Skip to content

“Solar” vs “Lunar” in Gender Dynamics, Integrity and Individuation

April 9, 2013

Recently read Beebe’s Integrity in Depth (Texas A & M University Press, 1992) (Yes, he had a print book out, from 21 years ago, but it’s not about the thing most of us are interested in getting in a book from him, his full archetype model; though he does mention the archetypes and functions a couple times).

On Amazon:…/dp/1585444634

It’s a lot of deep Jungian concepts, and he mentions stuff like Tao. Being hard to begin digesting that stuff, I carried it around for four years, not feeling like sitting and reading it on the computer, and it was too big for the smartphone. But now, that I got my first tablet (Galaxy 7.7) in Jan. for my birthday (after walking cross town from being in the audience of The Chew; what a great day that was), I finally got around to reading it.

I thought it was interesting as it mentioned the virginity mythos in relation to “integrity”, and another concept I noticed was “sola” and “luna“, meaning of course, “sun” and “moon”, and which had often been linked to masculinity and femininity (like the image of the Woman in Revelation 12, standing on the moon, and clothed with the sun, the sun is supposed to be Christ, and the moon, something feminine such as “the bride” as it “reflects” the sun’s glory).


Perhaps there is something one-sided about Jung’s masculinity. We can see a limitation of Jung’s own integration in his late formulation of sol and luna as the masculine and feminine principles. To draw upon a recent formulation by Howard Teich, Jung’s masculinity, both in his theory and in his personality, seems too one-sidedly solar. Teich has proposed that we should see solar and lunar, lights that have conditioned our view of gender, not as metaphors for the genders, but as perspectives in both masculinity and femininity. Rather than conflating masculine with solar, he has adduced clinical evidence to suggest that a whole masculinity will consist of both solar and lunar parts. By solar he means active and aggressive and by lunarreceptive and responsive. These parts appear alongside each other in many traditions as male twins. Teich feels that there is also a twinship for women involving solar and lunar femininity. In her poem “Integrity,” Adrienne Rich calls this pair “anger and tenderness, my selves.”

He then goes into how this was influenced by Jung’s childhood experience with some man trying to seduce him, which led to a phallic dream.


Everyone feels a rigidity in Jung’s understanding of gender opposites. A reason Teich offers is that the masculine and feminine principles are not given their chance to develop polarities within themselves before they are asked to meet each other.
I think we would do well by integrity to take up Teich’s suggestion; solar and lunar opposites exist within each gender and naturally hold each other’s excesses in check, in the healthy regulation of the gender opposites. We might begin to move past homosexual panic in the way we relate to ourselves, recognizing lunar masculinity and solar femininity not as effeminacy or mannishness, but as complements to the solar masculinity and lunar femininity that Western patriarchy has emphasized.
Instead of training men to grow past their lunar masculinity and women to suppress their solar femininity in deference to men, we might help men balance solar and lunar masculinity, and women lunar and solar femininity, in the conscious leading of their lives.
These considerations should make us look more carefully at Jung’s conception of the union of male and female opposites as wholeness.

n44 from p96 quote (below); p151

Solar conscience “extracts laws and norms” from the archetype dominant in the conscious attitude of the individual and in the collective consciousness of the society at large, speaking generally “for custom, cultural habits, social laws and expectations and for a group ethic. . . . It has a particular gift for elevating such norms into ideals of a highly abstract nature, ideals such as truthfulness, justice, purity” (Murray Stein, “A Polarity in Conscience: Solar and Lunar Aspects,” Diploma thesis, C. G. Jung Institut-Zurich, 1973, pp. 22-24). Lunar conscience, by contrast “turns away from cultural and social dominants in the human environment as the source of the value-contents of conscience, to nature and instinct as their source, away from the steady certainties of right and wrong as laid down by the dominant archetype and codified in bodies of law, to the fluctuations of doubt in reflection and some odd paradoxes in certain ethical compulsions; away from a kind of conscience that would force the ego into the narrow trail of moral perfection, to a sort of conscience that insists on wholeness and completeness; away from a love of law, to a law of love” (Stein, p. 54).


it appears that in our culture the anxieties attendant upon uniting male opposites are greater than those associated with the uniting of female opposites. We have assumed too long that this is a homosexual anxiety, greater in men than in women. It is really a moral anxiety, reflecting a failure on the part of solar masculinity to accept a brake on itself, and a failure on the part of lunar masculinity to honor its fear of solar masculinity by any other means than projection of that fear onto women.


Men should take up this problem, not as so many think now, by activating the unclaimed portion of their solar potential that may still lie underground, but by allowing their very fear of that part of themselves to be their sign that another aspect of their maleness is in danger of violation. They should not rush Jung’s goal of uniting genders within. The anima will wait for them to complete this preliminary work of meeting their phallic power with appropriate vulnerability. The anima, and also women. As Jane Austen’s work signals, women have long been ready to unite the opposites within their gender. It is time for men to prepare to meet them with a similar integrity.

So all of this helps put a name on something that’s always been hard to describe, and also explain stuff I’ve been going through.

Since the anima is shaped by a man’s mother, and my mother is ISTJ, then that became the model of womanhood. She and others I know seem very lunar on the surface (caretaking, etc), yet have these strong solar elements that come out, such as a spunk that seems sexy, and a drive toward efficiency. They can become very cold, and this will be confusing to someone who falls for their lunar aspects.

My wife and I could never fully understand or explain the admitted appeal of a stronger, less “safe” woman (such as a “street girl”) to me and many other men. (The whole “men want the bitch” thing, yet I always knew I was too sensitive for them). But it’s connected with what Jungian author Robert Johnson calls “the unlived life“, and is made worse by entering midlife, and moving away from the “safety” of the lunar “mother” aspects of the anima; so the more “dangerous” solar aspects become more of a curiosity.
(I believe it also involves another of Beebe’s complexes, the “Opposing Personality”, which sort of mirrors the anima as the other contrasexual complex of the eight that associate with our Jungian typological functions).

Typologically, it so far seems connected with E/I and T/F. I and F will be more lunar (receptive), and E and T will be more solar (aggressive). J/P might be more P=lunar (receptive); J=solar (aggressive), but I see where it could also be P= pragmatic (solar), J=cooperative (lunar). Not sure if there is a definite complete type correlation like this. Will have to think of everyone whose type I know.

I imagine an ExTJ female might be most likely to seem completely solar. Think of Suze Orman, and now this explains to me why she could never carry the “virginal integrity” archetype I thought someone like her could qualify for, from being a “gold-star lesbian”, meaning never been with a man. She’s just too “rough”, “cold” and “aggressive”. It goes well with the whole “unconquered” sense that’s apart of the projections, but for me, there must be some evident lunar characteristics present, to carry this. (To have someone “carry” something, in Jungian terms, is basically about projection; especially the anima).

