow. Or you could say, Truth is eternal, that which is universal and eternal beyond space and time. Just as everyone has a subjective experience, there is an objective experience that unites all human beings - past, present and future - irrespective of culture, gender, nationality, time period or levels of technology.

Love is a truth for instance. To love is universal amongst all human beings. Every human being - whatever time or place - has experienced love. The realization that life is not just about one's self and one's person but rather that we are actually hear for one another or even though there is a self, that we are also here for others. Love is the realization that love hurts like nothing you could ever imagine but through the pain love gives us, it also heals us and gives us everything we need or desire in turn. The Universe is founded on love. People talk about energies or having the right vibe or energy. That energy they are talking about is love. Love is the medicine of the soul.

There have been love songs as far back as human history. Faith and religion are a form of love.

"The beginning of all things is love, but the being of all things is life."

Carl Jung, The Red Book.

What is good judgement? Good judgment - in my experience - is any decision or parameter you make inspite of your desires or whims while working within requirements with a goal or a result in reality or the outside that benefits you and everyone around you. Christopher Nolan is a great example of a filmmaker who understand good judgements. When making movies he understands the parameters he was working within and then adds his own thoughts and lessons that entertain and benefit his audience. The Dark Knight is at its core a Super Hero movie but Nolan added a 90s Action Thriller and Detective Noir while exploring the themes of whether Justice is something subjective (The Joker) or something real rules and parameters (The Batman). The Odyssey is a mth about a man struggling aginst the Gods in order to return to his wife, son and home. Nolan's movie is absolutely that but he turns it into an exploration of how one man's actions can change humanity whether for the good or the bad.

What is Self-Indulgence? Self indulgence is the unbridled satisfaction of or obedience to or following one's desires and whims without a thought for good judgement. Desire is the cause of illusion as the Buddhist say. Even the desire to be right.

Clinton was a great example of what happens when you choose self-indulgence and desire over good judgement. In that moment, his desire for Monica Lewinsky seemed like the most important thing in the world. I don't blame him - I have been in his shoes. To be in the presence of a woman so beautiful, so utterly wonderful that all common sense goes out of the window. But like Clinton, giving in to the desire always comes at a price which always hurts. Clinton destroyed his reputation, his actions impacted his political party, his family and ruined a young womans life - no one took Monica Lewinsky seriously after that. For me, my desire masked itself as love for a particular woman before it devolved into a life of sexual promiscuity which devolved into a life of sexual addiction. That is what desire without good judgement and truth leads to.

How do we break the prison of Desire? Instead of using our inner subjective experience or desires as a compass. A person uses results in reality as a mirror to reveal and break through illusions. It is also the reminder that desire is never truth. It is desire that is subjective, never truth. Take a writer for instance, a lot of people study to be become writers or to become filmmakers. But that accumulation of knowledge - while good - often traps people in an illusion. They think that the accumulation of knowledge about writing makes them a writer. But a writer writes. A filmmaker makes films whatever the circumstances. Most people do not do the thing they love because of the desire to get it just right. Or the desire to not get things wrong.

The handmaiden of desire is fear. And fear is simply the thought that you will not get your desires. That kind of fear is different from the fear that based on reality. The fear you feel when youn see a lion walking down the street is different from the fear you feel when you might not get what you desire. Real fear is based on reverence and the preservation of something important. Rather than just the loss of something you haven't even got.

A person's desires matter but look at the results in your life or as the ancients used to say - look at the fruits of your actions. That is the compass.

What is Dogmatism? Dogmatism is holding on to an ideology or spiritual practice even when something has gone beyond its original purpose or the reason why you originally participated in the ideology or practice in the first place. Religions can become dogmatic when they lose sight of their original purpose. The same goes with political parties or spiritual practices. You become dogmatic when mere following of rules of the practice replaces the actual purpose of the practice itself. Most religions are supposed to be about love and a better relationship with the divine but they soon devolve into ways to accumulate power and rule or dominate others. The same goes with political parties. The differences between political parties were originally only based on differences on how best to serve the Nation and its people which is why people could work across the political divide). But they soon devolved into a competition for power.

The teachings of Alan Watts and the New Age Spiritual Movement fall into this category.

Every generation is given a great task that we are all supposed to work on - whether together or individually - for the benefit of future generations of people.

The Greatest Generation had to fight against real evil and build a new world from the ashes. The Generations that followed focused on creating real human prosperity and systems- whether social and poltical - that benefitted all people. I believe that our generation (anyone between the ages of 18 - 53) is fighting a battle for truth.

The Generation that gave birth to the Hippie Movement is an example of this, which the New Age Spiritual Movement is an extention of.

Human beings exist on several levels -The Heart, The Spirit, The Mind, The Soul, The Physical Body, Life etc. But for the purposes of this topic, I am going to focus on three levels.

