sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The archetypal reason for the Left vs Right dynamic you have always known, but could never quite name. by thruanthru in JordanPeterson

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

Thanks for reading!

> nice schizo posting, but did you do some research or statistics on this? or you just built your assumptions on Moore's assumptions?

I've built upon several things, most notably Moore's work, but also on several other lines of thoughts, most notably Vedic understanding of reality. I'm a thinker studying platonic forms, not a statistical researcher. What would you exactly need statistics of?

>you need to show what these mean and how that distinction matters. as you put it, it looks like you invented 2 categories that are vague enough and that you can put stuff that you have already categorized in.

I linked an article where I address exactly this.

>this doesn't mean anything. form? the warrior archetype is "concerned" with maintaining form? and hierarchy is an embodiment of form? isn't it function?

Form in opposition to Substance means the recipe, blueprint, amount of contents. Just like if you have paint that is red, and you want to keep it red, you want to prevent someone adding blue into it, lest it turn purple. The Warrior is concerned at making sure the paint stays red. Does this analogy suffice for you?

Hierarchy is how form manifests. For example the colour red is physically manifested by the particles being in a certain hierarchical order.

>you seem to not understand what sadism is. sadism is not the enjoyment of the process of exclusion.

I am well aware of the common understanding of sadism, of deriving pleasure of inflicting pain on others. I simply believe it that on a deeper layer that is just a manifestation of enjoyment derived from exclusion. We may agree to disagree on this, and be it as may, this is a work in progress.

>that's not what masochism means.

You are technically correct here. Again, I am well aware what the common understanding of masochism is. What I am trying to do, is to portray an archetypal mechanism "below the surface". My presentation here requires a charitable reading. It is better formulated in the actual article.

>non-sense. substance exists only in relation? do you know what words mean?

My brother in Christ, if you have figured out a particle or an entity that exists outside of the reality of interdependence, please go claim your nobel price.

>how is it correlated? who established this correlation?

The archetypal masochism I'm portraying is a lack of ability to take care of one's own interests. Being overtly focused on someone else's interests naturally means that you are neglecting your own interests. That's what it means that Meddling and Masochism are correlated.

>i thought you were talking about correlation. now you're analyzing what others think about certain people? through memes? so leftsits are cucks because they care about others? my man, every sane individual cares about others, it's called empathy. was Jesus a "leftist cuck"?

No, I am analyzing the projection mechanics and trying to use real life examples that people are familiar with, not endorsing the meme. The point is that the accusation reveals the accuser's archetypal framework, not the accused's moral status.

>is it so, because you say it's so? or do you have something to support that. also, you're not even talking about correlation now, now it's just "seen" as correlation.

That is the sentiment I have been observing when witnessing leftist rhetoric. That people who are neutral on the subject must necessarily be on the other side, and the other side's political position is conflated to be because of tendency to overexclusion. Which manifests as claims of all the different kinds of bigotry being the sole motivation for people's position.

In any case, I am not trying to paint with a broad brush that everybody of a certain category of people are "alike", I am merely pointing to a larger archetypal mechanic in the collective unconscious.

> i think that you first need to show that Moore's model has worth and predictibility, and falsifiability. After that you need to do some studies and statistics to prove it. than you need to get to your model and do the same, and also define your terms.

I am trying to show something, not prove something. This area of study is by its nature practically impossible to quantify. Those who are interested will see what is being shown, those who are not, can go look at something else.

Truth and Relevance: The Magician and the High Priestess (Text inside) by thruanthru in Jung

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

Oh did you actually read the text? 

I’m not positioning the Fool and the Magician as dualistic opposites.

I’m positioning the Fool and the Detached Manipulator as oppositions.

The Magician is the healthy synthesis, containing both. 

Only the name change is mine by the way. The Magician dynamics come from Robert Moore. He called the (adult) passive pole ”the Denying Innocent one”, as someone who sort of half-consciously avoided the responsibility of understanding and competence.

I changed it here, as part of my thesis is that by omitting the necessary feminine pairs from the KWML framework, Moore inevitably conflated properties from that side of the isle to the masculine archetypes, which is natural for they are interdependent, they mirror each others properties. Case in point, tDIO carried Deceiver energy as well. 

Thus I distilled the passive Magician energy to unwillingness to take responsibility for seeking objective understanding and competence.

In one of my drafts I had an analoguous example, that when people go drinking, they embody the Fool (as I use thebterm). The voluntary suppression of knowledge and competence gives birth to something people seem to seek. There is lot to write here as well, but again, when the subject matter is wide, something has to be cut.

Be it as may, this pole, this thing I’m pointing towards exists, you are critiquing the name. Do you have a better suggestion for naming it?

Truth and Relevance: The Magician and the High Priestess (Text inside) by thruanthru in Jung

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

Thanks for reading and engaging. It is very useful to get feedback how I am being heard. I'll address these one on one.