There is a whole “ironic” appeal of both “technical virginity” (in the hetero world) as well as “gold-star lesbianism”, which leads to much debate in online culture. The latter is a simple but unfortunate “ranking” term that makes non goldstars feel like they are being regarded as “less” than those who always knew their preference and avoided men. (There’s even a higher rank, “platinum star”, which have never dated or even kissed a boy*, and lower ranks, “silver” and other metals such as bronze, which slept with one or more men before giving them up for good. [Basically, these would correspond to the “Kinsey Scale”, with gold and platinum as 6, silver as 5, bronze as 4, bisexual as 3, and straight as 0-2. I wonder why they didn’t just use that scale, which is official and far less offensive. It’s been said to have originated with men saying sarcastically “So you’ve never slept with men; do you want a medal?” and then the term being picked up by “The L Word” show where it became popular and then embraced, sort of like “queer” and “dyke”]. And on the flipside, the two higher stars are often harassed and told by some non-goldstars they can’t really know their true preference if they haven’t “tried both”. Either side ends up hurling the accusation of not being a true lesbian at the other, or at least feeling that’s what the other side is saying).

*For men, the platinum star also includes the necessity of being born by C-section, if not total test-tube gestation, as that’s the only way a man can have never been inside a vagina or woman. I think this is taking it way too far, as the “star” is supposed to represent one’s voluntary behavior. Like female rape victims are also usually granted the star status [which goes against the “untouched” archetype physically, but not morally].
What they are doing, is trying to jump the “untouched” archetype to men, but it doesn’t really fit, as the whole point of it centers around penetration, which is what [originally] differentiates male from female; though of course, this is changing with transgender and non-“binary” identities. But since this is archetypal, it is fixed to what is ancient, and so trying to change it artificially now, becomes awkward).

And then the “star” status (as well as virginity) are connected by critics to a “misogynistic heteronormative culture” that places an unfair and outmoded standard of “purity” on women, and at the same time, denies what sex is for non-straight people.
(Though as I’ll show next, it can be seen in a more positive way. Like men will often tell lesbians that their problem is that they just need a good enough man —often expressed in terms of a vulgar term for a body part. But such women are totally independent from men sexually, and this is what such men are reacting that way, against, in jealousy).

In any case, people seem evenly divided on the issue of who can be granted a “v-card”. It is a state hated by some (in a culture where something’s wrong with you if you’re not sexually active, and people will do anything to gain experience), but nevertheless still treasured by others. Orman once described her orientation status in terms of being a “55 year old virgin” (though she’s active with a female partner), and you have Christians making “purity pledges” while engaging in a bunch of other acts. This has even come to be named after a church: “saddlebacking” (A handy one word term, but one that’s very unfortunate, as I’m sure Warren does not/would not condone this practice. However, who can really control what all the youth in the church are doing?)
Meanwhile, a new term that eliminates the stigma and ambiguity of the old “virginity” term for first time sexual experience (of any sort, involving another person) has been devised, which is “sexual debut“.

This article: points out

The virgin feminine archetype…has no bearing on the sexual status or sexual behavior and sometimes is not even a celibate. These are women who choose to be unmarried or stay unmarried because of certain circumstances, but are independent, strong willed, and bold. Their sexuality is wholly in their hands. In a predominantly patriarchal setup, women who lived and reflected the Maiden or Virgin feminine archetype were often condemned and socially boycotted. In this day and age, if a woman chooses to follow her own heart and desires and those desires do not include marriage, motherhood, and other concerns traditionally deemed to be feminine, but chooses instead to live her life on her own terms, perhaps pursing her passions and career interests, it would be safe to say she is modeling the Maiden/Virgin archetype in her life.

According to lesbian feminist Marilyn Frye:

The word ‘virgin’ did not originally mean a woman whose vagina was untouched by any penis, but a free woman, one not betrothed, not bound to, not possessed by any man. It meant a female who is sexually and hence socially her own person. In any version of patriarchy, there are no Virgins in this sense. (The Willful Virgin, p.330) See also “Historically, virgin was often used to mean ‘unmarried’ – as in not owned by a man. A virgin was thus property for the taking (sadly, not all too different from today…)”

Another site says “The truth that is hidden in this archetype is about power and control“. Their sexuality was worn “proudly and without shame. It was not given away or bartered or owned by their partners, it was wholly and solely within their dominion.”
So the same for women who have “held out” from coital “conquest” by men altogether, whether due to sexual preference or [for the time being] “waiting for the right one”.
It’s a woman who has told every man “no”. In the case of goldstar, they still enjoy sexuality. The technical virgin as well, in addition to “teasing” man.

All of this connects to what Beebe points out on p. 53, that “libido is free to flow, yet stays contained“. He discusses the Roman myth of Tuccia the Vestal Virgin, who proved her questioned virginity with a sieve that was able to contain water; “defying all the laws of nature”. (The water was believed to represent “libido”, and a container representing the continence or virtue of a woman, suffering no puncture or crack).
This really explains everything. By not being with or going all the way with a man, they have in fact “contained” something, even though they are clearly and fully sexual; with some amount of libido being free to flow.

(Though a closer analogy for them might be the opposite; of a pot that allows water to flow through its solid sides. That’s something unbroken that allows flow. The water looks like it’s not free, yet is, and the container doesn’t contain, yet is “unbroken”. This idea of “containment” depends on whether you’re focusing on [the physical “integrity” of] the container or [the practical freedom of] what is contained.
The sieve that contains water might correspond more to the married woman as well as the rape victim and the so-called “born again virgin”, who’ve been “punctured”, but the first two never lost virtue to begin with, and the other now seeks to live as though whole and thus regain virtue).

“Libido” is basically “life-giving energy“. It is usually associated with sex drive, but that is really just one part of it. (Its opposite is “mortido”, which is a “death instinct”. It also parallels the eastern concept of “Tao” [“nature”], while “integrity” is represented by another concept, called “te” [“moral intelligence”]).
Things that are new become tarnished with normal usage, which accompanies the flow of what we call “life” (even for inanimate objects). For them not to become tarnished or worn would run counter to nature.

Yet that is an ideal state, representing “Eden“. Something that can be lost in a split moment’s rash decision, and then is gone forever; totally unrecoverable. This is what, subconsciously, may make it an obsession or “fetish” (even if physically it doesn’t have much practical meaning as is the case here).
All of this is emblazoned on our “collective unconscious“, which are archetypal images shared by all of us. (When archetypes become personalized, they are “complexes”, which we project onto others).

So on p.76; he says that men are often “projecting their own need for anima integrity onto them as a wholesale demand for literal virginity and chastity; women were forced into embodying wholeness and continuity in their concrete physical lives, living out the anima ideal in ways that were stultifying for their individuation”. (And hence, this is precisely what those who scoff at the concepts of virginity and “gold-star” lesbianism are getting at!)

p51-52 adds “a symbol of ideal integrity”; “… an impossible image. It becomes a cruel double bind when it is imposed on women as a standard they should somehow embody in their sexual lives”.
p. 43 [Integrity’s] projection onto women as inhumanly high standards of virginity and chastity may be a telling sign of its lack of differentiation in the psychology of men of the [Middle Ages and Renaissance] times.”