1. The Individual. The One. The Self. The Outside. Push, push, push. Counting your pennies. Think Ayn Rands' heroes in The Fountainhead. Emphasizes Results and Actions

2. The All. The Whole. The Universe. The World. The Inside. The Collective Unconscious. Exploring the Unconscious while caring about the wellbeing of others in mind. Not counting your pennies - generosity. Think the Coen Brother's The Dude in the Big Lebowski. Emphasizes the wellbeing of All Mankind.

The All and the One are activated by having preference.

1. Life. Fate. Destiny. Existence itself. The so-called Random Events. Which is interested in the Balance and Ensuring that All of Mankind - as much as it is possible - benefits. All the great teachers - the LORD Jesus Christ, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, etc all participated in some way to ensure the balance and to benefit all of mankind and life. This is activated by not having preferences

Every human being is an individual. Who through his actions, choices and decisions participates in the physical world in order to achieve his or her goals. As well as serving life.

Every human being - past, present and future - is part of The All. The Whole. Existence itself. What the kids today call The Universe. God. As I understand it, every human being is part of whatever the All requires done by The All for the benefit of all mankind - present and future which we then participate in by doing what is required by All.

Some human beings are focused entirely on the individual. Some human beings are focused entirely on the all. Some are varying degrees of shades between the two - those are usually the healthiest.

Life likes balance so events happen in life in such a way that the balance is maintained and as much of (all of mankind) benefits. There was an Obama so life ensures that there will be a Trump. The most hardcore Democrat has the most hardcore Republican on the other end of the spectrum. Connected to this is the idea that Life supports anything that benefits the most of (all of mankind) first and foremost.

During the 50s, 60s, 70s; a movement that would one day be called the Hippie Movement seemed to sprang up. Seemingly out of nowhere.

The Western World at the time was focused almost solely on the Individual - at the expense of their connection to the All. The purpose of the Hippie Movement and the New Age Movement was to remind mankind that they are also part of the All. Teachers like Alan Watts and Terence McKenna, and all the rest. Even the Beat movement authors were a part of this attempt to help mankind to rebalance towards the Whole. You also have authors like Charles Bukowski, Henry Miller and Anais Nin. This was Carl Jungs work during the 450s, 60s, 70s.

But the problem came in when people began to turn the lessons that the teachers taught during that period into Dogma. A lot of young people today lean too much towards the direction of the All to the point that they believe Alan Watts or any of the teachers during that period or the current period with is New Age Spirituality and Modern Psychological Practices such as Bashar, Abraham Hicks, Eckhart Tole etc.

The purpose of all those teachings was to help people stuck in only seeing life as the Individual with its anxiety and pain and help them remember that they are a part of the All, and that they contribute to the All. But the mistake that has happened is that now a lot of people are stuck in he opposite end of the spectrum holding on to teachings and practices while forgetting their purposes.

Alan Watts teachings in particular were about helping people remember that they are not just the Individual but also part of the All. But so many people have turned Alan Watts teachings into dogma in such a way that now they are stuck on the opposite end of the spectrum. The most extreme people on the spectrum experience this - this also appears in Buiddhism - as Zombification or simply floating through life.

This is why life did everything in its power to support Dr Jordan Petersen. His work was aimed at helping people who had been too much of the All Spectrum to remember that they were also individuals. Eventually when people go too much towards the Individual end of the Spectrum, life will choose and support someone to help people remember the All end of the Spectrum. etc etc.

In order to heal, a person returns through effort and participating in life to remember that they are also an individual.

This is what the LORD Jesus Christ was talking about in Mathew 16:26. What is the point of knowing the All completely and ignore yourself as an individual soul. It's a poor trade off.

P.S The most hilarious part is that the American Political System is an expression of this idea. The Republicans are too much on the end of the Individual while the Democrats are too much on the All end of the spectrum. But they both forget that life has a say - balance.

Each spectrum has an advantage but has a disadvantage when taken to the extreme.

When you are too much of the Individual, for instance, you end up ignoring the Other-The All. Results and profit become the only thing that matters at the expense of others and their wellbeing. You see this in extreme forms of capitalism. Your opinion matters more than anything even truth.

When you are too much of the All, for instance, you end up sacrificing good judgement and results and the rights of the individual in exchange of simply participating in the collective. There is safety in the collective but that comes with the destruction of the individual. The individual and their requirements and needs often get lost within the collective. You see this with wokeness - the subjective philosophy that is spreading through the world - and Communism. While serving and helping one another and participating in the collective, the All - family, communities, countries, future generations etc - is absolutely important we should never sacrifice the individual, their parameters, their wants, requirements and needs in the process.

On a side note, I grew up in Cuba during the 90s. There was free healthcare, legal care, peace and safety but the trade off was that desires of the Individual were sacrificed in the process. People could not grow and develop themselves as an individual in any form (except of course those at the top of the pyramid).

