Shadow

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: Shadow

Postby promethean75 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:05 pm

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.


because consciousness is a phenomenological complex of schemes that must cooperate under the guidance of intent, there can be no consciousness without these structures. things like memory, anticipation, expectation, language-use, evaluating means and ends, are all necessary for there to be any 'motivation' in behavior. otherwise physiological processes are non-thetic and simply the result of the physical and chemical laws that govern them. of course all this other stuff is governed by these laws too, but only when they are combined and organized at the level of self-awareness and goal-oriented behavior, can they be called 'conscious'. this means that there can be no 'unconscious hating of your wife', because in order to 'hate', you have to move through all those characteristics of intentional, object-directed thinking. what happens 'underneath' consciousness is just a series of inert physical and chemical processes in your nervous system. there is no planning here, no deliberation, no foresight, just a non-teleological system of electro-chemical impulses.

really man, the whole freud/jung theory of the unconsciousness is just a money making sham these nob-gobblers made up to stay in business.

here's some relevant reading from the frenchman with the lazy eye:

One of the central notions connected with that of the for-itself is the idea of bad faith, or self-deception. Bad faith is Sartre's replacement for the Freudian notion of the unconscious. Bad faith for Sartre is false reflection on my own mental states; a systematic self-deception about the nature of the pre-reflective basis for reflection (which is, of course, for Sartre, appearances or projections of the real world). So, if for example I hate my father but do not admit it to myself, Freud would say that my hatred of my father is an unconscious mental state, which systematically effects my behavior, but which cannot be made conscious without deep analysis and the uncovering of the psychogenesis of that hatred.

Sartre, on the other hand, rejects the notion of the unconscious entirely. For Sartre, this situation would be described as one in which I (consciously) hate my father, and am conscious --- non-thetically --- of that hatred and its object. But in reflecting, I lie to myself, and tell myself that I don't really hate my father. My non-thetic consciousness is of hating my father; but my reflective, thetic consciousness of self --- my consciousness of my self as an (empirical) object --- is that of me as not hating my father. This distortion is imposed because of a desire to not hate my father, and reflection then is twisted by that desire. But I am fully (if non-thetically) conscious of hating my father --- that is, my consciousness sometimes has the form of a hatred of Dad.

The most central difference between Sartre and Freud which underlies this apparent disagreement is that Sartre thinks that all dealing with the intentional is conscious, more or less by definition. The intentional properties of something are ones it has not in itself, but ones which are to be found in what it is not (what it's directed on) rather than what it is. But being what it is not rather than what it is is the essential mark of consciousness, the for-itself, and nothingness for Sartre. So the only thing which is sensitive to the intentional is consciousness itself.

Pretend that this is so for a moment to understand the disagreement with Freud. If this were so, then consider the process of repression for Freud. Repression is certainly sensitive to the content of mental states --- things get repressed because of what they mean. But since only the for-itself can be sensitive to meaning, repression must be done by a consciousness. In fact, this requires a second consciousness: If it were my consciousness, then as soon as the process of repression considered that meaning to see if it should be repressed, that meaning would be conscious --- and hence, not repressed. So if only consciousness can deal with the intentional, repression would require a second, independent consciousness, which is not mine --- which Sartre takes to be absurd.

The alternative for Sartre is that it's my consciousness which does the repressing --- which means, of course, that even "repressed" thoughts are conscious. This is, of course, just bad faith. I am conscious of all my thoughts; none are unconscious. And it is my consciousness which grasps even the intuitively repressed thoughts. I thus have conscious access even to the things which I do not admit to myself --- I instead lie to myself in reflection about something I perfectly well know; and this is the essence of bad faith.


the thing with this shadow nonsense is that it allowed the shrinks to create through the power of suggestion an alternative you, and then fill it with all kinds of insidious bullshit so that you'd get all paranoid and be like 'omg help me doctor!' i read some greek mythology and now i think i wanna kill my father!'
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:46 pm

promethean75 wrote:really man, the whole freud/jung theory of the unconsciousness is just a money making sham these nob-gobblers made up to stay in business.
You are way out of date. Modern cognitive science shows unconscoius decision making and overriding of conscious decisions, even, everywhere in our lives. And anyone paying attention to their own lives will notice how they find themselves doing, saying things they thought they did not intend, and also fighting very hard and often losing when trying to change habits - t hat is repeated decisions made by the unconscious. And you don't get to dismiss the unconscious as merely determined and then concede that everything is. Either being determined means it cannot be intentional or it does not.