This is what has led to this archetypal debate today; especially as some women learned how to play upon it, by holding back on one act of sex, (again, the thing that originally defined sexual “intercourse”; the “becoming one flesh” with a man), while yet enjoying others; allowing some amount of libido to flow (i.e. being sexual, enjoying it, and allowing someone else to enjoy their body in ways). And it excites men, who fantasize of being the one to conquer the woman who held back the innermost treasure from every other man, yet still manage to be “experienced” enough to give him a good time. (It’s usually a choice of one or the other). It would really show that he, as I discussed in an earlier article, “had what it takes as a man”.

This “paradox” (or in Jungian lingo; [apparent] “coniunctio” or union of opposites) is what makes it so spicy to many, and at the same time, so irritating and hypocritical (and likely envy-provoking, as you can tell from the tone of many naysayers) to others.

On the other hand, it’s also true, from a moral/emotional/spiritual perspective, that it is still becoming “one SOUL” or spirit, since those other acts being done are still intimate, involving “private parts” not shared with just anyone. (So all those young Christians doing it are still engaging in a form of “cheating”, and thus still breaking any “pledges” they may sign, since this is judged spiritually, and not just according to “the flesh”). So it still compromises a moral “integrity” even while it may retain a physical one; and in speaking of “integrity”, the non-physical (including “moral”) is what’s really being aimed at.

The “anima integrity” part of it I’m now identifying with, and trying to resolve, in the midst of “midlife crisis” that had been building up, through my frustrations with certain aspects of life, and particularly resentment for not having had a better teenage-hood, with dating (“knowing” the “other side” more) and other such carefree “fun”. (In utter frustration, I became a conservative Christian at 20, which greatly restricted what I could do with the opposite sex, and even who I could pursue, since we were not supposed to date unbelievers).

So last year I began reading people like Johnson and others, and trying to find out how to stop projecting “gold” onto womanhood. (“Gold” is what Johnson calls the good stuff we see in others, but not in ourselves). They’re really not supposed to carry it; not even the one you’re married to, ultimately. It will create expectations they cannot live up to, and thus disillusionments.
(So we end up both “shadow-boxing” with the negative things, and “shadow-dancing” with our “gold”, in others).

Having an anima; (and an “extraverted Feeling” anima at that!) that’s taken a terrible beating over the years; anima integrity seemed to be imaginally embodied in a “strong” and “untouched” woman; covering both solar and lunar aspects.
It stems from a desire for life (i.e. libido) to flow as normal, but still have better outcomes. Where Christians often tell you to wait for some other kind of world after this one, where everything will be made right, but then on the other hand, where everything will be different (like no sex, for one!); for some reason, there’s something about that which seems to leave one dry. And what it likely is, is that we do not associate “libido” with this otherworldly existence, even though we’re promised that is the “true” life.
Still, it is unknown to us, so it’s very hard for that to fill that space in our psyches. (So this “fallen” world of “survival of the fittest” is basically nature without integrity, and in traditional religion, this seems to be compensated by some future world that is all integrity without nature. ⦅And the traditional view of “Hell” is just its shadow, where nature is eternally split off and punished for its lack of integrity⦆. This ends up just as fractured ⦅split from primal wholeness⦆ as this current world, and why so few want to give this one up for that one, as religion urges).

So I identify with what these quotes about Jung:


The wholeness Jung sought initially through the mother archetype, and later through the anima, denies the split within his own masculine nature, a split that I think he was finally too proud to recognize. Today we are able to see the effects of this split as a partial failure of integrity, obvious in his personal and political dealings with other men as well as in what he asked women to carry for him. As Teich implies, Jung’s failure to see the danger of not resolving first the opposites within the gender to which one belongs compromises his claim to understanding the integrity of personality as the coniunctio of developed gender principles. The moral consequences of any dissociation of either lunar or solar elements of personality are serious, for as Murray Stein was able to point out nearly twenty years ago, there is “a polarity in conscience” between “solar and lunar aspects.”44

As Stein demonstrated, patriarchal Western civilization is used to imagining these two styles of conscience sitting down together as father and mother debating how to discipline the children, and Jung’s idea of the coniunctio has made this parental colloquy into a conversation which we should all strive to achieve within. But if we are to realize an ideal of integrity that is appropriate to a post-patriarchal age, the masculine and feminine principles must each be allowed to become less monolithic by developing the dialogue of solar and lunar conscience within each principle. The gender principles need to find the opposites within themselves before they turn to meet each other.
It is just this sense of internal twinship, of a comfortable tension between a solar masculinity that is aggressive and a lunar masculinity that is receptive, that I miss in Jung. Indeed, as Teich has pointed out, Jung seems to project his lunar masculinity onto women, seeing them as natural receivers or containers. Teich’s formulation validates and helps me to understand a sense I have had that Jung had difficulty sustaining receptivity to the ideas of other men; he could not relinquish control enough to be more than illuminated by another man’s solar energy.

(Paralleling this, a person I was discussing Jung with pointed out that a woman’s animus should be connected with “eros“, like a man’s anima, instead of “logos“. Again, Jung was projecting patriarchical assumptions onto women, but this basically followed society of the time anyway.
Though Beebe points out “By eros Jung means neither sex nor relatedness in any casual sense, but rather the need to cultivate caring for the wholeness of others as well as of oneself.” (p.81) Jung was actually applying new names to virtues another writer called “care” (“the feminine principle of moral understanding”) and “justice” (implied by “the capacity to differentiate and discriminate” and “by which such discriminations can be made”), respectively.

Also, Johnson, Unlived Life, p. 199 mentions how a Greek myth says humans originally had four arms and four legs, carrying both male and female aspects, and were split, and the two parts have been trying to get back together ever since).

I’ve always felt that my solar masculinity never had the chance to fully develop. Not because of any homosexual molestation, but more indirectly, through life circumstances, especially with a condition such as AS, with all the problems it causes with people. Yet since life seemed, by the process of elimination, to be forcing me into a lunar (i.e. receptive) role, which I saw as “weak” and “feminine”, I’ve resisted that as well. (So what does that leave me with? Just trying to gain some sense of solar power in the way most possible; from behind a computer screen, like in arguing Christian doctrine and politics online for years; but it just leads to burnout).

So I need to find my own “gold” to own, but I just don’t know quite how to do it at this point. My wife suggests my writing (like this), but it seems to have only limited interest (as it’s long and over a lot of people’s heads, right?)

Anyhow, I thought the concept was very interesting, and explains more about the male/female dynamic, provides a much needed answer to a seemingly silly debate, and offers a direction in growth.

Ultimately, Beebe points out that (p71, 75) “For us, integrity is part of the genuine interest in others that [Jane] Austen called ‘amiability‘ and of the continuity of identity in caring that she called ‘constancy‘…which is for her (according to Maclntyre) ‘a virtue the possession of which is a prerequisite for the possession of other virtues.” (p80, this becomes feminine because it reflects basic trust of the mother archetype).
An example of both virtues is in Austen’s final book Persuasions, where the heroine Anne Elliot breaks off an engagement because of the expectations of the family (amiability), yet holds on to her love for him (constancy), and is thus able to marry him later, when circumstances have changed. These connect to eros and logos or care and justice. Because of this “ability to sense and lovingly contain the feelings of the members of her kinship group while continuing to honor her own emotional position; she is a model for a self-fulfillment which is ecologically sound.”

