Developing an "other side of yourself" and what I've gathered on it.

[hoshin1600]

Jung's "Shadow" is an interesting metaphor but it isn't how it works in the neurological nuts and bolts.

Still, he was a pioneer and was thinking in new ways and we owe a debt to him for his work.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

While I'm not a psychologist, unless you could explain more on your thoughts, I would lightly disagree.
I think a martial artist has to foster the monster inside them but keep it on a leash while training. If you can't muster up the ability to be violent then it's highly probably your martial art will fail when needed. I belive you have to meet violence with a greater amount of violence. Not always but when it's needed, I don't think graduated escalation on the force continuum works.
Anyway back to Jung I belive in fostering and integrating the dark malevolent side of ourselves with the compassionate side.

 

[lklawson]

While I'm not a psychologist, unless you could explain more on your thoughts, I would lightly disagree.
I think a martial artist has to foster the monster inside them but keep it on a leash while training. If you can't muster up the ability to be violent then it's highly probably your martial art will fail when needed. I belive you have to meet violence with a greater amount of violence. Not always but when it's needed, I don't think graduated escalation on the force continuum works.
Anyway back to Jung I belive in fostering and integrating the dark malevolent side of ourselves with the compassionate side.

Jung's "shadow" is an archetypal construct heavily laced with Freudian archetypes and methodology, including Freudian "Ego." None of that is how modern psychology, based on modern neuroscience, views how the brain works.

Jung's "shadow" starts off as an unknown negative and malevolent element of a person. Almost a counter-personality. In the beginning, according to Jung, the person doesn't really realize it's there and only glimpses it through others, sort of like a reflection. Until, for some, eventually, they are able to recognize and come face-to-face with their own "shadow" and either control it or integrate it.

None of this matches with the best current neuroscience or psychiatric practices. It works as a metaphor or maybe a construct in order to work towards a goal, sort of the way I describe the "Robodroid." But both Jung's "shadow" and my "Robodroid" are not actually the nuts and bolts of how the brain works. "Robodroid" is a metaphorical construct to model how to get the desired responses from the hippocampus and functional working memory portions of the brain when awash in epinephrine and norepinephrine. There's not actually a "Robodroid" but it helps describe what the inputs and outputs look like to folks. The same sort of thing with Jung's "shadow." There isn't actually a portion of the personality which is violent and negative. It's just your personality and responses, some of them "programmed" through experience and trauma, some through "instinct" (such as selfishness), and sometimes even through physical trauma to the brain such as a TBI. Most of it is about how the brain constructs neural pathways through experience and stress, usually as a survival mechanism. But it can be a useful metaphor to work with what you perceive as your "negative" side. I have a Marine buddy who suffers PTSD; he refers to these negative responses and that element of his personality as "the man in the box."

What surprises me is how much I'm suddenly hearing about Jung's "shadow." I think he came up with the idea for it somewhere between WWI and WWII and, like Freud, he's considered a pioneer but psychology has moved past many of his ideas. That I'm suddenly hearing more and more people talking about Jung's "shadow" means... well, something. I'm not sure what it means yet, but it means something. There's a renewed interest in understanding, integrating, and controlling the violent nature of humans, or at least individually. Might be related to the impact of the social violence from the political and COVID riots from the last few years on the collective psyche of the world, ... or something.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[hoshin1600]

Jung's "shadow" is an archetypal construct heavily laced with Freudian archetypes and methodology, including Freudian "Ego." None of that is how modern psychology, based on modern neuroscience, views how the brain works.

Jung's "shadow" starts off as an unknown negative and malevolent element of a person. Almost a counter-personality. In the beginning, according to Jung, the person doesn't really realize it's there and only glimpses it through others, sort of like a reflection. Until, for some, eventually, they are able to recognize and come face-to-face with their own "shadow" and either control it or integrate it.

None of this matches with the best current neuroscience or psychiatric practices. It works as a metaphor or maybe a construct in order to work towards a goal, sort of the way I describe the "Robodroid." But both Jung's "shadow" and my "Robodroid" are not actually the nuts and bolts of how the brain works. "Robodroid" is a metaphorical construct to model how to get the desired responses from the hippocampus and functional working memory portions of the brain when awash in epinephrine and norepinephrine. There's not actually a "Robodroid" but it helps describe what the inputs and outputs look like to folks. The same sort of thing with Jung's "shadow." There isn't actually a portion of the personality which is violent and negative. It's just your personality and responses, some of them "programmed" through experience and trauma, some through "instinct" (such as selfishness), and sometimes even through physical trauma to the brain such as a TBI. Most of it is about how the brain constructs neural pathways through experience and stress, usually as a survival mechanism. But it can be a useful metaphor to work with what you perceive as your "negative" side. I have a Marine buddy who suffers PTSD; he refers to these negative responses and that element of his personality as "the man in the box."

