Shadow

[Fixed Cross]

"When we strive after the good or the beautiful, we thereby forget our own nature, which is distinctiveness, and we are delivered over to the qualities of the pleroma, which are pairs of opposites. We labor to attain to the good and the beautiful, yet at the same time we also lay hold of the evil and the ugly, since in the pleroma these are one with the good and the beautiful. When, however, we remain true to our own nature, which is distinctiveness, we distinguish ourselves from the good and the beautiful, and, therefore, at the same time, from the evil and the ugly. And thus we fall not into the pleroma, namely, into nothingness and dissolution." ( From" Septem Sermones ad Mortuos" by Carl Gustav Jung, 1916)

You want it darker? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0nmHymgM7Y

Bru that's not even sundown. It's in fact nine o clock in the morning when everyone realises it from tme to time.
If not every day.

Same to Derley. A little darker would be good.

[Fixed Cross]

I want to normalise world peace.

Let's put this in the shadow and see how it looks.

The shadow side of world PeAce.






☆♡ So hey?

[derleydoo]

Jakob: Same to Derley. A little darker would be good.

Imagine. You are a lifelong fan of FN.

You turn up at a Philosophy Forum and your attention is drawn to the statement: I've returned to Jung, because he's right.

So you decide to study Jung. Because he is right.

And Jung says: Zarathustra is more for Nietzsche than a poetic figure; he is an involuntary confession. Nietzsche also had lost himself in the darkness of a life that turned it's back upon God and Christianity, and that is why the revealer and enlightener came to him as the speaking fountainhead of his soul.

Dark or Light?

The Rosarium makes Hermes say: Ego lapis gigno lumen, tenenbrae autem naturae meae sunt: "I, the lapis, beget the light, yet the darkness is of my nature."

[Fixed Cross]

Light and right.

[iambiguous]

But now, years later, I am considerably more ambivalent about all of the things I did back then. From the radical right to the radical left. Back in my own "objectivist days".

As for Jung, how would those here who share in any of the points he raised above react to what I did back then? How would the Freudians?

I would say that you threw yourself on the Shadow immediately, as did a lot of Vietnam veterans.
Their confrontation of it became a whole corpus of literature, music and film and formed a basis of a new national conscience.

But, the shadow is elusive.
As it is in oneself.

Let's try this. Over the past year, you have no doubt been in situations that stood out as, say, more momentous than others. Sets of circumstances that were more crucial by way of impacting on your life than did others. How would you describe the shadow's presence here? If only generally.

Clearly each individual has to deal with the manner in which his or her brain/mind/"I" reacts to the world around it in intertwining the id with the ego, conscious awareness with subconscious and unconscious states of mind, genes with memes, nature with nurture.

Now, my interest here would be in exploring the shadow as it manifest itself to you in the either/or world and then in the is/ought world. That is simply my "thing" here in all of these discussions. .

In other words...the Shadow and dasein? the shadow and conflicting goods? the Shadow and political economy?

Morality on this side of the grave, immortality on the other side.

Thus I would be curious in turn to explore Jung's shadow as it pertains to death: https://ideapod.com/carl-jung-explains- ... n-you-die/

Jung:

"The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge."

How does that fit into my reaction to the Vietnam war? Damned if I know. What the hell does this even mean in regard to any particular individual facing any particular situation in which moral and political narratives come into conflict?

Well yes, this is a distinction, a problem I also noticed;
We have the individual shadow and then he societal shadow which is far larger, and yet, the same.

The elusiveness of the shadow points to the mystery of separation and unity of the individual and his world. Thats a thought that comes to me now, writing this.

Well, only to the extent that someone is able or willing to grapple with his or her shadow more substantively, descriptively, empirically etc., would their account be of much interest to me.

More to the point [mine] in terms of your own interactions with others involving "considerable moral effort", what does it mean to you?

Cite a situation you have been in that allows you to describe it more substantively.

it means so very, very much.
My life, dude, I can not even tell you a single detail. Its unfortunate. Lurkers.

But in general, Ive always made a great effort to bring to light the darkness where I would rather not recognize it.
One thing I can tell you: People who consider themselves "light workers" are usually the very opposite. Demons, sick people.

I suppose this is in part why I was so drawn to Nietzsche, and in particular his darker side. I never had the slightest faith in anything that wasn't addressing the very heart of darkness.

In other words, for whatever personal reasons [reasons I am not likely to grasp in not being you], you don't/won't go there. The things you then note are [to me] just more general description intellectual contraptions.