And your first sentence on the subject reverses necessity


because consciousness is a phenomenological complex of schemes that must cooperate under the guidance of intent, there can be no consciousness without these structures.
You are saying that consciousness requires intent. The question is whether intent requires consciousness.

And all through this is the assumption that the little thinky I in the mind AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT THAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON is the only consciousness.

Pretty much all of us have had the experience of NOTICING that we were, in fact, aware of something without being aware we were. The observers and experiencers in us are shifting around. The little I merges and disengages.

But in any case, referring to Freud and Jung is missing out the vast amount of current and recent research (that is in the 21st century) that shows unconscious decision-making, unconscious intentions saturing the lives of we humans who have this little I in the mind that thinks it is boss and further thinks it is not, right this moment merged with some part of the unconscious' pushing and pulling.

You've confused parts for the whole.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Feb 22, 2020 1:49 am

True will, the mercilessness, amoral violent sneaky of it, is never conscious.



We call it "Hell" and it is not a passive thing.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Shadow

Postby promethean75 » Sat Feb 22, 2020 2:42 am

K.Tunnel, we might not be disagreeing as much as we are calling something... a certain process of feature... what the other isn't calling it. Mind you there is plenty of controversy around the existence of the 'unconscious' shared between very well established intellectuals and scientists (Searle as one). So, the denial that it exists isn't 'an old idea' by any means. Most likely there's a misunderstanding of terms going on here between us.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:07 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:True will, the mercilessness, amoral violent sneaky of it, is never conscious.
Perhaps, though I doubt that. But it sure is intentional. And why be sneaky if you ain't conscious. What's the motivation to be?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:21 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:True will, the mercilessness, amoral violent sneaky of it, is never conscious.
Perhaps, though I doubt that. But it sure is intentional. And why be sneaky if you ain't conscious. What's the motivation to be?

Or lets put it this way; it is conscious of itself, but the ego isn't conscious of it.
The ego as I see it is a social construct. It is conscious of the place in the world of logoic hierarchies of power but it isn't conscious of its will.

We slip into different layers of consciousness in trances.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Shadow

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:24 am

felix dakat wrote: I was never comfortable in my own skin until the shadow was somewhat realized through me. Yet, I paid dearly for that comfort.

The process is rather savage.

Many people go through it in youth, and many of these become criminals.

Those that have the sort of life that allows for slow integration in adulthood are people with whom the superego of society evolves.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Shadow

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:28 am

KP wrote: And why be sneaky if you ain't conscious

To evade consciousness.... ;)
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Shadow

Postby felix dakat » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:47 am

promethean75 wrote:
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.


because consciousness is a phenomenological complex of schemes that must cooperate under the guidance of intent, there can be no consciousness without these structures. things like memory, anticipation, expectation, language-use, evaluating means and ends, are all necessary for there to be any 'motivation' in behavior. otherwise physiological processes are non-thetic and simply the result of the physical and chemical laws that govern them. of course all this other stuff is governed by these laws too, but only when they are combined and organized at the level of self-awareness and goal-oriented behavior, can they be called 'conscious'. this means that there can be no 'unconscious hating of your wife', because in order to 'hate', you have to move through all those characteristics of intentional, object-directed thinking. what happens 'underneath' consciousness is just a series of inert physical and chemical processes in your nervous system. there is no planning here, no deliberation, no foresight, just a non-teleological system of electro-chemical impulses.

really man, the whole freud/jung theory of the unconsciousness is just a money making sham these nob-gobblers made up to stay in business.

here's some relevant reading from the frenchman with the lazy eye:

One of the central notions connected with that of the for-itself is the idea of bad faith, or self-deception. Bad faith is Sartre's replacement for the Freudian notion of the unconscious. Bad faith for Sartre is false reflection on my own mental states; a systematic self-deception about the nature of the pre-reflective basis for reflection (which is, of course, for Sartre, appearances or projections of the real world). So, if for example I hate my father but do not admit it to myself, Freud would say that my hatred of my father is an unconscious mental state, which systematically effects my behavior, but which cannot be made conscious without deep analysis and the uncovering of the psychogenesis of that hatred.

