https://exploringyourmind.com/twelve-jun...rchetypes/
11. The Jester
The jester likes to laugh, even at themselves. They don’t wear any masks and tend to break down other people’s walls. They never take themselves seriously because their goal is to enjoy life. The negative side of the jester is that they can be lewd, lazy, and greedy.
But poor little Orphan Annie in that movie!
On purpose?
12. The Orphan
The orphan archetype walks around with open wounds. [b]They feel betrayed and disappointed. They want other people to take charge of their life. [/b]When no one does, they feel disappointed. They tend to spend time with people who feel just like them. The orphan often plays the victim. They pretend to be innocent. The orphan has a cynical side and manipulative talent.
LOL. I'M NOT CRYING! I'M LOLING!!
...
Where did Jung write about these "archetypes?" Sounds like a Popular Science interpretation of what he actually said.
These are more like personality types. But Jung said there were eight personality types, each a combination of introversion or extroversion and one of the four functions of consciousness (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition), hence:
The extroverted thinking type
The introverted thinking type
The extroverted feeling type
The introverted feeling type
The extroverted sensing type
The introverted sensing type
The extroverted intuitive type
The introverted intuitive type
In this system, extroverts tend to be objective and introverts subjective, and "sensing" refers to the five ordinary physical senses.
There's a difference between an archetype and a personality type. The archetypes that Jung wrote about, and Edinger expounded on in Ego and Archetype, are things like shadow and anima. The archetypes are contents of the unconscious, and all of them reside in a single individual. No single archetype constitutes a person's whole personality except in pathological cases where a patient is possessed by one of them. Moreover, they're usually projected, and a person doesn't encounter them in himself except in dreams.
Its funny how we feel the need to categorize and put individuals in little boxes . i think this urge to constantly organize is a form of mental illness and we need to embrace a touch of chaos
I also seem to remember that "feeling" meant something other than emotions. Fuck, it's been 30 years since I delved into that stuff.
(06-20-2020, 10:22 PM)Dev Wrote: [ -> ]I also seem to remember that "feeling" meant something other than emotions. Fuck, it's been 30 years since I delved into that stuff.
Yeah, it all seems pretty far away from your current state.
(06-20-2020, 10:11 PM)Dev Wrote: [ -> ]Where did Jung write about these "archetypes?" Sounds like a Popular Science interpretation of what he actually said.
These are more like personality types. But Jung said there were eight personality types, each a combination of introversion or extroversion and one of the four functions of consciousness (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition), hence:
The extroverted thinking type
The introverted thinking type
The extroverted feeling type
The introverted feeling type
The extroverted sensing type
The introverted sensing type
The extroverted intuitive type
The introverted intuitive type
In this system, extroverts tend to be objective and introverts subjective, and "sensing" refers to the five ordinary physical senses.
There's a difference between an archetype and a personality type. The archetypes that Jung wrote about, and Edinger expounded on in Ego and Archetype, are things like shadow and anima. The archetypes are contents of the unconscious, and all of them reside in a single individual. No single archetype constitutes a person's whole personality except in pathological cases where a patient is possessed by one of them. Moreover, they're usually projected, and a person doesn't encounter them in himself except in dreams.
Yes, it's all very interested. Well put.
(06-20-2020, 10:18 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]Its funny how we feel the need to categorize and put individuals in little boxes . i think this urge to constantly organize is a form of mental illness and we need to embrace a touch of chaos
It depends on context.
Trying to pigeonhole people is generally ill-conceived. But science is all about classification, and psychology, for better or worse, aims to be a hard science. It is what it is.
On the other hand, a disorganized person is truly a mess. He frustrates both himself and other people.
Jung referred to the Self as an organizing principle. In that sense, a person who is at the mercy of the unconscious does not know himself, i.e., lacks self-awareness, and may experience the archetypes as other people living in his head. It's what we might call multiple personality disorder.
(06-20-2020, 10:22 PM)Dev Wrote: [ -> ]I also seem to remember that "feeling" meant something other than emotions. Fuck, it's been 30 years since I delved into that stuff.
By "feeling," I think Jung was talking more about moral judgement, i.e., good or evil.