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about in regard to "bring[ing] to light the darkness where I would rather not recognize it." Demons? Sick people? When? where? how? why?

The dark side as a manifestation of biological imperatives more or less than traumas encountered over the course of living your life out in a particular world given a particular set of experiences rooted through nurture in dasein.

As for Baltimore, the Wire, sure. And John Waters films. But the film that came closest to it for me was Jodie Foster's Home for the Holidays. It was mostly filmed a few miles from my home in Lauraville. I remember a co-worker coming into the company I worked for claiming to have seen Jodie Foster in the seven-eleven in Hamilton. And the part where Robert Downey Jr. is walking past the cemetery on Moravia Road was less than a mile from my house.

Hmm. I wonder how the shadow fit in there? Fit into those characters struggling up on the screen to sustain their human-all-too-human interactions.

[Fixed Cross]

The question is how wise is it to divulge even bits of ones own shadow-path.

On the bright side, I have a small video which lightly touches on what turned out to become my shadow-path, which features an explosion from a very dark and Jungian Vietnam horror film, "Jacobs Ladder".

[felix dakat]

The question is how wise is it to divulge even bits of ones own shadow-path.

On the bright side, I have a small video which lightly touches on what turned out to become my shadow-path, which features an explosion from a very dark and Jungian Vietnam horror film, "Jacobs Ladder".

"Shadow path" nicely said. Mine took decades to unfold. To reverse Jesus' saying, shall we cast our swine before pearls? Iambiguous, you go first. And last.

[surreptitious75]

The question is how wise is it to divulge even bits of ones own shadow path

Well if it is affecting your ability to function on any significant level simply ignoring it is probably the worst thing you can do
Your demons will not just go away if you are too afraid to confront them as that will only make them stronger in the long run

[Tab]

Jacobs ladder. I'd forgotten that movie. Those shake-head demons scared the bejesus outta me.

[Fixed Cross]

"Shadow path" nicely said. Mine took decades to unfold.

Mine too.
if I may ask, did get you anywhere?

To reverse Jesus' saying, shall we cast our swine before pearls?
Iambiguous, you go first. And last.

Yes. Hahaha.

[Fixed Cross]

Jacobs ladder. I'd forgotten that movie. Those shake-head demons scared the bejesus outta me.

Yes, that was a very good depiction of hell I thought.
I got a kick out of showing the movie to my friends.

Also remember going to watch Se7en many times in the cinema just for the reaction of the crowd to the Sloth moment.

[Fixed Cross]

The question is how wise is it to divulge even bits of ones own shadow path

Well if it is affecting your ability to function on any significant level simply ignoring it is probably the worst thing you can do

Does ignoring mean the same as not divulging?

I am able to process things by myself, without posting them online.

Ive tried to process some things online but I cant recommend it brother.

Your demons will not just go away if you are too afraid to confront them as that will only make them stronger in the long run

You are certainly welcome to divulge. But ... you won't.

[surreptitious75]

I am able to process things by myself without posting them online

That is what I was referring to - I was not at all suggesting that you make them public - unless you really want to
To be truly open and honest with just yourself by simply accepting who you are despite all of your imperfections

[felix dakat]

"Shadow path" nicely said. Mine took decades to unfold.

Mine too.
if I may ask, did get you anywhere?

To reverse Jesus' saying, shall we cast our swine before pearls?
Iambiguous, you go first. And last.

Yes. Hahaha.

Did It get me anywhere? Yes. I was never comfortable in my own skin until the shadow was somewhat realized through me. Yet, I paid dearly for that comfort.

[felix dakat]

Per Hoeller, Jung referred to the process of the confrontation with the shadow (the recognition of the unacceptable, or “evil” part of ourselves) as a “gnostic process.”

[iambiguous]

"Shadow path" nicely said. Mine took decades to unfold. To reverse Jesus' saying, shall we cast our swine before pearls? Iambiguous, you go first. And last.

Your shadow path? Cite a significant set of circumstances along this path and describe to us in some detail the shadow part given the behaviors you chose.

All of our shadows -- what we think it is in our heads -- are rooted existentially in the manner in which our biological imperatives come into contact with actual extant memes constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years in a particular historical cultural and experiential context. The time and place we are "thrown" into at birth and then indoctrinated [for years] by others to think and feel and say and do what they want us to.

You have now managed to intertwine that in turn with whatever you have come to believe about God and religion.