Sartre, on the other hand, rejects the notion of the unconscious entirely. For Sartre, this situation would be described as one in which I (consciously) hate my father, and am conscious --- non-thetically --- of that hatred and its object. But in reflecting, I lie to myself, and tell myself that I don't really hate my father. My non-thetic consciousness is of hating my father; but my reflective, thetic consciousness of self --- my consciousness of my self as an (empirical) object --- is that of me as not hating my father. This distortion is imposed because of a desire to not hate my father, and reflection then is twisted by that desire. But I am fully (if non-thetically) conscious of hating my father --- that is, my consciousness sometimes has the form of a hatred of Dad.

The most central difference between Sartre and Freud which underlies this apparent disagreement is that Sartre thinks that all dealing with the intentional is conscious, more or less by definition. The intentional properties of something are ones it has not in itself, but ones which are to be found in what it is not (what it's directed on) rather than what it is. But being what it is not rather than what it is is the essential mark of consciousness, the for-itself, and nothingness for Sartre. So the only thing which is sensitive to the intentional is consciousness itself.

Pretend that this is so for a moment to understand the disagreement with Freud. If this were so, then consider the process of repression for Freud. Repression is certainly sensitive to the content of mental states --- things get repressed because of what they mean. But since only the for-itself can be sensitive to meaning, repression must be done by a consciousness. In fact, this requires a second consciousness: If it were my consciousness, then as soon as the process of repression considered that meaning to see if it should be repressed, that meaning would be conscious --- and hence, not repressed. So if only consciousness can deal with the intentional, repression would require a second, independent consciousness, which is not mine --- which Sartre takes to be absurd.

The alternative for Sartre is that it's my consciousness which does the repressing --- which means, of course, that even "repressed" thoughts are conscious. This is, of course, just bad faith. I am conscious of all my thoughts; none are unconscious. And it is my consciousness which grasps even the intuitively repressed thoughts. I thus have conscious access even to the things which I do not admit to myself --- I instead lie to myself in reflection about something I perfectly well know; and this is the essence of bad faith.


the thing with this shadow nonsense is that it allowed the shrinks to create through the power of suggestion an alternative you, and then fill it with all kinds of insidious bullshit so that you'd get all paranoid and be like 'omg help me doctor!' i read some greek mythology and now i think i wanna kill my father!'


Yeah, Sartre and his autonomous floating ego consciousness lost in space. Nobody that knows anything about neuro-science or evolutionary psychology or archetypal psychology thinks his brand of "condemned to be free" conscious is supportable. I don't see Sartre getting any 21st century scientific support for his philosophy. That blurb that you cited above talks about one small aspect of Freud's take on repression. It hardly deals with the vast phenomenal relationship of consciousness to the unconscious psyche.

Sartre had to coin a word "non-thetical" in order to deal repressed material. Well, sure it's conscious until the ego stuffs it. Then where does it go? It's forgotten. And what shall we call that? Whatever your euphemism is for the unconscious. Oh, I know...it becomes "non-thetical'. #-o

Over the past two decades of neurological research, it has become increasingly clear that the way we experience the world--our perception, behavior, memory, and social judgment--is largely driven by the mind's subliminal processes and not by the conscious ones, as we have long believed. In Subliminal, Leonard Mlodinow [ who co-authored with physicist Stephen Hawking -- A Briefer History of Time, and The Grand Design] employs his signature concise, accessible explanations of the most obscure scientific subjects to unravel the complexities of the subliminal mind. In the process he shows the many ways it influences how we misperceive our relationships with family, friends, and business associates; how we misunderstand the reasons for our investment decisions; and how we misremember important events--along the way, changing our view of ourselves and the world around us.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Shadow

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:21 pm

FELIX --- "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."

PROM --="because consciousness is a phenomenological complex of schemes that must cooperate under the guidance of intent, there can be no consciousness without these structures"



Am I hallucinating or is there a subterranean agreement lurking here?

Intent precedes consciousness. Intent does not have to be conscious.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Value Ontology - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magical Tree of Life Academy
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 10960
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Shadow

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:11 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:Let me lift one out to study.

"Taking it in its deepest sense, the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him. Carefully amputated, it becomes the healing serpent of the mysteries. Only monkeys parade with it."