  1. With Christmas looming, and the music playing everywhere (and since throughout November, mind you), it brings to mind, one of the central figures, the “Virgin Mary”. The songs being a rare “traditional” place to hear such a sex-related word, until sex became talked about widespread. It’s brought to mind by Nat King Cole’s rendition of “I Saw Three Ships”. What was in those ships; all three, on Christmas Day in the morning? “The VIRGIN MARY, and Christ were there… on Christmas day in the morning“. (Ships? Where did they get that from?)

    Also, on “What Child is This?” (or “The Son of Mary” or “Greensleeves”) you have “the Virgin sings her lullaby” (Which I noticed on the newer Vanessa Williams version from the 90’s, and never caught it on the old Nat King Cole, Johnny Mathis or Harry Belafonte versions, where individual words are easy to miss they way they crooned them back them). And of course, “Silent Night”. I hadn’t noticed that one (easy to miss amidst other words I didn’t know the meaning of, such as “yon”), until studying Armstrongism (Worldwide Church of God and Plain Truth magazine, before the post-Armstrong transformation of the group), which condemned Christmas as “pagan”, and pointed out there was a “virgin mother and child” in the pagan mysteries of several older religions. (More on this below!)

    I heard all the songs as a child, but never took any notice of that word. I heard of the state Virginia, of course, and then, the Virgin Islands. Both of these named after either Mary, or Elizabeth, the “Virgin Queen” of England. (Never thought of what the names meant). So by jr. high, the root word to me was assumed to mean a native of VI, particularly with all the West Indians moving into the area at that time.
    So the first time I was ever asked if I was one, right there in jr. high; my answer was “No, I’m American”. When they said that wasn’t what it meant, then, it was “no, I’m a Capricorn”. (“Virgo” being the next similar word in my mind, and that of course is the astrological/astronomical constellation of a “virgin”, but again; I didn’t know that then).

    I was dumbfounded what this new word being tossed around meant (similar the a couple of years earlier, in grade school, when asked if I was gay, and being pretty happy-go-lucky in those carefree years, said “yes”. Then, when they tell me what it means, and sometime later, they ask if I’m a “homosapiens”, I shout “No, I’m not gay!”)
    Funny, the way these kids learn these new sexual words, and then make amusements out of them!

    Anyway, all of this continues to show a deep archetypal significance of this sexual state. Of course, some religious assumptions projected the fear of sex as evil into the Christmas story. He couldn’t be born by sex because He was holy, sex was filthy. But the true reason of not having a human father, aside from just being a miracle, also had to do with the royal lineage.
    So why did this state come to symbolize “purity”, then?

    Sex was created, as part of the physical creation, “very good”. But once man took of the knowledge of good and evil, he began to take on a sense of shame, leading to negative judgments of sex. Hence, “naked”.
    This is when various archetypes constellated. They were forced out of the garden, representing primal “innocence”, and would forever be trying to get back in. The universal archetypes would reflect this.

    So the Virgin Mother began to enter ancient religion, likely beginning with Nimrod and the legends formed around him. This would be such a supernatural miracle of unlikeliness. To be a mother is to promote life into the next generation. But it required “losing” something. The woman would have to come under possession (as wedlock was seen in the past) by a man, who would enter her (and usually breaking something in the process)*, and take a kind of “ownership” that would exclude all other men.

    *Perhaps the original compensation for this, was that the a man’s first time, especially with a “tight” virgin woman, might break his frenulum, which was the “mucous membrane” attaching the foreskin to the penis. (I not too long ago heard of this happening, and it sounded like a countersexual form of “defloration”). So they would thus “break” each other. However, circumcision of most men in the west removed this flesh anyway rendering it moot. But if done right, neither should really break.

    It ideally was not supposed to come across like this. The act of physical union had taken on a negative connotation, in contrast to its creation as “very good”. Religion would then often project this onto nature and even God, by believing sex was bad, but a necessary evil, and one we couldn’t help indulge in due to the pleasure.

    So the Virgin Mother became the dumping ground for the collective complex of a purity or integrity that miraculously allowed “libido” (life giving energy) to flow.

    Many people trace this from Babylon, Egypt and other ancient religions, to Christ, and believe this proves He (or the doctrine built around him) was a fabrication from those earlier sources. But all this means is that God chose this primeval archetype as His means of fulfilling the redemption mankind was seeking through them.

    While Mary was originally presented in a matter-of-fact way in the New Testament as simply being “found with Child of the Holy Ghost” without sexual contact, and then the Gospel story moves on past her, to Christ (the center of the whole revelation), and the apostolic Church that would carry His message forth; the post-apostolic Church would come to place great emphasis on Mary; far more than the Scripture itself ever did. (Many will argue it was all there in apostolic time, but transmitted only “orally” as “tradition”. However there is no evidence the “tradition” referenced in a couple of places is any separate body of teaching like that, from what was written).

    Her virginity would be perpetuated to her whole lifetime (even though there is strong scriptural evidence she had other children by Joseph). They would even develop a doctrine that Christ was born without even “opening her up” (so to speak). So she was totally “mint condition” “down there” (this would imply attributing to the infant Christ’s body a supernatural quality that would call into question His full humanity, much like like those who claim He was a spirit, which He denied even after His resurrection).

    So a lot was placed on Mary by the later Catholic church, to the point of them mulling making her “Co-redemptrix” with Christ (she already pretty much has held the old previously pagan title of “Queen of Heaven”).

    By praying to her, or even to statues or images of her, the “purity” archetype that so alludes man, is effectively concretized.

    “High”-Protestantism held a high, though reduced position of her, but “low”-Protestantism, such as American fundamentalism and evangelicalism, aimed to place her back in her Biblical perspective, as a highly blessed woman, but not with all the divine qualities the Catholic church placed on her.

    With fundamentalism (and many sects), the devotion Catholics give to Mary, would instead be given to the [“true”] Church and its body of “true doctrine”.
    With the Catholics particularly, and high Protestants, it is as well, but believing themselves to be “the Kingdom” (of Christ), they’ve allowed themselves to become wed to the governments of “the world”, which these other groups identify as the spiritual “fornication” described in Rev.17. These smaller bodies aim to remain “pure”, to be presented as “a chaste virgin unto Christ”.(2 Corinthians 11:2)

    Many of them bypass Church history altogether, and surmise that rather than breaking off of the larger churches, their forebears existed alongside them (though often forced underground), as various small persecuted groups throughout the centuries. (This is basically called the “trail of blood” theory). So they hold that they never lost the purity of the original doctrines or polity, and will often be the ones insisting they hold the whole truth and every other group is wrong.

    They also have been strongest in upholding literal virginity for unmarried non-widows, as the supreme virtue; one that most of their judgments of modern culture were based on. Society was “godly” until the 1960’s when the sexual revolution hit; now it is “wicked” and falling under God’s judgment. Not just fornication, adultery, pornography, and the increasingly “out of the closet” homosexuality, and legalized abortion (giving women more freedom to be “looser” when not ready for a child), but even the rhythms of jazz and rock music (and even the modified versions of these used in “contemporary Christian music”) are too “sensual” and leading to more sin, and thus bringing judgment down on America. (At least one guy actually attributed 9-11 to this right after it occurred!)