What surprises me is how much I'm suddenly hearing about Jung's "shadow." I think he came up with the idea for it somewhere between WWI and WWII and, like Freud, he's considered a pioneer but psychology has moved past many of his ideas. That I'm suddenly hearing more and more people talking about Jung's "shadow" means... well, something. I'm not sure what it means yet, but it means something. There's a renewed interest in understanding, integrating, and controlling the violent nature of humans, or at least individually. Might be related to the impact of the social violence from the political and COVID riots from the last few years on the collective psyche of the world, ... or something.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thanks for the in depth post. I'm going to have to read and re-read for any kind of coherent reply.

 

[Buka]

Jung's "shadow" is an archetypal construct heavily laced with Freudian archetypes and methodology, including Freudian "Ego." None of that is how modern psychology, based on modern neuroscience, views how the brain works.

Jung's "shadow" starts off as an unknown negative and malevolent element of a person. Almost a counter-personality. In the beginning, according to Jung, the person doesn't really realize it's there and only glimpses it through others, sort of like a reflection. Until, for some, eventually, they are able to recognize and come face-to-face with their own "shadow" and either control it or integrate it.

None of this matches with the best current neuroscience or psychiatric practices. It works as a metaphor or maybe a construct in order to work towards a goal, sort of the way I describe the "Robodroid." But both Jung's "shadow" and my "Robodroid" are not actually the nuts and bolts of how the brain works. "Robodroid" is a metaphorical construct to model how to get the desired responses from the hippocampus and functional working memory portions of the brain when awash in epinephrine and norepinephrine. There's not actually a "Robodroid" but it helps describe what the inputs and outputs look like to folks. The same sort of thing with Jung's "shadow." There isn't actually a portion of the personality which is violent and negative. It's just your personality and responses, some of them "programmed" through experience and trauma, some through "instinct" (such as selfishness), and sometimes even through physical trauma to the brain such as a TBI. Most of it is about how the brain constructs neural pathways through experience and stress, usually as a survival mechanism. But it can be a useful metaphor to work with what you perceive as your "negative" side. I have a Marine buddy who suffers PTSD; he refers to these negative responses and that element of his personality as "the man in the box."

What surprises me is how much I'm suddenly hearing about Jung's "shadow." I think he came up with the idea for it somewhere between WWI and WWII and, like Freud, he's considered a pioneer but psychology has moved past many of his ideas. That I'm suddenly hearing more and more people talking about Jung's "shadow" means... well, something. I'm not sure what it means yet, but it means something. There's a renewed interest in understanding, integrating, and controlling the violent nature of humans, or at least individually. Might be related to the impact of the social violence from the political and COVID riots from the last few years on the collective psyche of the world, ... or something.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Kirk,

I just finished the first draft of a novel, a crime fiction story, called “For the Love of Cousins." It will be left as is for approximately eight weeks until the second draft is started. In the meantime, I’m working on a second novel, a farce, titled Doctor Etcetera.

The Doc is a psychiatrist in Beverly Hills, one who has developed a little niche for himself - helping writers. (If you throw a ball in L.A, it'll bounce off seventeen writers before coming to a stop at the curb and then stolen by a Real Estate Agent.)

So the Doc is doing pretty well for himself.

May I steal what you wrote above, and quote parts of it as dialogue from the Doc? Credit will be given at the end of the novel, of course.

 

[lklawson]

Kirk,

I just finished the first draft of a novel, a crime fiction story, called “For the Love of Cousins." It will be left as is for approximately eight weeks until the second draft is started. In the meantime, I’m working on a second novel, a farce, titled Doctor Etcetera.

The Doc is a psychiatrist in Beverly Hills, one who has developed a little niche for himself - helping writers. (If you throw a ball in L.A, it'll bounce off seventeen writers before coming to a stop at the curb and then stolen by a Real Estate Agent.)

So the Doc is doing pretty well for himself.

May I steal what you wrote above, and quote parts of it as dialogue from the Doc? Credit will be given at the end of the novel, of course.

Sure thing. Have at it. A lot of people helped me as I wrote my first edition and I am more than happy to pass it on.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Buka]

Sure thing. Have at it. A lot of people helped me as I wrote my first edition and I am more than happy to pass it on.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thank you, my friend. I'll send you a copy when it gets published.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Jung's "shadow" is an archetypal construct heavily laced with Freudian archetypes and methodology, including Freudian "Ego." None of that is how modern psychology, based on modern neuroscience, views how the brain works.