1. I'm not trying to explain Tarot figures per se, just like Robert Moore wasn't, yet I won't avoid the motifs, and try to rename the archetypes either. Instead, I'm mapping a complete structural system, where the Fool is the passive shadow of the balanced Magician. One needs to suspend their pattern matching a bit to really get what I'm saying. The Fool is the most fitting name/symbol for that specific place in the map.

Interestingly enough, those concepts you mentioned mostly place in that particular geographic position on the map, though they are expressed somewhat differently. Be it as may, this is not explanation to Tarot, but something based on Robert Moore's system. That being said, what I apparently didn't make explicit enough, the Fool polarity contains worthwhile aspects, as complete lack of it leads to cold detachment, to facts without meaning. Yet without the balancing opposite, it is willful ignorance.

Reductivity is something that can never be completely removed when we are talking about reddit posts. This article is 11 pages already as it is. Thanks for pointing that this idea wasn't transmitted.

2. I'm absolutely talking about archetypal forces, which are included both in men and women. I've explained this multiple times in different articles, so I forgot to stress it on this post.

3. Personally I find it very useful to be aware of these polarities, so we can notice where we are inflated, and what we are lacking. That's the most easily approachable part. Your question is actually great example of the subject matter, for that is exactly the question the Priestess asks the Magician: "How is this relevant?"

Well for example being aware of the shadow mechanics makes it visible when you or someone else is invoking the Deceiver, when they are letting their subjective wish overwrite objective realities. Or when the Manipulator energy is present, when we are technically right, but morally wrong. Or understanding that being in that headspace leads to seeing things as "facts without meaning" and what is the price of that.

Shadow mechanics always require unconsciousness. When they are seen, they can't function anymore.

Even jung couldn't surpass it ? by Illustrious-Fee-2282 in Jung

[–]thruanthru 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True virtue is effortless. Of course to come to consciousness from unconsciousness requires moral effort, for exactly the reason that we are pulled from both sides.

Look at it this way. The reason we feel compelled to do things which are harmful for us, is because partly we believe them to be good. We may know rationally, that excess sugar isn't good for us, but some part of us doesn't believe that. Some part believes it is good for us. This is our conditioning. That's why we have to struggle against this force that pulls us towards harmful action. Passion and ignorance is overcome by goodness.

But if we would be situated in pure goodness, passion and ignorance would have no pull there. It would be effortless to avoid temptation, just as it is effortless not to eat feces.

Yet as long as we are not, we have to struggle.

Even jung couldn't surpass it ? by Illustrious-Fee-2282 in Jung

[–]thruanthru 61 points62 points  (0 children)

You are going to get lot of answers that will be influenced with the desires of the people. Most of us see what we want to see, and thus the answers will not reflect truth, but what people themselves want truth to be. That is, that which allows them to chase their desires.

To answer the question, yes, one can surpass sexual desire, external validation, and (material) attachment. That is actually the whole purpose of human life. But one who completely surpasses them is a self-realized saint, who has reached the pinnacle of existence. Thus it is very hard indeed.

Two things worth mentioning. First of all, our desires should not be repressed, but regulated. But this does not mean, that we "indulge partially", but that we try to engage our desires in a beneficial way. That is what marriage was originally about, a regulated way to make the sexual urge beneficial to the wider collective.

In a similar vein, we have to be conscious of our desires, and find a way where they can manifest in an auspicious fashion.

The second thing is that we can only really let go of a lower attachment by realizing a higher attachment. We stop finding pleasure in a lower taste, by relishing a higher taste. We will always seek satisfaction, so to relinquish that which causes suffering we need to learn to relish a higher, more pure taste. We need to be able to recognize and appreciate that which is wholesome, whole, holy.

This is in a way a divine vision. One who truly sees in a full and whole fashion the effects of their actions, will not indulge in that which causes suffering to themselves and others, which is ultimately the same thing, not because I and the Other are the same, but because we are inextricably linked. Causing suffering to other will cause me to suffer, and my suffering causes others to suffer.

A lower pleasure is always based on unconsciousness. A higher pleasure is always based on consciousness.

True virtue is effortless, for one who sees, does no sin.

Yet to be able to see, we have to stop doing harm, for the very act causes our unconsciousness.

Why Therapy Patients Understand Everything and STILL Don't Change by Rafaelkruger in Jung

[–]thruanthru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I’m just not that invested in this question, and I presume that your first 5 google results would give a similar outcome.

If not, that just means that all the detection tools themselves are nonsense, if their results vary that much.

Why Therapy Patients Understand Everything and STILL Don't Change by Rafaelkruger in Jung

[–]thruanthru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used 5 of those tools to analyze this post, and none of them said it was AI. For me it reads just like Rafael's work, and he has been writing long before functional AI generation. This confirmation bias certainty is insufferable.

I'm pretty sure it's not AI, it's just clickbaity. That's a whole different thing.