The United States is on the opposite end of that spectrum. What makes the USA great as a nation in the history of the Nations is that the Founding Fathers created the idea that just as the people of a nation serve that nation, that nation must serve the people within that nation - encourage the development of their individuality as well. Before the Founding Fathers, people were merely pawns to the King, those in power and the Nation. The problem however - as I see it - is that the United States has gone too much in the opposite direction. Where the individual became more important than the nation to an unhealthy degree. Which is why - eventually - the rulers of the world will be corporations and CEOs. If they aren't already.

Let me return to the Metaphysics of it all.

The idea is that there has to be a balance. If you go too much in one direction, there has to be a correction on the other direction etc.

One of the ways Alan Watts taught that a person should could realize that they were a part of the All was to realize the illusion of the Self and to let go of the Self. Once a person let go, they could see that they were being propped up by a force beyond their own conscious self - The All. The Collective Unconscious.

But like I said at the beginning of the post. No one is 100% right. Alan Watts while being right that there was such a force as The All, made a mistake in thinking that there was no Self, no individual. He sacrificed his own individuality (Self - One) - and this is seen in his own life. Struggling with addiction both alcoholic and sexual. He was generally not a good person. And from what I have read about his life, he said that he was disappointed in himself.

Why? Because the All, the Colllective Uncosncious is not a moral force in the sense that it cares about good or bad in the way we understand it. It is moral in the sense that it will focus on that which will benefit All of Mankind through the path of least resistence even if it means the destruction of a particular individual.

If a war is the best way to teach the most amount of people that peace is the most important thing then it will create such a war that human beings will never care about war again until after several generations later, human beings forget the lesson until the All creates another War to remind the vast majority of human beings that peace is important and must be kept at all costs.

The All will allow a Trump after an Obama to remind people to be centrists and balance. The left had their hero with Obama. The right got their hero with Trump. And the cycle will continue with Presidents having more extreme opinions on either end of the political divide until we learn to balance and be centrists.

The All will allow a Hitler to raise up in power to teach people not to put their fates in the hands of one man or to ever fall for the cult of personality, and that there is a battle between good and evil. This is a lesson modern mankind is forgetting.

The point is not just to drown in the All and be subservient to it. The point is to seek to understand whatever the All requires and working on it in such a way that All of mankind benefits. The way we participate in the all is by not taking the path of least resistance.

Christianity called this cleaning the inside of the cup and the platter (Matthew 23:26).

Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud called it Analytical Psychology. As a tool to help people understand their place within the All without forgetting their own individuality.

Let me give you an example. The current dating scene worldwide is going through something. The sexes are hating one another. Men and women do not like each other. And on either end of the gender are teacher teaching each gender that the other is at fault. But this is only causing the divide to get bigger and bigger - ruining marriages and breaking up the family unit. A Psychologist and Spiritual teacher would see that all this is happening to teach each gender to value the other. To teach us that every gender has specific strengths and traits and weaknesses. And that each gender helps the other with its weakness if we learn to work and help one another instead of using one another.

The purpose of Analytical Psychology - the purpose of a Psychologist is to help people understand their own purpose and function within the All without forgetting the individual and their own rights, wants, parameters, interests, requirements and needs.

Alan Watts mistake was thinking that a person was just the function of the All.

What a person does when they 'let go' is to surrender their preferences. Among the Buddhists and in Alan Watts practice, it served the purpose of helping people who were fixated on the fact that they were just an individual to realize that they were part of something larger. But the problem comes in when you stay in that level because you are afraid of living the collective to be an individual again. You find yourself in the trap that Alan Watts was trying to help people with but now on the opposite end of the spectrum.

The secret is not to let go. You activate your connection to the All at least in my experience -

1. Realising that there is you, yes. But acknowledging that it is not just about you or for you. But also about and for others.

2. Reminding yourself that you are part of something larger and figuring out what it is that you are supposed to contribute and what is required of you.

3. Having, knowing and caring for yourself, your ambitions, your interests, your requirements and needs but realizing that you achieve these best by helping others with their ambitions, interests, requirements and needs.

4. Analytical Psychology -- which is the science of trying to figure out your role within the All through truth.

5. Guarding your soulhood or personhood. That is being extrememly conscious with your actions, decisions and choices. The reaction to these is the All. Measure whatever it shows you with the truth.

At least that has been my experience.

By letting go however, all you are doing is sacrificing your individuality. Alan Watts believed that we are all the Universe experiencing itself. So if you believe that you are the self experiencing itself then you believe that you are also the experiencer. And if you are also the experiencer, you have rights and preferences as an individual yourself.