Jung's "shadow" starts off as an unknown negative and malevolent element of a person. Almost a counter-personality. In the beginning, according to Jung, the person doesn't really realize it's there and only glimpses it through others, sort of like a reflection. Until, for some, eventually, they are able to recognize and come face-to-face with their own "shadow" and either control it or integrate it.

None of this matches with the best current neuroscience or psychiatric practices. It works as a metaphor or maybe a construct in order to work towards a goal, sort of the way I describe the "Robodroid." But both Jung's "shadow" and my "Robodroid" are not actually the nuts and bolts of how the brain works. "Robodroid" is a metaphorical construct to model how to get the desired responses from the hippocampus and functional working memory portions of the brain when awash in epinephrine and norepinephrine. There's not actually a "Robodroid" but it helps describe what the inputs and outputs look like to folks. The same sort of thing with Jung's "shadow." There isn't actually a portion of the personality which is violent and negative. It's just your personality and responses, some of them "programmed" through experience and trauma, some through "instinct" (such as selfishness), and sometimes even through physical trauma to the brain such as a TBI. Most of it is about how the brain constructs neural pathways through experience and stress, usually as a survival mechanism. But it can be a useful metaphor to work with what you perceive as your "negative" side. I have a Marine buddy who suffers PTSD; he refers to these negative responses and that element of his personality as "the man in the box."

What surprises me is how much I'm suddenly hearing about Jung's "shadow." I think he came up with the idea for it somewhere between WWI and WWII and, like Freud, he's considered a pioneer but psychology has moved past many of his ideas. That I'm suddenly hearing more and more people talking about Jung's "shadow" means... well, something. I'm not sure what it means yet, but it means something. There's a renewed interest in understanding, integrating, and controlling the violent nature of humans, or at least individually. Might be related to the impact of the social violence from the political and COVID riots from the last few years on the collective psyche of the world, ... or something.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

For the record, psychoanalysis/psychodynamic therapy is still considered a legitimate field in modern psychology. It's not the same as it was when either Freud or Jung were around, but they still teach things such as the id/ego/superego. Here's one example of a school with an accredited PhD program that lists psychodynamics as one of their main focuses: Clinical Psychology PHD Programs | PhD in Psychology

 

[hoshin1600]

That I'm suddenly hearing more and more people talking about Jung's "shadow" means... well, something. I'm not sure what it means yet,

I see a resurgence of interest due to our current culture/ political climate. I have heard it said and agree that the current ideology has taken on a religious fervor. The past 50 years has been a step away from religion and I think some people are filling that need (Jung felt that there was a basic need for the religious experience) with political ideology. While others are trying to find a a solid footing due to the instability today. Core beliefs at the deepest level end up in the same bucket as religious beliefs. Today's ideology is professing everything has a mutable nature and nothing can be defined absolutely, thus shaking people's axiomatic beliefs.
Anyways that why I think there is a resurgence of interest in Jung. His thoughts touch the mystery of the religious, without declaring any one God.

 

[hoshin1600]

The Will To Fight, the "Persona" as you call it, is something different. It is a way of giving yourself permission to do violence, a way to overcome the years upon years of social programming that you've been fed telling you to "be nice," "don't hit," and "violence is never the answer."

None of that is how modern psychology, based on modern neuroscience, views how the brain works

Modern psychology has put aside Jung, for a more friendly Dr. Joyce Brothers and Dr. Benjamin Spock. And we have traveled down that road to our helicopter parent detriment. But yes maybe the majority of professors today would prefer to not acknowledge Jung and Freud.
That doesn't make what they thought invalid. Is the shadow a construct and metaphor, of course. But to compare that to the " nuts and bolts of neuroscience, I think is apples and oranges. I don't think neuroscience is there yet to explain personality and emotions. Emotions dictate behavior. While Dr. James fallon did map out the brain activity ( or lack thereof) for psychopaths but he can't explain why Jeff Dalhmer ate his lovers and James turned out to be a neuroscientist. I think the personality of the shadow is a prerequisite and deeper pre condition that allows for the robodrill violence to emerge.
Constantine in 300AD talked about how an "evil" thought even if just a small little spark, can grow and fester within the mind until it consumes the person. This is the shadow and its a well understood concept within the "nuts and bolt" but still doesn't really get to the heart of why the Columbine killers felt the world and population needed to be scorched from the earth.
I think a lot of how one interprets Jung is going to be conditioned by one's belief in free will. If you listen to Robert Sapolski there is no such thing as free will beyond if you picked a red shirt or a blue shirt to wear this morning. Such ideas make the choice for violence obsolete. He makes a good argument. But somehow I can't agree with his final conclusions. We act as if there is free will, so it must be so. Otherwise we wouldn't have evolved the way we have. Or maybe I just got to much testosterone in the womb, and it makes me more disagreeable.