How does one amputate the shadow?
What does it mean to carefully amputate the shadow?

And what does it mean to parade with it?

Am I parading with my shadow when I talk down on people whom I think are being stupid?

Is rap music parading with the shadow, or is it rather the healing serpent?
Or both?

What precisely is the fucking shadow?
What is your shadow, if I may ask?


I always loved this quote.

It is the inferior side (or what we feel is the inferior side) of our self which we refuse to look at, to acknowledge.
We always seem to see it within someone else but not our self. It is called projection.
I'll get back to you as for the rest.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Shadow

Postby felix dakat » Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:08 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:Let me lift one out to study.

"Taking it in its deepest sense, the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him. Carefully amputated, it becomes the healing serpent of the mysteries. Only monkeys parade with it."

How does one amputate the shadow?
What does it mean to carefully amputate the shadow?

And what does it mean to parade with it?

Am I parading with my shadow when I talk down on people whom I think are being stupid?

Is rap music parading with the shadow, or is it rather the healing serpent?
Or both?

What precisely is the fucking shadow?
What is your shadow, if I may ask?


I always loved this quote.

It is the inferior side (or what we feel is the inferior side) of our self which we refuse to look at, to acknowledge.
We always seem to see it within someone else but not our self. It is called projection.
I'll get back to you as for the rest.


The unconscious psyche reveals the shadow through dreams. And other people can tell us things about ourselves that we can't see, that is, things about which we are unconscious.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Shadow

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:56 am

felix dakat wrote:The unconscious psyche reveals the shadow through dreams. And other people can tell us things about ourselves that we can't see, that is, things about which we are unconscious.
Pet peeves about other people can tell a lot. Ask people who know you what you seem to overreact to negatively in other people. There's the shadow. You think you're bugged because they are 'bad' or 'annoying' etc., and while this is ALSO true, you're probably jealous they let themselves express that facet of themselves you lock in the basement.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby felix dakat » Thu Feb 27, 2020 12:48 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:The unconscious psyche reveals the shadow through dreams. And other people can tell us things about ourselves that we can't see, that is, things about which we are unconscious.
Pet peeves about other people can tell a lot. Ask people who know you what you seem to overreact to negatively in other people. There's the shadow. You think you're bugged because they are 'bad' or 'annoying' etc., and while this is ALSO true, you're probably jealous they let themselves express that facet of themselves you lock in the basement.


Yes and when people who know us tell us things about ourselves that we are unaware of, it’s easy to become defensive and deny the truth of their observation. We seem to see this happening right here on ILP, as for example, in the case of our moral nihilist friend. He won’t accept feedback about what he does even though multiple people are telling him roughly the same thing about himself.

Many times an archetype like the Shadow can affect our mood and we don’t know why. A friend who knows our situation may be to explain our mood to us better than we can explain it ourselves. We should listen and try to be open to what they are telling us about ourselves. They may be onto something we don't have conscious access to.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Shadow

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:29 pm

felix dakat wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:The unconscious psyche reveals the shadow through dreams. And other people can tell us things about ourselves that we can't see, that is, things about which we are unconscious.
Pet peeves about other people can tell a lot. Ask people who know you what you seem to overreact to negatively in other people. There's the shadow. You think you're bugged because they are 'bad' or 'annoying' etc., and while this is ALSO true, you're probably jealous they let themselves express that facet of themselves you lock in the basement.


Yes and when people who know us tell us things about ourselves that we are unaware of, it’s easy to become defensive and deny the truth of their observation. We seem to see this happening right here on ILP, as for example, in the case of our moral nihilist friend. He won’t accept feedback about what he does even though multiple people are telling him roughly the same thing about himself.

Many times an archetype like the Shadow can affect our mood and we don’t know why. A friend who knows our situation may be to explain our mood to us better than we can explain it ourselves. We should listen and try to be open to what they are telling us about ourselves. They may be onto something we don't have conscious access to.

I can do this on occasion. And I have allowed some really horrible feelings and intentions in myself to bubble up to the surface and be expressed. Violent denied aspect of myself, for example, I let 'take over' and express their rage - though I was, of course, alone and did not live this out on anyone else. I did not like what I found but I noticed that once expressed there were more healthy versions (of standing up for myself or of expressing desire, even) that were more accessible. I really hate it when someone else notices something first in me. I wish I could say I always take this gracefully, though sometimes I do. Easier when it is someone who loves me, though I've managed to work with some reflections from people who dislike me.