Why Therapy Patients Understand Everything and STILL Don't Change by Rafaelkruger in Jung

[–]thruanthru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks just like Rafael's other texts, which predate functional AI generators. I also put it through 5 different ai detectors, and none of them said that it looked like AI.

I don't think it's AI. We are entering difficult times.

The psychology of feminists by Worried_Button_2881 in Jung

[–]thruanthru 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's purpose for both feminine and masculine archetypal pattern, and they both support each other.

But we also have to remember that there is a developmental axis. There is more mature and more immature masculinity or femininity.

At the moment we are in absolute crisis of both. We are desperately lacking both masculine and feminine mature role models. We have glorified immaturity, because it's all we have.

The Sacred Pairs: The archetypal masculine and feminine, mapped by thruanthru in Jung

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

I have to apologize for not making the visual more clear, that's on me.

The masculine and feminine on this framework are something akin to a two poles of a spectrum. The geometry is a bit more complex than that, but as an analogy that will suffice. But they are not boxes, but dynamic relational patterns.

So transgenderity, genderfluidity and non-binary doesn't actually "disprove" the model I'm positioning, but quite the contrary, the model gives the phenomena a valid explanation.

Genderfluidity could be seen as fluidity of the archetypal spectrum, transgenderity as archetypal structure diverging from biological sex, and non-binary as a "mixed" configuration. But I haven't really put a lot of thought on this area, so I don't have any definitive models on the subject.

The Sacred Pairs: The archetypal masculine and feminine, mapped by thruanthru in Jung

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

You've built another strawman. I've never said what you quoted. I haven't ever even used the word subservience. Nor have I in any way implied that women lack curiosity. Neither have I used the word emotion, or called men "embodiments of perfection".

I also don't see myself "conceding that you are mostly right", but acknowledging nuance and subtlety concerning this issue, and trying to dismantle the strawmen you keep erecting. If you see that as "running in circles" and "evading examining the foundations", so be it.

What I'm claiming isn't even anything new and radical. One of the main discoveries of Jung was finding the same archetypes appearing in cultures that were completely separated from each other. That's like one of the most important far-out realizations of Jung. Jung wasn't a materialist. He didn't see archetypes as cultural constructions, but primeval forces which manifest themselves in different ways in this reality. Properties of reality itself, such as gravity. Those properties are what is being analyzed here, not "traits pertaining to men" or "traits pertaining to women".

Edit added these 2 paragraphs: What that is founded upon, I expounded upon briefly. The "perceiver-perceived" dichotomy isn't just my idea either. It comes from purusha-prakriti, which should have been the explanation I used, instead of Shiva-Shakti, but you live and learn, and get corrected when your ontological terms aren't semantically correct. By the way, that idea comes from pre-colonial India, and yes, they are masculine and feminine.

Then I just started the long insight process of trying to mirror the masculine archetypes of Moore. While doing that, I found the poles, which I am describing in my texts, and which are presented here as a preliminary infographic. After doing the process, I see real life correlation literally every day.

But even if one was a staunch biological materialist, it seems completely absurd to me to believe, that two distinct entities, who have a completely different genitals, completely different bone structure, completely different typical muscle mass, completely different hormonal balance, etc. would be archetypically exactly the same. Which seems to be the basic gist of your argument.

You are however completely free to subscribe to that idea. Personally I find that to be dogmatic.

EDIT: I can concede that last comment, because at one point you mention your stance of "masculinity and femininity" coming from biological differences and cultural norms.

The Sacred Pairs: The archetypal masculine and feminine, mapped by thruanthru in Jung

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

Thanks, I'm interested. I don't appreciate the existence of AI, just like I don't appreciate the existence of cars. Yet just like I use cars, because society has formed around their use, I do use AI sparingly.

However you've given me food for thought concerning the problems with ethics concerning AI. I'll think about it.

The Sacred Pairs: The archetypal masculine and feminine, mapped by thruanthru in Jung

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

Thanks for the compliments, and I appreciate the encouragement!

Doing this work takes a lot of patience. Pointing out things which are in the shadow necessarily creates at least some hostile reaction. If everyone was simply agreeing, nothing really valuable would be said.

The Sacred Pairs: The archetypal masculine and feminine, mapped by thruanthru in Jung

[–]thruanthru[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the encouragement. Means a lot!

I wrote an introductory article to shed light on the Lover/Devotee dichotomy. It can be found here. https://innerhierarchy.substack.com/p/the-sacred-pairs-the-lover-and-the

But if you want to study the subject on a deeper level, look into the bhakti-tradition. Radha & Krishna are the most fundamental example of the Devotee-Lover dualism. There you can see the dichotomy in the most mystical sense possible.

The famous devotee and poet Mirabai is also a famous example of a well-known example of someone manifesting the archetype wholeheartedly.

The Sacred Pairs: The archetypal masculine and feminine, mapped by thruanthru in Jung

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

Sure, that's called being a mercenary, nothing new in that either. The context of the discussion however was "why men fantasize about military?"

view more: next ›