 

[lklawson]

For the record, psychoanalysis/psychodynamic therapy is still considered a legitimate field in modern psychology. It's not the same as it was when either Freud or Jung were around, but they still teach things such as the id/ego/superego. Here's one example of a school with an accredited PhD program that lists psychodynamics as one of their main focuses: Clinical Psychology PHD Programs | PhD in Psychology

Of course.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Modern psychology has put aside Jung, for a more friendly Dr. Joyce Brothers and Dr. Benjamin Spock.

They are being rejected also, at least partly. Not necessarily methods of treatment, though those are always evolving, but theories on why.

And we have traveled down that road to our helicopter parent detriment. But yes maybe the majority of professors today would prefer to not acknowledge Jung and Freud.

The Id, Ego, and Super-ego have long been rejected because they do not fit with what we know about neuroscience. Doesn't mean that Freud wasn't a pioneer and shouldn't be respected for his work.

That doesn't make what they thought invalid. Is the shadow a construct and metaphor, of course. But to compare that to the " nuts and bolts of neuroscience, I think is apples and oranges. I don't think neuroscience is there yet to explain personality and emotions. Emotions dictate behavior. While Dr. James fallon did map out the brain activity ( or lack thereof) for psychopaths but he can't explain why Jeff Dalhmer ate his lovers and James turned out to be a neuroscientist. I think the personality of the shadow is a prerequisite and deeper pre condition that allows for the robodrill violence to emerge.
Constantine in 300AD talked about how an "evil" thought even if just a small little spark, can grow and fester within the mind until it consumes the person. This is the shadow and its a well understood concept within the "nuts and bolt" but still doesn't really get to the heart of why the Columbine killers felt the world and population needed to be scorched from the earth.
I think a lot of how one interprets Jung is going to be conditioned by one's belief in free will. If you listen to Robert Sapolski there is no such thing as free will beyond if you picked a red shirt or a blue shirt to wear this morning. Such ideas make the choice for violence obsolete. He makes a good argument. But somehow I can't agree with his final conclusions. We act as if there is free will, so it must be so. Otherwise we wouldn't have evolved the way we have. Or maybe I just got to much testosterone in the womb, and it makes me more disagreeable.

Just because theories of Id, Ego, Shadow, etc. are rejected as the factual basis, now based in neuroscience and brain mapping, doesn't mean that earlier metaphors can't be used as metaphors. We know that electricity isn't water, doesn't actually behave the way water does, but sometimes we still use water as a metaphor for the flow of electricity, both amperage and voltage, "volume" and "pressure."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I see a resurgence of interest due to our current culture/ political climate. I have heard it said and agree that the current ideology has taken on a religious fervor. The past 50 years has been a step away from religion and I think some people are filling that need (Jung felt that there was a basic need for the religious experience) with political ideology. While others are trying to find a a solid footing due to the instability today. Core beliefs at the deepest level end up in the same bucket as religious beliefs. Today's ideology is professing everything has a mutable nature and nothing can be defined absolutely, thus shaking people's axiomatic beliefs.
Anyways that why I think there is a resurgence of interest in Jung. His thoughts touch the mystery of the religious, without declaring any one God.

You might be right.

I haven't decided yet if I agree, agree in part, or there are other reasons instead.

Social pressures are a strange thing. Late 19th and early 20th Century saw the rise of "science" in the mind of the general public. Popular books of what we would now call science fiction rose in prominence by luminaries such as Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, with stories like "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Suddenly the public was trying to apply "science" to everything in ways that we now look at as a bit, well, odd. Apropos martial arts, there was the rise of "Scientific Boxing" and "Scientific Wrestling." The moralistic Victorian movement in England spawned "Muscular Christianity" and similar social philosophies (eat some corn flakes, it'll keep you from masturbating).

My point is that societal movements and social pressures can have strange outcomes. You might be right about Jung's "shadow" (and politics) as a replacement for religion. You lay out a good case and I've heard similar suggestions before. It's just that instead of politics, activism, or eco-activism, as a replacement for religion, now I'm seeing Jung's "shadow" mentioned a lot. It's like it's "trending in social discourse" or something and I'm not sure if it's merely a "trend" or if it's something deeper.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[mograph]

Regarding this discussion, I'm reminded of the aphorism, "all models are wrong, but some models are useful."

 

[Buka]

All things would be better if we put all politicians to death today, at suppertime.
Every single one of them. Not a one of them represent us, or care, not even a little bit.

And, yes, I'll volunteer to pull the switch.