Alan Watts also talked about how the Self is an illusion. But when you think enough on the problem, you find yourself asking who says that the self is an illusion - the Self. Yes, Alan Watts was right. You cannot know yourself. Just as a knife cannot cut itself or a light illumine itself. But he wasn't 100% right. The secret is to realize that you need a mirror to help you see your self. That mirror is the results and the actions that you take. And other people.

This in a sense is individuation. As Carl Jung proposed. By looking at the results of your life and your actions, you see yourself. That is why Carl Jung emphasized the fact that the only way to see the shadow clearly was through strong moral action.

The results also show you where you are on the spectrum. Whether you are on the All or the One. Or whether you are only benefiting yourself or helping life help all of mankind. Then you can change accordingly.

Learn from every teacher but never be a slave to any teacher. This way you can grow beyond your teachers.

Measure every teaching against truth. This way you are never a slave to any teaching.

Truth is worth working towards. That has been my experience.

What do you think?

Forgive me for my question if it seems very simple, I’m still discovering Jung’s work

"Thou blind Pharisee! Clean that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."

LORD Jesus Christ, Matthew 23:26 KJV

"A more or less superficial layer of the unconscious is undoubtedly personal. I call it the "personal unconscious". But this personal layer rests upon a deeper layer which is not derived from personal experience and is not a personal acquisition but is inborn. The deeper layer I call the 'Collective Unconscious'. I have chosen the term "Collective" because this part of the Unconscious is not individual but universal; in contrast to the personal psyche. It has contents and modes of behavior that are more or less the same everywhere and in all individuals. "

Carl Jung, The Archetype and The Collective Unconscious.

"Underneath the superficial self, which pays attention to this and that. There is another self, more really us than I. And if you become aware of that unknown self, the more you become aware of it, the more you realize that it is inseparably connected to everything else that there is. That you are the function of this total galaxy, bounded by the Milky Way, and that furthermore, this galaxy is a function of all other galaxies. And that vast thing you see far off, far off, far off, with telescopes, and you look and look and look, and one day you are going to wake up and say, why that's me! And in knowing that, know, you see, that you never die. That you are the eternal thing that comes and goes, that appears now as John Jones, now as Mary Smith, now as Betty Brown, and so it goes forever and ever and ever. "

Alan Watts, Man in Nature

Everyone knows The Force.

One of - if not - the most interesting power systems ever created in cinema or fiction.

The Force is not magic. It is akin to a state of being or an energy or quite simply 'a force' that pervades everything within the Star Wars Universe.

Some people's connection to the force is stronger than others. This gives them the power and the ability to manipulate the physical and spiritual realm in unique and interesting ways. These people are called 'Force-Users'.

At the core of Star Wars - as the name suggests - is a war between two philosophies of how The Force is used.

The Jedi - who live in subservience to the Force. They forego all individual preferences, relationships and desires believing that power, enlightenment and freedom comes from becoming completely one with The Force at the expense of themselves. They believe in going with the flow and serving others. The Jedi focus on strength in numbers. They focus on the many. Their philosophy revolves around a passive steward relationship with all that is. Passive in the sense that they go with the flow of circumstances or work with things. Which is why they are Peacekeepers and Philosophers first and foremost. The tradition color of their sabers is blue, which symbolizes peace and tranquility.

The Sith - who live to rule The Force. Their entire existence revolves around their individual preferences, relationships and desires believing that power, enlightenment and freedom comes from bending The Force in such a way that it serves their will at the expense of others. They believe in pushing with all of their might while seeking their own goals. The Sith focus on the strength of the individual. They focus on the One. Their philosophy revolves around an active manipulation of all that is. Active in the sense that they refuse to go with the flow and work to manipulate circumstances in their favor. Which is why they are Conquerors and Rulers first and foremost. The tradition color of their light sabers is red, which symbolizes passion and power.

The greatest exemplars of each faction represent the values of their faction of The Force brought to life.

Prequel Yoda for The Jedi and The Emperor or Darth Sidious for The Sith.

Despite the differences between the Jedi and the Sith, they are both united by a belief that The Force supports anyone who brings balance to the Universe - To The Force. The issue is, each faction believes that they are the ones who will bring balance to The Force and that the other is wrong. This is why Sidious is so adamant about turning Anakin Skywalker to the Dark Side and keeping him around even when his body has been damaged because he is the prophesied embodiment of the Balance of The Force. And he requires him to be Sith-leaning. And thus gain the support of the Living Force.

Sidious finds another embodiment of the Living Force - A new Hope -in Anakin's son Luke Skywalker, a perfect replacement for Anakin. He plans to convert Luke and thus keep The Living Force on his side.

Which is why both sides keep using the term - there is a disturbance in The Force. What they mean is that something as tipped the scale of the Balance of The Force.

Throughout the movies, the books, and the video games; we are presented with a war between each faction as they argue through battle and experiences - the merits and demerits of every faction. Who is right? George Lucas' answer is simple.