My path is no different. It's just on a No God trajectory now. Meaning that whatever my shadow -- soul? -- turns out to be, it seems to be embodied in an essentially meaningless existence...about to tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

And then what of my shadow?

What of yours?

[felix dakat]

"Shadow path" nicely said. Mine took decades to unfold. To reverse Jesus' saying, shall we cast our swine before pearls? Iambiguous, you go first. And last.

Your shadow path? Cite a significant set of circumstances along this path and describe to us in some detail the shadow part given the behaviors you chose.

All of our shadows -- what we think it is in our heads -- are rooted existentially in the manner in which our biological imperatives come into contact with actual extant memes constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years in a particular historical cultural and experiential context. The time and place we are "thrown" into at birth and then indoctrinated [for years] by others to think and feel and say and do what they want us to.

You have now managed to intertwine that in turn with whatever you have come to believe about God and religion.

My path is no different. It's just on a No God trajectory now. Meaning that whatever my shadow -- soul? -- turns out to be, it seems to be embodied in an essentially meaningless existence...about to tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

And then what of my shadow?

What of yours?

You imagine yourself to be a fair and reasonable arbiter of other people's propositions on this website. Now If You could see your Shadow you might recognize that you have repeatedly lightly and dispitefully dismissed many reasonable propositions of other participants on this website over the years. In my opinion, it would be unwise for anyone to disclose images that arise spontaneously from their unconscious to you for your nihilisticly motivated consumption.

[iambiguous]

"Shadow path" nicely said. Mine took decades to unfold. To reverse Jesus' saying, shall we cast our swine before pearls? Iambiguous, you go first. And last.

Your shadow path? Cite a significant set of circumstances along this path and describe to us in some detail the shadow part given the behaviors you chose.

All of our shadows -- what we think it is in our heads -- are rooted existentially in the manner in which our biological imperatives come into contact with actual extant memes constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years in a particular historical cultural and experiential context. The time and place we are "thrown" into at birth and then indoctrinated [for years] by others to think and feel and say and do what they want us to.

You have now managed to intertwine that in turn with whatever you have come to believe about God and religion.

My path is no different. It's just on a No God trajectory now. Meaning that whatever my shadow -- soul? -- turns out to be, it seems to be embodied in an essentially meaningless existence...about to tumble over into the abyss that is oblivion.

And then what of my shadow?

What of yours?

You imagine yourself to be a fair and reasonable arbiter of other people's propositions on this website. Now If You could see your Shadow you would recognize that you have repeatedly dismissed the reasonable propositions of other participants on this website. In my opinion, it would be unwise for anyone to disclose images that arise spontaneously from their unconscious to you for your nihilisticly motivated consumption.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle...

Again:

Your shadow path? Cite a significant set of circumstances along this path and describe to us in some detail the shadow part given the behaviors you chose.

Instead, in my view, you nestle in your ponderous intellectual contraptions -- and your "in my head" God -- and make the argument about me.

And that way, in my opinion, your comforting and consoling world of words reality always remains in tact.

[felix dakat]

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle...

Again:

Your shadow path? Cite a significant set of circumstances along this path and describe to us in some detail the shadow part given the behaviors you chose.

Instead, in my view, you nestle in your ponderous intellectual contraptions -- and your "in my head" God -- and make the argument about me.

And that way, in my opinion, your comforting and consoling world of words reality always remains in tact.

To get in touch with one's unconscious psyche is a matter of experience. It doesn't require any particular metaphysical , supernatural or theological conception or contraption as you like to call such. So your argument about what you imagined to be my point of view is based on your misconception.

[iambiguous]

To get in touch with one's unconscious psyche is a matter of experience. It doesn't require any particular metaphysical , supernatural or theological conception or contraption as you like to call such. So your argument about what you imagined to be my point of view is based on your misconception.

Note to others:

See how it works?