    New-evangelicalism modified itself from fundamentalism to be less exclusive, and thus does not have as strict a doctrine of the Church as a particular organization being “true”, and many have slacked off on doctrine, as you can hear some voices admonishing them.
    So I’m not even sure what new-evangelicalism (and charismaticism) hold in that place.
    Many have even slacked of on some of the sexual mores (hence, many teens being known to practice the “technical” virginity compromise mentioned above in the post, even while signing pledges. Hence the archetype is represented in this way, at least).

    In ancient Judaism, it was the Temple system. From the perspective of a more radical “universalistic” version of the “fulfilled” view, with the Jungian concept of a man’s “anima”, you can even understand Christ’s warning of them “losing their soul” in this way.
    (Hence, “women” used in prophecy as the religious institution in the first place. The virtuous woman being the faithful, and the non-virtuous one being one who has sold herself out to impure religion or political leadership. It was their using their influence on the Romans to persecute Christians, that constituted their status as the “great harlot” riding the “beast”).

    So where I used to be more critical of devotion to Mary, I see where it has some archetypal significance, as the need to concretize a deep longing in the collective psyche. I still won’t adopt that practice, as I believe it is too far outside of scriptural bounds. But it does show something else to be aware of.

    Then you have Islam, which chides the West for being so “earthly”-minded, like being afraid of death, where their Jihadists are readily willing to die.
    But their reward (what they’re basically encouraged or inspired by) is the “72 virgins” in heaven! As I commented on my old WTC Memoirs page, can you get any more “earthly” than that? It’s supposed to be about “Heaven”, and therefore presumed to be “spiritual”, but it’s taking an earthly fetish and attempting to concretize it in another life in another realm.

    But thinking about it now, it’s really more than just an earthly fetish; and does have profound spiritual meaning. It’s just that that’s the wrong way to go about it. It would represent the gaining of one’s soul through one’s own efforts, where the Gospel makes it clear this is futile. You end up killing people for being sinners; but then you are just as much a sinner. (This is basically the “shadow” of Islamism being projected onto westerners. They are ultimately just as earthly and fallen, fighting over physical lands each person can only access in the few decades they walk the earth, in addition to the sexual fantasy beyond earth; yet can only see this “earthiness” in their “enemies”).
    But such works-righteousness always ignores one’s own sins. Just as long as you’re performing the right works, that’s what buys you pardon for everything else.

    • I at this point should mention the confusion I have seen, regarding what sexual consummation really is. You sometimes run across stories of either married people not able to consummate (which is particularly frustrating for those who “waited” for that one “special night”), or kids fooling around, who are then concerned as to whether they’ve gone “too far”, or could get pregnant. It usually goes “it didn’t/wouldn’t go ‘all the way in'”, or only “it went in only a little“, “half way in”, or “just the tip” (which is often also a game guys used to try to get further and further); and yet the girl would experience incredible pain. Some also describe something like “hitting a wall”.

      I remember first hearing of this from a coworker at Alexander’s who had been a nurse in her home country, and mentioned some female who claimed the husband’s “sexual part” was “too big”.
      At that point, not knowing anything about sex in practice (but only seeing textbook illustrations of the female anatomy, and very basic descriptions of intercourse), I wondered how it would be so difficult. (For one thing, when first learning about this opening with a “mucous membrane” covering it; I imagined something like a pill bottle, with the protective seal over the opening that must be “not broken” when bought in order the safe, but then “broken” to open it. I thought it would be weaker than that; it’s just “mucous” after all, and didn’t realize at that point that it must already have an opening for the menstruation to pass through. Since I heard this whole anatomy had so-called “lips” on the outside, that made it sound like a mouth. But it’s not a “hole” with hollow space inside like a mouth or bottle; it’s a completely closed canal, more comparable to the ear).

      The questions on Q&A sites revolve around “virginity”, with most answerers telling the couples trying to “preserve” it that they lost it, (“If it was ‘in‘, that’s ‘losing’ it”), but granting the couples trying to lose it that they haven’t lost it (and of course, then giving all the typical steps on how to complete it —patience, relax, lube, etc.).
      Some also then use the occasion to reiterate how “virginity is just a misogynist social construct that is meaningless” (which as I discuss above, seems that way from it being an “abstract” [N] archetypal concept whose value does not lie in any “practical” [S] use, which again is why it won’t go away as these people wish). A few also from there point out correctly that the teens are still being sexually active, regardless of how far they got, and warn them about the still present risk of pregnancy and STD’s.

      The universal assumption is that the hymen is what was causing all the pain, especially when some people report blood (which also then usually becomes the natural confirmation to them or the question answerers that the “cherry was popped”). Then you get all the descriptions of perhaps it’s too thick, or it could have already been broken by other things; so it’s no indicator, etc. (It’s actually true that it more than likely stretches open rather than “popping”, which is painful, but not as much as what many of these people are reporting. A sensation of a “pop” may be from the release of tension of the wider glans [“head”] getting past the stretched narrower opening to the wider canal, where there’s actually more freedom of movement with less pain under normal conditions. So it’s more analogous to “popping” a muscle, or the pill bottle cap snapping onto the groove of the bottle, where the tension of pushing or pulling is suddenly released, but nothing is actually breaking! Over time, it gradually wears away into a “crown” shape; the “corona”, which totally eliminates the whole “one-time and it’s gone” mythos). When I finally had my own “chastity until marriage” honeymoon, I thought it was clunky, but now hearing these other stories, appreciate it as pretty good. It was a relaxed environment, and patient (and me knowing that was important, from having read up on sex over the years, including Armstrong’s The Missing Dimension of Sex, which was pretty good as a Christian manual on the anatomy and the honeymoon), in contrast to these kids doing it on the sneak, and rushing to complete the act, and either them or even the married people simply knowing nothing about the anatomy. Sometimes thinking I “missed out” on the excitement of the “forbiddenness” and “hiddenness” of teenage sex, I see now where it would have probably been like these stories, with not knowing what was happening, and it thus being frustrating.
      I would read or be told back then of how it was “horrible” for some kids, and I didn’t quite see how it could be so (beyond my fear of some experienced girl dissing an inexperienced guy, which is what made virginity an important thing to me to begin with). My father once said that as much as the young guys talked all this game, all they think it is, is just “sticking it in there” (which is of course what I thought also), but it’s really a lot more than that. That’s the problem these other people are facing.

      I would along the way read of conditions such as “vaginismus”, where the muscles inside tighten up (leading to “dyspareunia” or painful difficulty in penetrating), but now it sounded like these people were not even getting in that far (i.e. “apareunia”). So then, I find out about another condition, vulvodynia or vestibulodynia, where the sides of the vulva outside the opening of the vaginal opening can be tight as well, as they are pushed together by the superficial pelvic floor muscles (the same ones we use to hold in going to the bathroom), which will be tense especially when nervous, and the area can be irritated or inflamed from fabrics, infections, thinning caused by birth control pills, or even too many nerves (Congenital Neuroproliferate Vestibulodynia). It’s also tender and can bleed from lacerations in the skin! (So now, you have to wonder about all those centuries when blood on the sheets was the sign that the woman was virtuous, thinking it was from a hymen being present and torn, and could even lead to punishment by death if believed to be absent).