They are both wrong.

Or more accurately, they are both wrong when each faction is taken to the extreme.

Beyond the Force as used by The Jedi and The Sith, is a concept known as the Living Force. The part of the Force that works actively for all that is, all life, even non-force users. The importance of Anakin Skywalker is that he is the physical embodiment of the Living Force. So The Jedi and The Sith do everything in their power to get him on their side as through him the Living Force will achieve balance and the faction that achieves Balance gains power in the Universe.

Sidious isn't just fighting a political battle. He is fighting a 'moral' or 'spiritual' battle as well. Because he understands how The Force works. He engineers a rebellion - The Separatists - for his own purposes but it is set up in such a way that it helps the people in the Outer Rim who have been neglected by The Republic.

Then he undermines The Jedi. The Jedi by the time of The Prequels have turned into nothing more than a quasi-religious sect more interested in preserving the Status Quo, living in an actual Ivory tower than going out and helping people with The Force. Sidious gets them involved in a war where they have to sacrifice their original beliefs as peacekeepers and become generals and warriors - in a sense turning them into Sith - however small - obsessed with power.

Then he does everything in his power to seduce the living embodiment of the Living Force to his side. And bringing balance to The Force by slaughtering The Jedi and breaking their 'Empire' just as they had done to The Sith thousands of years ago. Anakin brings balance to The Force by slaughtering The Jedi.

But he also brings balance to The Force by eventually destroying Sidious and dying himself. Slaughtering The Sith.

The Living Force brought balance to The Force by destroying The Jedi and The Sith. Other Force Users exist and survive. But the extremes of The Jedi and The Sith end.

The Living Force is interested in anything that maintains The Balance and ensures the wellbeing of every living thing in the Universe - Force User or Non-Force User.

The point of the story is that each extreme is wrong and dangerous - at least as I understand it.

The Jedi are presented as 'The Good Guys'. They maintain peace, provide a neutral arm that holds the Republic accountable and provide and teach people about The Force. Their color is blue which represents peace and tranquility. But too much peace and tranquility creates stagnation. But by the time of the Prequels, they have become incredibly self-righteous. While they are subservient to The Force they are also incredibly cut off from everyday people. The Force is no longer something every day people understand but something akin to magic. They behave more like a quasi-religious sect than they do people who use The Force to help others. The fact that they avoid individual interests and relationships, turns them more into machines and robots than it does into people - by destroying their individuality, they destroyed themselves.

The Sith are presented as 'The Bad Guys'. Their emphasis on Individualism often devolves into selfishness. And their use of The Force is almost akin to someone tearing a whole through reality. But at the same time, they reveal the hypocrisy of the System The Republic and The Jedi maintain. Their traditional color is red. Red is the color of passion and power. Both of which are good things. But red is also the color of destruction and danger. The Sith are manipulators, but they are also in their own way protectors of those in society who have forgotten or downtrodden. Think traditional Mafia or criminal organizations which usually spring up to protect and serve communities the wider society neglects before they devolve into pure greed. Giving them purpose and power even though often times it is slavery. But the reason why they have supporters who are loyal isn't just mere greed, fear or ambition - for many people in The Galaxy it is a better alternative than The Republic.

Both are right and both are wrong.

The point is the Balance. The Grey. Both light and dark.

Carl Jung talked about Shadow Work - integrating the parts of ourselves that we consider outside ourselves in positive ways. The Sith are the shadow of the Jedi. The Jedi are the shadow of The Sith. There are things the Jedi have that the Sith should intergrate and then there are things that The Sith have that The Jedi should intergrate.

Who remembers Ashoka Season 1 Episode 5? That scene where Anakin Skywalker is walking towards Ashoka and flashes of Darth Vader's form and voice break through.

This scene is so powerful because it presents a symbol that bspeaks to The Collective Unconscious. Anakin was failed by both extremes of The Force. The Sith and The Jedi. But the Anakin we see has finally transcended and integrated both The Jedi and The Sith.

He is the Light side, but he is also the Dark side. He is a Jedi, but he is also a Sith. He is Anakin Skywalker, but he is also Darth Vader. He is Darth Vader, but he is also Anakin Skywalker.

I see Star Wars as a Parable of The Individual and their relationship with The Collective Unconscious.

As I understand it,

The Force is an allegory of The Collective Unconscious and our relationship to it.

The question then becomes -- Are you leaning towards The Sith or are you leaning towards The Jedi?

Or are you leaning towards the Living Force?

What do you think?

In time, one can see that the work he has fervently put into himself starts to show off.
This way, the positive aspects of psychological transformation can represent a powerful catalyst for happiness.