Instead of bringing their shadow or their soul or their God or their morality or their enlightenment or their transcending font out into the world and describing for us how they all play out in their interactions with others from day to day, they resort to obtuse pedantry like this.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

[promethean75]

To get in touch with one's unconscious psyche is a matter of experience.

that might be one of the reasons this shadow stuff is so fascinating; it is believed that there are two selves... one underneath, and one on top, that can get in touch with the one underneath. but here's the prob. the one underneath isn't pre-reflective like immediate consciousness. it cannot have any intentionality, and therefore it is unable to direct its activity toward any meaningful object. the shadow would exist as a kind of despository of instinctual and learned reflexes. for instance, you're on jung's couch and he's like 'you hate your wife... and you need to face this before you can rid yourself of such hatred. and you better hurry because of you don't, it'll become neurosis and you'll have to pay me for three more months of therapy.' but the moment this comes to your mind - that you hate your wife - you have to re-decide that the reasons why you hate her are still substantial. that is, you become open to reassess that hatred with the possibility of changing your mind if you understand even the slightest thing differently. what's happening here is... what is called the 'unconscious' is an inert depository of habitual feelings that resulted from thinking about things a certain way, e.g., her obsessive cleanliness is a negative feature of her personality. but if you are led to believe that this behavior is actually a characteristic of a person who is quite healthy and motivated to be so obsessive about cleaning because, say, she wants to maintain a sterile and orderly household, suddenly you undergo a reorientation of the understanding of the causes of your hatred, and intentionally redirect, or i should say dis-attach, your immediate consciousness from the habitual behaviors of your hatred.

but now here's the thing. the unconscious part underneath didn't 'hate' anything, because in order to hate, consciousness has to be directed toward a meaningful object in order to have 'intent'... and you can't hate unless you intend to hate, see. the unconscious therefore doesn't harbor anything but a collection of habitual behaviors that were formed in the past when consciousness, at that time, established the meaningfulness of the feeling. once you have your 'reasons' in mind, they are subject to change through/with language. hate a nigga today, love him tomorrow. all depends on how you rationalize and inventory the perceived causes of those feelings. and you don't get to choose to be convinced or not of a line of reasoning that reorients your feelings.

much of what i'm saying here is also in line with sartre's thinking concerning the 'sub-consciousness'. it's around so you can google it. the basic premise is that reflex, instinct and habit cannot be counted as intentional behavior, and because consciousness must involve intentionality, there can be no such thing as a 'sub-conscious' or 'unconscious'... unless by that you mean asleep or inna coma or something.

so much for the 'shadow' magic trick that victorian shrinks were selling to their unwitting patients to make a buck. bourgeois psychology. that shit is so 80s.

[felix dakat]

To get in touch with one's unconscious psyche is a matter of experience. It doesn't require any particular metaphysical , supernatural or theological conception or contraption as you like to call such. So your argument about what you imagined to be my point of view is based on your misconception.

Note to others:

See how it works?

Instead of bringing their shadow or their soul or their God or their morality or their enlightenment or their transcending font out into the world and describing for us how they all play out in their interactions with others from day to day, they resort to obtuse pedantry like this.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

In order to reject my point of view you objectify me as a "they".
Images like the shadow arise spontaneously in my conscious as do thoughts. I seem to be able to make choices about them like whether to entertain them and interpret them or to ignore them.
Some are more interesting than others. Some surprise me and tell me things about myself that I didn't know. Or they bring me music or beautiful or ugly visions.
So mental images are primary to me not theoretical.
Now when I speak of "the unconscious" that is theoretical. But how else can mental phenomena be explained?
Most of the activity of the nervous system goes on unconsciously. It's not like you have to consciously will every heart beat or stop your heart from beating by a direct act of will. Likewise the images and thoughts that arise to conscious.
Unless you don't dream or have visual and auditory images in your mind, I am not proposing anything alien to you.
"The shadow" is just a metaphor for aspects of one's self. You may already have access to and perhaps think about mental images that I'm calling the Shadow in a different way. However, the metaphor resonates with my experience.
That you don't validate my experience is just more grist for the mill that is my consciousness. Of course, I surmise what that rejection may say about you. But, since there is more about you that I don't know than what I do, I hold my view of you in a tentative way that is subject to change.

[felix dakat]

To get in touch with one's unconscious psyche is a matter of experience.

that might be one of the reasons this shadow stuff is so fascinating; it is believed that there are two selves... one underneath, and one on top, that can get in touch with the one underneath. but here's the prob. the one underneath isn't pre-reflective like immediate consciousness. it cannot have any intentionality, and therefore it is unable to direct its activity toward any meaningful object. the shadow would exist as a kind of despository of instinctual and learned reflexes. for instance, you're on jung's couch and he's like 'you hate your wife... and you need to face this before you can rid yourself of such hatred. and you better hurry because of you don't, it'll become neurosis and you'll have to pay me for three more months of therapy.' but the moment this comes to your mind - that you hate your wife - you have to re-decide that the reasons why you hate her are still substantial. that is, you become open to reassess that hatred with the possibility of changing your mind if you understand even the slightest thing differently. what's happening here is... what is called the 'unconscious' is an inert depository of habitual feelings that resulted from thinking about things a certain way, e.g., her obsessive cleanliness is a negative feature of her personality. but if you are led to believe that this behavior is actually a characteristic of a person who is quite healthy and motivated to be so obsessive about cleaning because, say, she wants to maintain a sterile and orderly household, suddenly you undergo a reorientation of the understanding of the causes of your hatred, and intentionally redirect, or i should say dis-attach, your immediate consciousness from the habitual behaviors of your hatred.