      The thing with those drawings (which even Missing Dimension in Sex included also) is that they are actually showing the vulva spread open (for the purpose of illustrating the different parts), so it looks like “there’s the hole, just push into it”, but you can’t really see the depth of the whole thing; it looks wide open and almost a flat surface in those illustrations, but it’s really 1-2 cm deep, and the “lips'” default position is closed (pushed together), so it has to be pushed open by the tip at the same time as pushing in.
      This apparently is not always as easy as you would think. If dry, tense, and/or irritated, then it will be very painful (some describe it like a paper cut). I wondered if this small external region could really be causing that much pain, but then I think of how tender the underside of the forearm right below the armpit is (and with its slight moistness), and how something rubbing other sticky, slightly moist things against that will feel like you’re being totally skinned! So you might not even reach the hymen. (If you do, then, add to that its own resistance, with the closed passage and muscles behind it, and that will be the “wall” people experience, and you will have total apareunia).
      And not being able to see down there (while attempting entry), neither partner may know what exactly is going on.

      So the problem of the questions and answers is the questioners are describing penetration of the vulva, but calling it the “vagina“, and so the answerers assume the problem is with the vagina, and address that part. It’s like something goes into a “slot”, so it’s “in”, and they don’t realize the two different compartments inside. (For the legal definitions used for rape, penetration of even just the vulva is considered “full [vaginal] penetration”, but of course, this is for the severity of the violation, as the perpetrator has no business anywhere near any part of the anatomy).

      Everyone with this problem or question should read this blog chronicling one woman’s resolution of the problem (with the last post announcing a child): This particular entry: even has that standard illustration, showing where the pain was, and it was all entirely outside the opening (so she reveals there that it wasn’t the commonly assumed vaginismus, but rather vestibulodynia). In fact, when the doctor was able to get the vestibule open and test the hymen, there was actually no pain there! It was all in the area before you even got to it!

      I address this, as it’s surprising how many people old enough to engage in sex know absolutely nothing about that part of their bodies. (And introverted Thinking likes to set all the misinformation straight with what’s “true” or “correct”).

  2. In talking about this stuff so much I’ve gotten a bit into associating the anima specifically with the feminine, but the whole concept, as it was once explained to me:

    Its personification naturally takes shape as a contrasexual image, which represents “otherness,” but that doesn’t mean it consists of the feminine as such.

    Rather, the anima is essentially the inner counterpart of the persona. Just as the persona sits between the ego and the social collective, moving a man to enact the masculine role that adapts him to the outer world, the anima sits between the ego and the unconscious, moving a man to feel his portion in nature itself — everything he can’t control and possess. …the very givenness of life. Nature has no goals. Nature just is. It’s life and fate and death, all those things that can’t become fully conscious because they’re bigger than the ego can contain.

    Paul Watsky’s essay “Anima” points out “Jung emphasizes the anima’s role as that factor in the male psyche responsible for the
    process of projection, not just for projections of and onto women—all projection”. (which would include the “shadow” projection we often do to our “enemies”).

    He cites analyst Polly Young-Eisendrath, who defines anima as a “gendered complex of not-I, as emotionally charged collections of images, habits, thoughts, actions and meanings that limit and define self.” (Gender & Soul, p. 151)

    He quotes Jung:

    The “animos” mist surrounding the man is made up chiefly of sentimentality and resentment…. The effect on the ego… is extremely difficult to eliminate. In the first place, it has extraordinary force and immediately endows the ego personality with an unshakable feeling of rightness and righteousness; and because in the second place, the reason for the effect is projected, that is, it appears to originate in objects and objective situations…. The archetype…fascinates and captures consciousness in an hypnotic way. Not infrequently this gives the ego an indistinct feeling of moral defeat, leading it to behave in an even more defensive, defiant and self-righteous manner. This inferiority feeling then closes the vicious circle and excludes all possibility of the reciprocal
    approbation essential for a relationship. (Spring, 1950, p. 7)

    He also quotes James Hillman:

    Depersonalizing the anima means what it says: seeing through the personal aspects of all personifications. It refers to that recognition that all the personal me-ness and self-important subjectivity derive from an archetype that is quite impersonal (Anima, pp. 125, 127)

    The ego feels threatened with annihilation. Including by the rest of the Psyche or larger Self, including the anima. (I imagine the annihilation feared is likely from assimilation).
    For me, this is especially pronounced for AS, where the sensory stimulations of emotions are poorly regulated, and thus feel worse, like catastrophic almost.
    So being told to accept life “as is” has always made me feel like I’m being annihilated. (Especially when I learned that not caring about others feelings was sorely wrong and to be chastised). And then the social problems basically derailed all prospects with the opposite sex. And not only my father, but also my mother would tell me “that’s life” (i.e. that I had to wait, and improve myself in the meantime, before I would be ‘acceptable’ to a girl).

    Since the anima is the face shown toward the larger Self, then this part of me felt like a helpless violated female whenever things wouldn’t go my way.
    The “hero” and “persona” were the masculine element facing the outside world, and it was as if they were assigned (by the ego) to valiantly protect that inner female from blows by the outside world, by fighting and defeating the dragons without, that sought to extinguish the ego or soul.
    When they couldn’t make these achievements, then it all the more proved I wasn’t “worthy” of the completing but distressed female element.
    This drives the passion of fighting for what ego believes in. (Beebe’s book closes on the Grimm story of the Three Army Surgeons, where the servant girl of an inn represents the anima, and the warrior she falls in love with represents the ego’s defenses, embodied by the Opposing Personality. The innkeeper I assume represents a person’s ego, and the surgeons represent the person’s therapist or analyst. They perform their “healing”, using their own [physical, in this case] organs to demonstrate, but these organs get stolen while the servant is distracted, leaving a door open. They then try to substitute the organs from other sources, using “ointment” [representing “Tao” or “nature” to graft them on] but find they are taking the characteristics of the animals or person they got them from.
    This analogy is ultimately about the “therapeutic relationship” (the inn “is like a temporary office where the surgeons set up shop” and the maid, soldier, and thieving cat “might be parts of the therapist which are out of control in the countertransference”), if he himself isn’t careful, or have enough integrity.
    But the point is, the anima needs to be have integrity in order to prevent something like that, and to create an ego-Self axis, instead of an ego-Shadow axis where it’s energizing shadowy defenses

    Even all my holiday nostalgia stems from being so young at events like the Thanksgiving Day parade or Rockefeller Center and feeling so small and insignificant amongst all the people, and perhaps even the lack of autonomy of being with my mother.
    The whole big world that looked so threatening, yet had a lot of pretty or fun looking distractions (which basically require power and status to gain the most out of).
    So ego sort of tries to “do it all over”, this time as an adult with more autonomy and control. (Especially with introverted Sensing as the tertiary or “puer aeternus” function).