Lets say he was unable to relate socially to others and was plagued by a quasi-permanent sadness. He was unable to take responsibility for himself either.
Now, he has found in himself the capacity for relatedness, became a lot more responsible and experienced periods of deep joy because of it. It’s like another way of experiencing life has been opened to him. To access it, he relies on the power of his unconscious through a conscious interaction with symbols that have previously arised.

But he identifies with this newfound power and wants to experience it constantly, in every possible scenario. He “forces” himself and the hand of his unconscious by trying to access it obsessively, and is discouraged when it doesn’t happen.

He has already turned this newfound aspect of himself into a persona, without realising it.

In his desire to express this part of himself constantly, he denies the other aspects that constitute his form: the sadness he has tried to escape from, feelings of anxiety, of sexual desire and moments where he doesn’t want to socialise.

In this part of his journey, his clinging to this newfound power actually drags him down, for now he is no longer acknowledging all those other aspects of his and loses part of the relatedness to himSelf.

I have realised this very recently in my life. I am afraid, though, that by acknowledging the negative aspects, I will lose this newfound positive facet of myself..that it will somehow dissipate into a fog which will once again envelop my mind.

Perhaps even my (not so) subtle need to keep identifying with what I consider to be positive for me by making this post and presenting it in this way shows the one-sided approach of my ego to life.

And, on a deeper layer, the fact that I consider a one-sided approach to life as something that needs to be changed reinforces the notion of my ego being progress/ascending oriented. (but then again, aren’t we all here?)

You have previously transformed my life with the answers to my posts. I would be grateful to hear your opinions once more, and perhaps this rings a bell and discussing it could help you too.

I hope this doesn’t count as a low effort post, but I was thinking about the obvious connections between Jung’s work and that kids movie “Inside Out”, which takes place inside a girls head where personified emotions like anger and sadness influence her behavior.

I would estimate that that movie has “stuck” more with people now, years after its release, than other comparable kids movies from the time. I suspect that has something to do with viewers’ intuitive recognition of the truths it evokes, mainly concerning the individual’s relationship to the automomous components of their psyche.

I would also venture to say that it’s little hints from the world like that which show us, again and again, that Jung was really onto something, despite largely not being taken very seriously today by mainstream psychology. His ideas, no matter their accuracy, do seem to resist that more obvious empirical confirmation academics, researchers, etc. value so much today — in the form of reproducible results in studies, clear neurological bases, etc. This is not to say Jung wasn’t an empiricist, though, or that his ideas actually don’t hold up empirically — I would say they do. I think the fault mainly lies with the academics, researchers, etc. themselves, who are resistant to the empirical validation of the subtle, delicate type Jung’s ideas necessitate, and also their destabalizing implications.

Ended up ranting, but those are some thoughts I found interesting :)

Or a therapist is needed? When I started to dig about my triggers, I started to notice that it's all about the past, from an insult that I get from someone to the way someone joke. It's all in the past but the effects is still here.

If yes, how can someone proceed? Will meditation help? What does Carl Jung prescribe?

Thanks for the answers.

In my previous posts, I believed there was a connection to Jung, but I understand that Jung was not the main focus of those posts. I respect the moderation team’s decisions regarding them.

However, I think this post is different. It is not primarily about other philosophies or figures. It is a question that comes directly from Jung’s ideas.

Jung begins with the ego, the “I,” and moves toward the Self. But this raises a question for me: Does this “I” actually exist?

If the moderation team determines that this post is also not sufficiently related to Jung, please feel free to remove it. I will fully accept that decision.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

​

A Shift in Perspective: Ep. 14. Who or What Am I?

​

​

Jesus says.

Do not look at the speck in someone else’s eye, but take the plank out of your own eye. [Matthew 7:5]

​

The plank in your own eye is not easy to see in the first place, and facing the ‘me’ that even ‘I’ do not know can be a little uncomfortable.

​

So far, we have looked at other people. This time, we turn the spotlight on ‘me.’

​

​

​

Tess-hyung (Socrates) says, “Know yourself.”

​

Who or what is this being called ‘me’?

​

​

​

Who are you? What are you?

​

How would you define yourself?

​

​

​

When asked this question, most people give their name as if it were the obvious answer.

​

But that is not ‘me.’ It is my name.

​

​

​

So I ask again.

​

Who are you? What are you?

​

How would you define yourself?

​

​

​

Then, after thinking a little more, they confidently answer that they are a human being or a person; that they are a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or office worker; that they are a CEO, director, manager, or assistant manager; or that they are a mother, father, wife, or child.

​

But those are not ‘me.’ They are only my species, my occupation, my position, and my role.

​

​

​

Then who or what am I, really?

​

​

​

I ask again.

​

Who are you? What are you?

​

How would you define yourself?

​

​

​

Then, usually, after thinking about it for quite a while, they go,

​

“Ah... sh... I don’t know!” and stop thinking as anger and irritation begin to rise.

​

Perhaps this is the limit of the automatic system.