I think this is most important bravery. Can one do this?
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby felix dakat » Thu Feb 27, 2020 2:11 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Yes and when people who know us tell us things about ourselves that we are unaware of, it’s easy to become defensive and deny the truth of their observation. We seem to see this happening right here on ILP, as for example, in the case of our moral nihilist friend. He won’t accept feedback about what he does even though multiple people are telling him roughly the same thing about himself.

Many times an archetype like the Shadow can affect our mood and we don’t know why. A friend who knows our situation may be to explain our mood to us better than we can explain it ourselves. We should listen and try to be open to what they are telling us about ourselves. They may be onto something we don't have conscious access to.

I can do this on occasion. And I have allowed some really horrible feelings and intentions in myself to bubble up to the surface and be expressed. Violent denied aspect of myself, for example, I let 'take over' and express their rage - though I was, of course, alone and did not live this out on anyone else. I did not like what I found but I noticed that once expressed there were more healthy versions (of standing up for myself or of expressing desire, even) that were more accessible. I really hate it when someone else notices something first in me. I wish I could say I always take this gracefully, though sometimes I do. Easier when it is someone who loves me, though I've managed to work with some reflections from people who dislike me.

I think this is most important bravery. Can one do this?


One can. The unconscious self can put us into situations where it's necessary for our psychological survival. This gets into the subject of individuation.

It also happens that when we idealize other people that we become unable to see their shadow. This happens in romantic relationships. You fall in love and the other seems beautiful and perfect in every way. Then one day you see their Shadow side and you are shocked to find out that they are a flawed human primate like everybody else.

It also happens to our perception of celebrities and political figures. The tabloid market thrives on overthrowing the popular hero by unveiling his/her shadow side. Or, how about the way Obama’s young followers idealized him when he was running for office and were shocked when as a President he failed to achieve all of his lofty promises? Shock, disappointment and cynicism set in.

So I think the Shadow is related to the idealized self and to the idealized other. The shadow is the other side in the duality. The question becomes: Why do we idealize ourselves and others? What purpose does idealization serve?
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Shadow

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:10 pm

felix dakat wrote:
I think this is most important bravery. Can one do this?


One can.
Yes, I meant that if one can do this, one is brave. If the answer to that question is yes, then one is brave. I think a lot of risk-taking gets judged brave. It may be. But noticing who one truly is, is a true test of bravery, one that many risk-takers who seem like heroes cannot manage.


So I think the Shadow is related to the idealized self and to the idealized other. The shadow is the other side in the duality. The question becomes: Why do we idealize ourselves and others? What purpose does idealization serve?
perhaps you meant this: the ideals generate the shadow. We think we should be like X and should not have urges and emotions and reactions Y, Z and *. Ideals teach us to suppress rather than integrate.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3398
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby felix dakat » Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
I think this is most important bravery. Can one do this?


One can.
Yes, I meant that if one can do this, one is brave. If the answer to that question is yes, then one is brave. I think a lot of risk-taking gets judged brave. It may be. But noticing who one truly is, is a true test of bravery, one that many risk-takers who seem like heroes cannot manage.


So I think the Shadow is related to the idealized self and to the idealized other. The shadow is the other side in the duality. The question becomes: Why do we idealize ourselves and others? What purpose does idealization serve?
perhaps you meant this: the ideals generate the shadow. We think we should be like X and should not have urges and emotions and reactions Y, Z and *. Ideals teach us to suppress rather than integrate.


I was referring to the idealized self and the idealized other which are images not to ideals which are abstract concepts, axioms, principles, etc.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Shadow

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:07 pm

felix dakat


The unconscious psyche reveals the shadow through dreams.


This is true. I once had a dream about seeing what I believe to be my shadow. Very often I have dreams where I am in the dark of night. lol Anyway, it was nighttime and I was in a forest. I had some overwhelming sense of fear, that something was lurking somewhere. I looked to my left and there was something hiding behind a tree but kind of showing itself. It was, in a sense, there but at the same time, not there. Then I woke up.

