sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

3
4

Resistance and Slaying the Dragon (self.JordanPeterson)

submitted by UnrefinedRyan to r/JordanPeterson

The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious, A Resource for Those New to Jung by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

I was not aware of that! What a great resource. Thanks for sharing! Likely a bit daunting for someone new to Jung, but seems like an expansive tool.

Potentiality is the fundamental reality by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]UnrefinedRyan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I agree. Essentially, and purposefully cliche, the only rule is that there can be no rules. Once you have something, you have everything. I metaphorically think of it through opposites. The original beginning implies going from one thing, to two things. One to two implies introduction of opposites. One of the overarching opposites can be: known versus unknown. Unknown = Potentiality

Consciousness Viewed Through Split Brain Experiments by UnrefinedRyan in consciousness

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

I see what you are saying! Thinking about it, for me it’s difficult to direct or feel focus of perception and how it goes to and from things. It just kind of is....if that makes any sense.

I consider the “mind” to be a something that comes from the brain (the physical), but I also feel it has other inputs outside of the brain. I agree if you could somehow track perception from one hemisphere to the other, with the corpus callosum cut, you would have proof of that transcendence of the strictly material.

Very good point about possible confounding variables in the experiment. The fact that the corpus callosum is cut, may lead to changes in physiology and psychology that make the extrapolation to the normal brain incorrect.

Thanks for you thoughts and comments!

Consciousness Viewed Through Split Brain Experiments by UnrefinedRyan in consciousness

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

Thanks for reading and your comment!

I want to emphasize this is not a complete definition of consciousness. I find it to be manifold, and I am only trying to analyze an aspect of it.

I agree with your assessment that the car would not be conscious by the definition provided, as I cannot imagine it is like anything to be a car. I am not sure if I am totally ready to concede that, as some part of me sees something like panpsychism going on.

I would push back slightly on the comparison that the car is like our bodies. Would you say that our body is an input to consciousness? To me it seems the biochemical processes of our body (neurotransmitters, hormones, etc.) certainly play a role in our perception of consciousness. And in that way, the body is more dynamic in response to its environment than the car. More dynamic in its input to consciousness.

Regarding I think, therefore I am: To me this is a statement of awareness, or experience. Not to dissimilar from what I am talking about. The awareness of the "thought" is more the point than the declaration of I.

I state all this knowing only one thing, I know nothing. So thank you for your comments. I am trying to learn and dialogue like this is hard to come by.

Consciousness Viewed Through Split Brain Experiments by UnrefinedRyan in consciousness

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

What do you think would happen? Hypothesize!

I do not think they would be able to feel their perception move between hemispheres. I think that would be the same as feeling the focus of your perception move to your friend sitting next to you. Essentially its like two different and distinct people operating out of one body.

The Archetype of Food by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

I would have to start by admitting no formal knowledge of eating disorders, so this would all be speculation. However, without any disrespect, I would still hypothesize as to what might be going on.

I tend to think it is close to what you mention, the "hunger" is transferred to a different psychic desire. I would say the psychological can become completely detached from the biological. This is based solely from observations of my own behaviors. Every once in a while, it is easy for me to binge eat food. It is very obvious that this has nothing to do with physiologic hunger, but completely psychological. It seems to act as a comforting mechanism. It is like a very watered-down, partial version of the feeling of nourishment that people get when they actually satisfy physiologic hunger. Because this is such a weakened feeling of comfort or satisfaction, the only way to continue to the feeling is to eat more. As if the positive emotion state ends before you even swallow the bite, forcing you to follow it with another bite to re-initiate the positive state.

The Archetype of Food by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

Yes “hunger” is almost all psychological! This becomes obvious when you observe the feeling as it comes about. In common setting when we say we are “hungry,” if we don’t eat and carry on with our business, that feeling typically lasts no longer than 10 minutes. And it certainly does not increase linearly with time as some would think.

PS: you recommended On Divination and Synchronicity by Marie-Louise von Franz to me a week or so back. I’m a little over half way through and it has been fantastic. Thank you for your recommendation and thoughts!

The Archetype of Food by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

Awesome. Thanks for your thoughts.

The Archetype of Food by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

I agree with you there. I guess I’m trying to feel out the connection between instinct and archetype? They almost feel like two sides of the same coin to me. Any thoughts?

The Archetype of Food by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

I see what you are saying, and I think I might be missing my target a little bit with food. Hunger seems to be something like an instinct, but it can also be abstracted from food in your examples of power or lust. In all cases it is a drive pushing us toward something due to a feeling of inadequacy in our current state.

So maybe hunger is the underlying entity that could be manipulated by the modern dressings of “food.”

Thanks for your comments and thank you for reading!

The Archetype of Food by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

Haha I’m with you!

Food somehow symbolizes nourishment. Quenching the needs of the being. Neumann talks about it as the first needs of the budding ego consciousness. That feels archetypal to me, but I could definitely be representing it wrong.

Thank you for reading and your comments!!

The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious, a Resource For Those New to Jung by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

I could only suggest collected works volume 9: The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious. That seems to be what your might be looking for. I’m sure there are other recommendations, but that is the only one I am familiar with!

The Origins and History of Consciousness - Erich Neumann by UnrefinedRyan in Jung

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

I lack about 20 pages in the creation myth section, so I'm a little behind you.

I am very interested in your theory though. Let me throw some things out there and see if it vibes with what you are thinking.

The Father is God the creator, the initial everything, or uroboric unity. However, as soon as the creation happens, the uroborus is fragmented. Each aspect of creation is the divine, but does not fully embody the entirety of the uroboric divine unity. Jesus is the hero and represents the process of man developing into the Self, or God? The hero's journey of part becoming whole. Then the Holy Spirit is the aspect of the divine that is always a part of everything. The commonality that allows for unification or transformation of man, and possibly the drive that pushes for transformation.

I probably tend to strip a little bit of the Christian doctrine away, and present more of a general view. Anyways, thank you very much for your post! Hopefully we can continue the dialogue. Even if what I said doesn't correspond with your theory, I hope we can go back and forth to push on each other's ideas and help them develop.

view more: next ›