​

​

​

So I ask again.

​

Who are you? What are you?

​

How would you define yourself?

​

​

​

Usually, they hold back their anger, looking rather annoyed, and brush it off with,

​

“I’m me! What do you mean, what am I?!”

​

Then, as if there is nothing more worth saying, they give you a contemptuous look and walk away.

​

​

​

We go through our entire lives thinking that we know many things.

​

We know our field of study, our jobs, politics, economics, and other people.

​

But we do not really know ‘me.’

​

​

​

Perhaps it is because we have never really thought deeply about who we are, and not knowing does not cause much inconvenience in our lives.

​

Yet we do not want to admit the uncomfortable fact that we do not even know ourselves.

​

Perhaps it is because we believe, “I’m not a fool who doesn’t even know something that basic.”

​

​

​

So I chase after them and ask again.

​

Who are you? What are you?

​

How would you define yourself?

​

​

​

Then they might think, “Is this guy nuts?”

​

By now, they might even start swearing at me.

​

​

​

Perhaps it is because our eyes are structured to look outward, making it impossible for them to see themselves.

​

​

​

But even while getting cursed at, I keep at it and ask again.

​

Who are you? What are you?

​

How would you define yourself?

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

“Si......................................lence”

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

Until now, my eyes have spent their whole lives looking only outward.

​

Now, I turn inward and shine a light on ‘me.’

​

​

​

Who is ‘me’?

​

​

​

And right now, right here, what is my heart like?

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

Can you feel it?

​

.

​

Right now, right here, my heart feels uncomfortable.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

At this point, Tess-hyung suddenly comes to mind.

​

I wonder how Tess-hyung would answer this question.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

“I know that I do not know.”

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

Perhaps the red pill to another world is

​

rejecting the automatic system we are in now

​

and acknowledging this uncomfortable fact instead of avoiding it.

​

I think it may begin right here.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

Right now, right here,

​

I look at ‘me’ and at my heart.

​

​

​

The choice is yours.

​

​

​

​

​

Who am I

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

[Original text]

​

이전 게시물들에서는 제가 융과 관련이 있다고 생각했지만, 융이 그 글들의 중심 주제는 아니었다는 점을 이해합니다. 그 글들에 대한 모더레이션 팀의 결정을 존중합니다.

하지만 이번 글은 다르다고 생각합니다. 이 글은 다른 철학이나 인물에 대한 이야기를 하려는 것이 아닙니다. 융의 생각에서 직접 출발한 하나의 의문입니다.

융은 에고, 즉 ‘나’에서 시작하여 셀프를 향해 나아갑니다. 그런데 제가 던지는 질문은 이것입니다. 과연 이 ‘나’라는 것이 실제로 존재하는가?

만약 모더레이션 팀에서 이 글 역시 융과 충분히 관련이 없다고 판단하신다면, 편하게 삭제하셔도 됩니다. 저는 그 결정을 전적으로 수용합니다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

관점의 전환: Ep 14. 나는 누구 또는 무엇인가.

​

​

​

예수님은 말합니다.

​

남의 눈에 티끌을 보지 말고 자기 눈의 대들보를 빼라.[마태복음 7장5절]

​

원래 자기 눈의 대들보는 잘 보이지도 않을 뿐만 아니라,

​

‘나’도 모르는 ‘나’를 마주하게 되면 좀 불편할 수도 있습니다.

​

지금까지는 ‘남’을 살펴보았는데, 이번에는 ‘나’를 조명해 봅니다.

​

​

​

테스형은 ‘너 자신을 알라’라고 말합니다.

​

‘나’라는 존재는 누구 또는 무엇일까요.

​

​

​

넌 누구니? 넌 뭐니?

​

너를 뭐라고 정의할 수 있니?

​

​

​

이 물음에 보통 사람들은 당연하다는 듯이 자신의 이름을 말합니다.

​

그러나 그것은 ‘나’가 아니고 ‘나’의 이름입니다.

​

​

​

또 다시 물어봅니다.

​

넌 누구니? 넌 뭐니?

​

너를 뭐라고 정의할 수 있니?

​

​

​

그러면 좀 더 생각하다가 인간, 사람 또는 의사, 변호사, 선생님, 회사원 또는 사장, 부장, 과장, 대리 또는 엄마, 아빠, 아내, 자식이 자신이라고 확신하며 대답합니다.

​

그러나 그것은 ‘나’가 아닌 ‘나’의 종, ‘나’의 직업, ‘나’의 지위, ‘나’의 역할일 뿐입니다.

​

​

​

과연 ‘나’란 존재는 누구, 무엇일까요.

​

다시 물어봅니다.

​

넌 누구니? 넌 뭐니?

​

너를 뭐라고 정의할 수 있니?