but now here's the thing. the unconscious part underneath didn't 'hate' anything, because in order to hate, consciousness has to be directed toward a meaningful object in order to have 'intent'... and you can't hate unless you intend to hate, see. the unconscious therefore doesn't harbor anything but a collection of habitual behaviors that were formed in the past when consciousness, at that time, established the meaningfulness of the feeling. once you have your 'reasons' in mind, they are subject to change through/with language. hate a nigga today, love him tomorrow. all depends on how you rationalize and inventory the perceived causes of those feelings. and you don't get to choose to be convinced or not of a line of reasoning that reorients your feelings.

much of what i'm saying here is also in line with sartre's thinking concerning the 'sub-consciousness'. it's around so you can google it. the basic premise is that reflex, instinct and habit cannot be counted as intentional behavior, and because consciousness must involve intentionality, there can be no such thing as a 'sub-conscious' or 'unconscious'... unless by that you mean asleep or inna coma or something.

so much for the 'shadow' magic trick that victorian shrinks were selling to their unwitting patients to make a buck. bourgeois psychology. that shit is so 80s.

Why can’t the unconscious self have intentionality? Why must the unconscious psyche be inert? Psychological evidence shows that the unconscious is motivated and dynamic. Neuro-science confirms that consciousness is the tip of the iceberg of the fully functioning human organism. Insofar as Sartre argued for an autonomous Cartesian ego that is transparently conscious of itself, his position isn’t supported by the evidence. It's like saying that the desktop display is the whole computer. It ignores the hardware and the software that underlie what the desktop does. Much of human behavior that appears irrational on the surface can be explained on the basis of evolution. Rationalization and the other conscious phenomena that you describe supervene upon unconscious processes.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Why can’t the unconscious self have intentionality? Why must the unconscious psyche be inert? Psychological evidence shows that the unconscious is motivated and dynamic. Neuro-science confirms that consciousness is the tip of the iceberg of the fully functioning human organism.

The unconscious is definitely motivated, trying to get things, interfering with concscious choices and more. And the unconscious mind can drive a car, get you to think the reason you went the store was milk when it was actually beer, sabotage a relationship, 'forget' to do something you are supposed to do but don't want to, make Freudian slips. Try to go against the unconscious mind, if it is fairly unified on wanting something, and you'll begin to wonder if the conscious mind has intentionality? Ask an addict. And if you think your not an addict, try going without your mobile, computer, tv, books and other distractions for a couple of days. Or try to change you emotional habits or just plain decide to show people how you really feel. Good luck conscious minds going against a vastly more motivated powerhouse that is going to make decisions for you.

Long ago I decide to own the unconscious as much as I could. If you can't beat'em join'em. At least in the case when them is you.

[felix dakat]

Why can’t the unconscious self have intentionality? Why must the unconscious psyche be inert? Psychological evidence shows that the unconscious is motivated and dynamic. Neuro-science confirms that consciousness is the tip of the iceberg of the fully functioning human organism.

The unconscious is definitely motivated, trying to get things, interfering with concscious choices and more. And the unconscious mind can drive a car, get you to think the reason you went the store was milk when it was actually beer, sabotage a relationship, 'forget' to do something you are supposed to do but don't want to, make Freudian slips. Try to go against the unconscious mind, if it is fairly unified on wanting something, and you'll begin to wonder if the conscious mind has intentionality? Ask an addict. And if you think your not an addict, try going without your mobile, computer, tv, books and other distractions for a couple of days. Or try to change you emotional habits or just plain decide to show people how you really feel. Good luck conscious minds going against a vastly more motivated powerhouse that is going to make decisions for you.

Long ago I decide to own the unconscious as much as I could. If you can't beat'em join'em. At least in the case when them is you.

That seems wise. It sounds like you are endeavoring to actualize the principle of coniunctio oppositorum, the union of the polarities between your conscious ego and your unconscious Self.