    So here, the two divisions I made in the goal of life, survival and sex (or as I rename them here: “Sustenance” and “Legacy”), find their common genesis.

    It would work this way for all men. Hence the references I see drawn with the Taliban and, militant religion (especially Islam) in general; like in Watsky’s paper. They are fighting for their (otherwise repressed i.e the oppression of women) anima, and the reward is its ultimate embodiment in the 72 virgins given to a valiant suicide Jihadist.

    For years, I was deeply resentful toward women, particularly the typical witty, spunky black woman role, because of feeling rejected by them as a teen, and then my mother even confirming this.
    But then I always admired them, or at least some of them, for their “solar” persona. (Even while I gravitated to more “safe” lunar personalities).

    So the thing with women is part of a larger attempt of ego to conquer the world. A world that keeps putting it back in “its place” at every turn.
    This just gets mixed up with the natural sex drive.

    • Even though Beebe’s interpretation of the “Three Army Surgeons” is about the “therapeutic relationship” of an analyst to his patient, I’m seeing where it can be applied otherwise.

      The Inn, again, is the “temporary office”, which is supposed to be a “sealed container” as “the emblem of the therapeutic relationship, which is built up with great care over time as the participants get to know and trust each other.” In such a case, “An idealizing transference is served by taking it seriously enough to get to know the object of it well, and a relationship that is built up by following the unconscious in this way has itself great integrity. Once achieved, the relationship can be the holding environment for the discovery of an even more radical integrity, which feels like the grace of God. In the tale, this radical integrity is mediated by the healing ointment.” However, these surgeons suffer from a “lack of attention to the honest building of a containing relationship before the risky work on integrity was attempted.” So, “a stage has been skipped, and the ointment does not truly serve the partners in the enterprise. It is clear that the relationship the surgeons primarily lack is to themselves. There are no patients in the story… Beyond the danger of taking the need for a containing environment so lightly is the fact that so many aspects of it function out of the surgeons’ awareness.”

      To recap the story, the surgeons arrive at the inn, and each one, respectively, cuts off a hand, his heart, and an eye, which they will then graft back onto their bodies with a healing ointment. However, the organs are to be kept in a larder until the morning. But the servant girl, being befuddled, from being in love with a soldier who is visiting, left a door open, and a cat came and stole the organs. The girl realizies this, and the solldier devises a plan to replace the organs with the hand of a thief who was being hung, a pig’s heart and the cat’s eye. The next day, it fools the surgeons who graft these things on with the ointment, until they notice they are taking the chracteristics of the beings whom these organs come from, whether stealing, running to garbage like a pig, or being blind during the day, but seeing mice in total darkness at night. (In the end, they demand money from the innkeeper).

      Hence, in Beebe’s interpretation, “No one makes an attempt to act with integrity; the surgeons’ body parts that are compromised are organs of te. (In the Ma-wang-tui manuscripts of the Tao Te Ching, the graph for te was composed of an eye and a heart.) The ointment is the Tao.”

      The servant girl, represents an “immature” anima. He draws an analogy to real war, which is a condition often welcomed by nations, as a “lesser of two evils” in restoring integrity, but where the “containment”, needed for this restoration is rarely if ever met, since it “almost always spreads beyond its designated boundaries and inflicts unintended sacrifices.”
      (He had also clarified that what causes the Opposing Personality, embodied by the soldier [or “warrior”] in this example, to become a contrasexual figure, is the anima energizing it, creating an “ego-shadow axis”. The anima is really supposed to connect to the Self rather than the Shadow, and I guess it would do that if it faithfully guarded the organs representing integrity).

      When the anima is not mature, a nation’s emotional tendency, like the maid’s in this tale, is to fall in love with the soldier and to fail to guard the organs of te. Then integrity is compromised, consciousness is devoured, and military ruthlessness has its say in shaping the new attitudes that appear. Compromises are enemies of integrity, even though at first they seem quite naturally to lock into place. In the tale these compromises of integrity are symbolized by the thief’s hand, the pig’s heart, and the cat’s eyes—what a therapist would describe as primitive greed, a morbid interest in the shadow, and paranoia. These are frequent moods of postwar disillusionment, but they follow any effort at integrity that has been poorly contained.

      Our army surgeons are forced to recognize parts of the thief, the pig, and the cat in themselves, and this difficult confrontation leads to a more conscious relationship to envy, shame, and anxiety. They also experience rage at the innkeeper’s failure to stand for the ideal of containment, and rage, as we have seen, is a step to the healthy self that can defend its integrity. Nevertheless, the would-be healers of integrity are left with a longing for wholeness. But even that is an improvement.
      Gone is the inflated reliance upon the power of Tao eventually to set things right. Instead, the chastened recognition of compromised integrity has produced a hunger for genuine healing.

      It was just recently, taking more note of “envy, shame and anxiety”, that rekindled interest in these concepts. He also says “For love of a soldier, the humane faculties depart, and a compromise of integrity occurs.”

      Again, the whole analogy was about a therapeutic relationship, but then he does say that this dynamic occurs with “any effort at integrity that has been poorly contained”. So I can see the innkeeper (which I assume to be the ego itself) replacing the surgeons, or that the surgeons represent our own faculties, in which we try to solve problems.
      So we have the same problem, of losing those organs of te through an immature anima. I can see I certanly deal with envy, shame and anxiety. Recall, according to one set of definitions:
      Guilt – “I owe you”;
      Anger – “You owe me”;
      Greed – “I owe me”;
      Jealousy – “God owes me.”

      In Beebe’s interpretation, he mentions both “greed” and “envy” interchangeably, as represented by the thief’s hand. So it can be summed up as, as I had surmised, “life” owes me, whether God, others, or what I can gain and indulge in myself. Shame is essentially, “I owe life” (whether God or self in general). Here it paralells “morbid interest in the shadow” (which I’m still trying to figure out the exact connection). Then, there’s also anxiety (or paranoia), which can be seen as a sort of fear of punishment by those we “owe”; a fear of a consequence of something.

      So all of these represent a lack of “contentment” in one way or another. Contentment with what one has, or his “lot”, contentment with one’s character or standing, and contentment with the security of the current situation.
      (I have mentioned, that the immediate context of Philippians, 4:11: “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” actually would apply to the second example, regarding our shame [before God], than the first, as it is often used to address. From there, it should also take care of the last thing, anxiety, covering the commonly cited v6-7, which was regarding our standing with God, but similarly assumed to be any anxiety about life. Still, envy and anxiety about life are problems that should be overcome).

      So the anima then is apparently what allows these problems to surface in life. This would go along with Watsky’s mention (cited in above comment) of the anima’s role as that factor responsible for the process of all projection.

      I can see in my own life, that my reaction to things is what triggers all three conditions. It all boils down to fear of consequences. This right away creates anxiety, and also shame, when I do something, and then get the sense that I’m really “deserving” whatever negative consequence may come from it, and then I envy the power of others who either make or benefit from the rules, or are in a position were they have more leverage to not suffer the same consequences. I admit, this is what has fired up my reaction to political conservativism (which often appeals to the laws of nature as to why power should be imbalanced as it is, with the sufferers as to blame for their own plight. Of course, as I’ve also said, this betrays their total reliance on “Tao”, with no real integrity beyond what they feign through moralistic rhetoric lobbed at others).