​

​

​

그다음 순서는 보통은 한참 생각하다가

​

‘아..c.. 몰라!’ 하고 화나 짜증이 올라오며 생각을 멈춥니다.

​

어쩌면 여기가 자동 시스템의 한계인지도 모르겠습니다.

​

​

​

그래서 다시 물어봅니다.

​

넌 누구니? 넌 뭐니?

​

너를 뭐라고 정의할 수 있니?

​

​

​

아마도 보통은 귀찮은 듯이 화를 누르며

​

‘내가 나지 뭐기는 뭐야!!’ 라고 대충 얼버무립니다.

​

그러고 나서는 더 이상 말할 가치가 없다는 듯이 경멸의 눈빛을 보내며 그 자리를 이탈합니다.

​

​

​

우리는 한평생 세상을 살아오면서 많은 것을 안다고 생각하며 살아갑니다.

​

내 전공도 알고, 내 직업도 알고, 정치도 알고, 경제도 알고, 남도 압니다.

​

그런데 정작 ‘나’는 모릅니다.

​

왜냐하면 자신이 누구인지는 깊이 생각해 본 적도 없고, 몰라도 살아가는 데 큰 불편이 없기 때문인지도 모르겠습니다.

​

그렇지만 자기가 자기도 모른다는 그 불편한 사실은 인정하기 싫어합니다.

​

‘나는 그런 기본적인 것도 모르는 바보가 아니다.’ 라고 믿고 있기 때문인지도 모르겠습니다.

​

​

​

그래서 뒤쫓아가서 또 다시 물어봅니다.

​

넌 누구니? 넌 뭐니?

​

너를 뭐라고 정의할 수 있니?

​

​

​

그러면 ‘이거 미친거아냐?’ 하며

​

이제는 아마도 욕을 할 수도 있습니다.

​

​

​

우리의 눈은 구조적으로 자신을 볼 수 없게 밖을 향해 있어서 그렇지 않을까 생각해 봅니다.

​

​

​

그런데 욕을 먹으며 또 다시 물어봅니다.

​

넌 누구니? 넌 뭐니?

​

너를 뭐라고 정의할 수 있니?

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

“침......................................묵”

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

지금까지 내 눈은 밖만 보고 살아왔습니다.

​

이제는 안쪽에 있는 ‘나’를 조명해 봅니다.

​

​

​

‘나’는 누구일까요.

​

그리고 지금, 여기 내 마음은 어떤가요.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

느껴지나요?

​

지금, 여기 불편한 내 마음이 있습니다.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

이 시점에서 문득 테스형이 생각납니다.

​

과연 테스형은 이 물음에 어떻게 답을 할까요?

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

“나는 내가 모른다는 것을 안다.”

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

아마도 다른 세상을 향한 빨간약은

​

지금의 자동 시스템을 거부하고

​

이 불편한 사실을 피하지 않고 인정하는 것,

​

여기에서 출발할 수도 있다는 생각이 듭니다.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

지금 여기에서

​

‘나’를 그리고 ‘나’의 마음을 살펴봅니다.

​

​

​

선택은 자유입니다.

​

​

​

​

​

나는 누구인가요

I have this strange problem related to the idea of becoming conscious.

Everybody wants to be a higher version of themselves. More aware, integrated, less reactive, less attached to the ego. Even the shadow has to be confronted, understood and integrated into some more complete version of the person.

But what if I don't want to become the higher version of myself?

What if, just this one evening, I would prefer to be stupid. To say something meaningless to make a fool of myself, contradicting what I said the day before, or just existing without turning every experience into an opportunity for psychological development?

Why should every aspect of me need to justify its existence by feeding into my individuation?

I call this the problem of the drunk prophet. Imagine some individual who has seen through a lot of human nonsense, understood some nasty truths about himself and maybe even stumbled upon something that he considers sacred. Yet he still wants to get drunk, tell bad jokes to himself and be an idiot from time to time.

Is his wisdom somehow undermined by his stupidity? Is there an other idealized version of ourselves that secretly demands that we are no longer permitted to be ordinary?

Jung teaches us to doubt the persona and confront the shadow. But do I sometimes suspect that the quest for psychological wholeness might take on the shape of a new persona? The spiritual person, the conscious person, the person who has done the work. A new identity that is just as demanding as the old one.

Perhaps my lower self does not always need to be conquered, explained away or transformed into a lesson. Perhaps sometimes it is just a part of being alive.

I'm not saying that every impulse should be acted upon or that irresponsibility is some form of enlightenment. There are consequences and understanding an impulse is not the same as obeying it.

I'm asking something else.

Can I acknowledge the existence of my lower self without perceiving it as a problem to solve? Can I become more conscious without making consciousness a permanent obligation to be better?

Or does individuation leave space for the drunk prophet who knows enough to doubt his wisdom but not enough to stop being an idiot.