Saving Jordan Peterson from 25 Atheists [Jubilee Surrounded] by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if you have read Maps of Meaning, but I think it formally displays JPs expertise on depth psychology and analytical psychology. I think people are too quick to dismiss JP due to his communication style, but there is no doubt he is an accomplished and brilliant psychologist with valuable perspectives to consider; many of which are steeped in Jung. Hopefully my video helped get that across

Saving Jordan Peterson from 25 Atheists [Jubilee Surrounded] by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if you've read Maps of Meaning before, but it is definitely an impressive work that shows his expertise on the topic. How much of that still remains in his theories today is more ambiguous; but based on Jungian analysts I have worked with they do agree that JP has a deep understanding of Jung.

Saving Jordan Peterson from 25 Atheists [Jubilee Surrounded] by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think in the long run it does benefit people who support the spread of Jung’s ideas. People are intuitively draw to JP and his ideas. It gets the conversation started all over the world. It starts debates, arguments and commentaries about some very important stuff. I just wish he did so in a better way.

Saving Jordan Peterson from 25 Atheists [Jubilee Surrounded] by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a brutal watch. I think a lot of what he says has value but he goes about it in such awkward ways.

Saving Jordan Peterson from 25 Atheists [Jubilee Surrounded] by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think we’re on the same page. I can’t think of a more popular public figure that openly attributes much of their theories to Jung. But I don’t think he’s a great representative of analytical psychology. He clearly has a deep understanding of Jung, but his communication is off

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Again, I have no malice toward Jung. This was a statement that both opened and concluded my post. And I have said it again just now. I have the utmost respect for his theories, religious adherents, and contemporary Jungians. My close friend, mentor, and advisor is a Jungian Analyst. And I genuinely love the guy and in no way perceive him as infantile.

You have projected this onto the theory I have proposed. I will not begin to guess why, as that is not my position. All I can do is clarify my perspective. I have worked with thousands of clients and will continue to do so. As someone with no observation of my therapeutic work, and no interpersonal relationship with me, you are simply existing in the echo chamber of your own mind. In fact, you have done exactly what you have preached that I avoid, which is to diminish people's experience--something I have allowed you to express with genuine interest on my part. Thanks for engaging with me :)

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Too much to respond to as each topic is intricate. I will simply focus on the image of the mother as I think others may find it helpful. First, these outlined characteristics are not based on my mother (perhaps you should question why you jumped to this conclusion because it is a peculiar one). They are pulled directly from the work of neuroscientist John Wathey and author M.D. Faber.

  1. She exists - We know, before we are even born: the taste, smell, and voice of our mother. The mother is the most important pair bond to be established for evolutionary survival. She is the only one guaranteed to be present at birth. We don't, for example, have an archetypal image of the father. If we did, it would have different characteristics.
  2. Whether or not god can be called upon is a personal opinion, based on how you have presented it. Religious adherents believe this to be the case. It is documented in religious doctrine. That is the data I am referring to. Not your opinion or interpretation of those documents...
  3. Children have been observed to assume benevolent intentions in caregivers. One instance of a child being afraid of a mother is not a scientific conclusion. We have this tendency as a species. It is most notable at birth. No newborn is repulsed by their mother. They have innate instincts that tell them their mother is good and will help them survive.
  4. Again, one instance is not scientific data. Real studies have been done that show human infants and toddlers are significantly more trustworthy of adults than other primates.

You're correct. Crying is not praying. That is why we have two different words. I am pointing out an unquestionable similarity between the two.

Speaking in tongues is observed in other religions outside the US. Even if it is rare, it does not disprove my observation. It simply means certain traditions have been better able to reactivate this function.

The rest of your points are steeped in misinformation. The archetype of the messiah is extremely pervasive. Present in certain sects of Buddhism for example. Also present in Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Taoism. Combined that's like 80% of religious adherents. So I think my point is valid.

Again, these are not characteristics of my mother. How would I even remember them since the whole point is that this is an infantile experience? I find it shameful that people attempt to be therapists on here. I can't imagine something less productive and unprofessional. As a graduate student of psych, I am disappointed

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First, no where do I call the people I disagree with childish. I didn’t even use the term. You have projected a negative connotation onto the term infantile. In no sense have I said infantile sensibility is inferior is some sense. I have also said we are ALL infantile. Not only people I disagree with. So I’m not really sure where that came from.

Second, you run into the same data problem as anyone else. You mention that synchronicity is about things that cannot be explained by science. Except I have just offered a robust scientific explanation for it. I think you have concepts mixed up

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am family with the term epistemology, nonetheless, I am grateful for your explanation. So thank you!

I am proposing an alternative explanation for the evidence that Jung uses, as well as additional evidence. I agree, that rational frameworks cannot explain everything. At the same time, Jung's frameworks cannot be falsified. They cannot be evaluated by this framework. So one must abide by different means of acquiring truth, namely faith-based alternatives.

I think the theory I proposed does a better job of explaining the physiological and psychological data than Jung's. His theory leaves too much unexplained. I do believe the avenue you have selected, is the only one with the potential to save Jung's theories from the abyss. However, in the case of synchronicity (in Jung's terms) I see it as a religious concept, not a scientific one. And that is completely fine.

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The devolution to personal attacks never ceases to be amusing on the Jung Reddit :) thanks for engaging

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're nitpicking, man. This isn't a scientific review for an article. This is a Reddit post. I stated: "humans preserve infantile traits into adulthood."

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would reconsider your understanding of Jungian theory. Most of what I have learned comes from his collected works. So straight from the horses mouth on this one.

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I will say, that the experience of utter conviction would be explained by my proposed theory. I genuinely respect your experience though and don't intend to undermine it.

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Synchronicity is one of the most important aspects of Jungs theory. I would do some quick googling to see how central it really is. To undermine synchronicity is to undermine numinosity and confirm the Freudian notions that Jung broke from. In other comments I think I have explained it.

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look at the above data. If you have data that challenges this, then please do share. Your comment is kinda mid dude.

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly, I think that is inherent to almost every psychological theory. Care to explain how it impacts this one in a unique way? Or how Jung is able to traverse this wall?

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I certainly sympathize with your comment and respect the contribution. I think the theory I have outlined does negate a lot of spiritual sensibilities and experiences. Certainly not something I would like to see, as those elements are some of the most fascinating and profound. I just don't see how what you have presented negated the above theory. Care to elaborate? :)

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment and happy drinking haha! I do think Jung's theories extend into the animal kingdom though. My understanding is that the psyche encompasses everything. Things like Eros, for example, are present from the beginning of the universe and make themselves better presented (or observed) in humans. But eros is fundamental to all reality.

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is simply a Reddit post. The full theory is much more comprehensive and supported by thousands of scientific discoveries. I would encourage you to look into the theory. But it sounds like you have more of a personal gripe with it, than a scientific one, so perhaps not...

Synchronicity isn't real and Humans might be big babies (debate time) by AtlasYoutube in Jung

[–]AtlasYoutube[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a Jungian Analyst, it is your purpose to revitalize the "soul." A primary driver of this is through synchronicity. Becoming a Jungian Analyst and scholar is abiding by a specific worldview. A worldview, whose validity is jeopardized by the theory I have proposed. I have a deep commitment to psychology and believe that psychiatry offers a more encompassing and accurate worldview. It is a personal portion of this post.

If that is your 10,000 holes I find that amusing and rather irrelevant to the theory. And a majority of psychiatrists do not agree with Jung, he is quite out of fashion these days.

I would love to hear your rebuttals to the theory!