This snippet from Wikipedia sums it up fairly well:
Wikipedia Wrote:Jung defined feeling as "primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection [...] Hence feeling is also a kind of judging, differing, however, from an intellectual judgment, in that it does not aim at establishing an intellectual connection but is solely concerned with the setting up of a subjective criterion of acceptance or rejection."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_co...ns#Feeling
(06-20-2020, 10:50 PM)Dev Wrote: [ -> ]It depends on context.
Trying to pigeonhole people is generally ill-conceived. But science is all about classification, and psychology, for better or worse, aims to be a hard science. It is what it is.
On the other hand, a disorganized person is truly a mess. He frustrates both himself and other people.
Jung referred to the Self as an organizing principle. In that sense, a person who is at the mercy of the unconscious does not know himself, i.e., lacks self-awareness, and may experience the archetypes as other people living in his head. It's what we might call multiple personality disorder.
we all have multiple personalties; they can be invoked/evoked with proper technique but the problem thought with
this disorder seems the inability to refuse the dissociated states of the self which are subsets of the man maslow
described as "self actualized." you can't get to this state by chaotic disorganization; that's apparent.
Jung was half right; I mean he did his best for the time period and time of study he had. That's all you can ask for something that old.
(06-20-2020, 11:03 PM)Master Oblivious Wrote: [ -> ]we all have multiple personalties; they can be invoked/evoked with proper technique...
They aren't distinct personalities though. They're fragments of a single personality. It stands to reason that an operator would be able to split them apart with certain techniques, although I don't think I'd characterize such techniques as "proper." Deliberately driving another person mad doesn't seem a proper thing to do.
(06-20-2020, 11:03 PM)Master Oblivious Wrote: [ -> ]... but the problem thought with this disorder seems the inability to refuse the dissociated states of the self which are subsets of the man maslow described as "self actualized." you can't get to this state by chaotic disorganization; that's apparent.
Jung's term for a self-actualized person was an "individuated" person. This is a person who is wholly conscious of himself, i.e., all of the aspects of the personality are integrated into a whole: the Self. He doesn't project unconscious content onto other people or external phenomena. He recognizes them as being part of himself. Only 1% of humans who have ever lived have achieved this state.
(06-20-2020, 11:03 PM)Master Oblivious Wrote: [ -> ]Jung was half right; I mean he did his best for the time period and time of study he had. That's all you can ask for something that old.
I think Jung was more right than people realize. Very few people understand him. His (perhaps) unfortunate choice of terminology leads many to conclude that he was a mystic. But he wasn't. He was an empiricist. The things he wrote about are things he actually observed while treating patients. The labels are descriptive. They seem mystical because that's how the phenomena appear when manifested. The main reason for his choice of names is that he noticed correlations between the things he observed in his patients and things that appear time and again in mythology, alchemy, and other non-rational systems of thought. The goal of the alchemists was individuation, not literally transforming base matter into gold or anything of the sort.
(06-20-2020, 11:26 PM)Dev Wrote: [ -> ]They aren't distinct personalities though. They're fragments of a single personality. It stands to reason that an operator would be able to split them apart with certain techniques, although I don't think I'd characterize such techniques as "proper." Deliberately driving another person mad doesn't seem a proper thing to do.
Jung's term for a self-actualized person was an "individuated" person. This is a person who is wholly conscious of himself, i.e., all of the aspects of the personality are integrated into a whole: the Self. He doesn't project unconscious content onto other people or external phenomena. He recognizes them as being part of himself. Only 1% of humans who have ever lived have achieved this state.
I think Jung was more right than people realize. Very few people understand him. His (perhaps) unfortunate choice of terminology leads many to conclude that he was a mystic. But he wasn't. He was an empiricist. The things he wrote about are things he actually observed while treating patients. The labels are descriptive. They seem mystical because that's how the phenomena appear when manifested. The main reason for his choice of names is that he noticed correlations between the things he observed in his patients and things that appear time and again in mythology, alchemy, and other non-rational systems of thought. The goal of the alchemists was individuation, not literally transforming base matter into gold or anything of the sort.
yes but still he seems only half correct.
(06-20-2020, 11:54 PM)Master Oblivious Wrote: [ -> ]yes but still he seems only half correct.
Would you care to elaborate? Correctness is a rather absolute concept. An assertion is either correct or incorrect. It would be safer to say he was correct about some things and incorrect about others.