I think perhaps that when we encounter such so-called entities it might be a good thing to face them down and ask why they are there and what they have to say to us.

And other people can tell us things about ourselves that we can't see, that is, things about which we are unconscious.

This is true but those are the picayne kind of projections that others can see about us that we do not want to see but they are easier to see if we could give up the ego.

There are far deeper-down parts of our shadow which we are afraid to be made aware of but with self-awareness in moments of experiencing that shadow and honest reflection, we can make it a pussy cat that becomes our companion.

Have you ever watched one of those old spaghetti westerns when someone is being hung on a tree by a rope for stealing a horse? If you observe the crowd, the mob, you see before you a gathering of ignominious shadows waiting for the kill, to be satisfied. It is a very scary thing not knowing who we are and what lurks beneath and within us.


It is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses- and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circumstances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster; and each individual is only one tiny cell in the monster’s body, so that for better or worse he must accompany it on its bloody rampages and even assist it to the utmost. Having a dark suspicion of these grim possibilities, man turns a blind eye to the shadow-side of human nature. Blindly he strives against the salutary dogma of original sin, which is yet so prodigiously true. Yes, he even hesitates to admit the conflict of which he is so painfully aware.
“On the Psychology of the Unconscious” (1912). In CW 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. P.35
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Shadow

Postby felix dakat » Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:12 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:felix dakat


The unconscious psyche reveals the shadow through dreams.


This is true. I once had a dream about seeing what I believe to be my shadow. Very often I have dreams where I am in the dark of night. lol Anyway, it was nighttime and I was in a forest. I had some overwhelming sense of fear, that something was lurking somewhere. I looked to my left and there was something hiding behind a tree but kind of showing itself. It was, in a sense, there but at the same time, not there. Then I woke up.

I think perhaps that when we encounter such so-called entities it might be a good thing to face them down and ask why they are there and what they have to say to us.

And other people can tell us things about ourselves that we can't see, that is, things about which we are unconscious.

This is true but those are the picayne kind of projections that others can see about us that we do not want to see but they are easier to see if we could give up the ego.

There are far deeper-down parts of our shadow which we are afraid to be made aware of but with self-awareness in moments of experiencing that shadow and honest reflection, we can make it a pussy cat that becomes our companion.

Have you ever watched one of those old spaghetti westerns when someone is being hung on a tree by a rope for stealing a horse? If you observe the crowd, the mob, you see before you a gathering of ignominious shadows waiting for the kill, to be satisfied. It is a very scary thing not knowing who we are and what lurks beneath and within us.


It is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses- and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circumstances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster; and each individual is only one tiny cell in the monster’s body, so that for better or worse he must accompany it on its bloody rampages and even assist it to the utmost. Having a dark suspicion of these grim possibilities, man turns a blind eye to the shadow-side of human nature. Blindly he strives against the salutary dogma of original sin, which is yet so prodigiously true. Yes, he even hesitates to admit the conflict of which he is so painfully aware.
“On the Psychology of the Unconscious” (1912). In CW 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. P.35


That's a powerful quote. In particular it suggests that ignoring the Shadow can result in a person naively going along with a malevolent crowd as happened in Nazi Germany and is being recapitulated with the rise of fascism today.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Shadow

Postby Tab » Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:35 am

prom wrote:really man, the whole freud/jung theory of the unconsciousness is just a money making sham these [k]nob-gobblers made up to stay in business.


Lol. :D I frequently think this can be expanded to encompass most of philosophy.
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby promethean75 » Sun Mar 01, 2020 6:04 pm

shhhhhh. don't tell anyone here i gave you this.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3571
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby Tab » Sun Mar 01, 2020 8:25 pm

Ok ok. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Oh look over there, an elephant !
Image
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Shadow

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:03 pm

Tab wrote:Ok ok. Move along folks, nothing to see here. Oh look over there, an elephant !


The police officer who gave up his job to move to Africa to become a tour guide on Safaris.
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15689
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Shadow

Postby felix dakat » Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:55 am

God always has with him the Devil.
The purpose of my life would seem to be to express the truth as I discover it, but in such a manner that it is completely devoid of authority. By having no authority, by being seen by all as utterly unreliable, I express the truth and put everyone in a contradictory position where they can only save themselves by making the truth their own.
Soren Kierkegaard– Journals, 432
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 8987
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users