      As I had pointed out here in Beebe’s terms, this development (“relativization of the ego” with its defenses, basically) is all connected with “integrity”. The purpose of integrity is supposedly to deal with the issue of “character” represented by the archetype known as the “Demonic” (which is a particular ego state, that perceives and defends us against destruction). To follow nature purely (without “integrity”), in which we act out the drive for survival it produces, also constellates the Demonic Personality Complex, which represents the ego’s fear of destruction, which then all the more fires up our drive for survival, and protecting us with distortions, leading to a vicious cycle.

      So Beebe says the purpose of integrity [“in depth”] is to deal with this, and make it more supportive. This is done by the establishment of a real relationship between dominant and inferior function (which of course, is what the anima/animus takes up), which creates a tension of opposites between capacity and incapacity and thus relatives the ego’s identification with just its superior aspect. This creates a genuine humility which enables the ego to want to learn from the Self rather than assume it (the ego) has all the answers. So, (as he himself explained to me) relativization of the ego’s claim to know how to cope with the challenges to life is essential for allowing the compensations of the Self to emerge, and for the person to feel that they are actually needed. And Part of integrity is accepting one’s “portion.” This is obviously what the envy, shame and anxiety are all about.

      • This might be how the story fits everyone:

        •Three surgeons aim to show off their ability to cut off hands, heart and eyes and graft them back in with ointment

        Man, takes on the “knowledge of good and evil”, from the primeval temptation to “become as God” (hence, the quasi-“magical” power)

        •They arrive at the inn and meet the innkeeper

        This “Fallen” state is embodied in every born “ego”

        •The servant girl is in love with a soldier and forgets to close the door the organs are stored in

        Our anima/animus (also connected with the “inferiority complex”) energizes the “Opposing Personality” (or “Warrior”/”Amazon” archetype), creating an ego-shadow axis, instead of supporting the integrity of the Self.

        •The cat steals the organs

        In our reactions to life (through anxiety, which is the cat’s nature), we lose our contentment (hands), purity (heart) and spiritual sight (eyes)

        •The soldier gets the replacement organs: a thief’s hands (that want to steal), a pig’s heart (that leads you to run to “where the garbage is deepest”) and the cat’s eyes (That can’t see anything in the day, but see in gtreat detail at night).

        The Opposing Personality “backs up” the ego’s agenda, leading to envy, shameful behavior and feelings of shame (which are connected to “the shadow”, to answer my question, which is objectionable stuff we nomally reject and deny), and then anxiety (hypersensitive sight, after being “blind” to the situations that got you there).

  3. From Watsky paper, citing Hillman:

    Anima-consciousness favors a protective mimicry, an attachment to something or someone else to which it is echo. Here we see the wood nymphs that belong to trees, the souls which hover over waters, speak from dells and caves, or sing from the sea–rocks and whirlpools–and, most vividly, the succubus….

    Anima is the reflective partner, she it is who provides the moment of reflection in the midst of what is naturally given. She is the psychic factor in nature, an idea formulated in the last century as “animism.” We feel this moment of reflection in the contrary emotions that anima phenomena constellate: the fascination plus danger, the awe plus desire, the submission to her as fate plus suspicion, the intense awareness that this way lie both my life and my death. Without these soul-stirring emotions, there would be no significance in the natural places and human affairs to which she is attached. But, life, fate, and death cannot become ‘conscious,’ so that with her is constellated a consciousness of our fundamental unconsciousness. In other words, consciousness of this archetypal structure is never far from unconsciousness. Its primary attachment is to the state of nature, to all things that simply are–life, fate, death–and which can only be reflected but never separated from their impenetrable opacity. Anima stays close to this field of the natural unconscious mind. (Hillman, Anima, pp 23, 25)

    Ann Belford Ulanov’s “Anima…forms a bridge, across which the contents of the Self come to address the ego. These questions seem to issue from an other-personified as an anima…figure-who says, in effect: You must deal with me, respond to me, even if it is to reject me, but here I am and you cannot escape.” (Gender and Soul, p. 25)

    According to Emma Jung:
    The anima makes certain demands upon a man. She is a psychic factor that insists on being considered, not neglected as is the general tendency, since a man naturally likes to identify himself with his masculinity…. What matters to a woman is the personal relation, and this is true also of the anima. Her tendency is to entangle a man in such relationships, but she can also serve him well in giving them shape–that is she can do so after the feminine element has been incorporated into consciousness. As long as this element works autonomously, it disturbs relations or makes them impossible. (Two Essays, p. 81)

    Mrs. Jung’s homey language refers to a crucial, rare, and somewhat hard-to-grasp aspect of individuation that Jung called “the relativization of the ego,” referring to a type of self-awareness whereby one recognizes that one’s conscious sense of identity is but one component of the psyche. Where she acts on men as their internal other, the anima can mediate the discovery. This is how she serves, in Ulanov’s term, as the bridge to the unconscious. Our achievement of any new awareness imposes on us, Jung would assert, a moral obligation to use what we now know–which, In the present case, means to continue relating to the anima. A first step might be to pay attention to our projections

    The techniques Schellenbaum recommends are familiar staples of classical Jungian therapy–active imagination, dreamwork, drawing, painting, modeling–aimed at conducting a dialogue with the anima, paying special attention to the feeling-tone of the encounter:
    An aggressive affect…will neither be devalued nor denied. Instead, judgment-free questions will be put: What do you want to say to me? What neglected aspect of my self seeks expression in you? Is there some necessary delimitation that you want to force from me? Are you signaling some life task that needs tackling? Or, what in my life would you like to destroy? A particular attitude or relationship, or a particular behavior of mine? Such a dialogue with the anima should, according to Jung, last as long as required for a subjective feeling of peace and satisfaction to set in…. The basic attitude of the mature anima, active receptivity, stimulates the pouring forth of images. (Gender and Soul, p. 60, 62)

    Boyd-MacMillan James Loder, Mystical Spirituality and James Hillman p249

    Hillman depicts ego-relativization process as uncovering layers of images for which heroic ego is not responsible. He uses Jung’s “withdrawal of projections”. Person differentiates between ego and what has been projected onto it. At first, the ego is strengthened, since *it* has decided to do this, but is eventually relativized as it is recognized as one of many images.

    [wonder if this might include projections onto the anima, or projection of a distortion of the anima onto the ego when things aren’t going right; hence feeling like a helpless female]

    Robinson Conscience and Jung’s Moral Vision: From Id to Thou p.81

    When the ego sees itself as sui generis, there is a tendency to seek significance or meaning for one’s life through an accumulation of possessions–broadly understood–and the pursuit of goals that support this self-inflated attitude. The result of these hollow pursuits is that “we demand that the world grant us recognition for qualities which we regard as personal possessions: our talent and our beauty”.
    Yet these false possessions do not constitute what is essential and enduring but rather are limited–and thus limiting. These endeavors may translate into a life in which position, marriage reputation, outward success, and money “are sought and attained, and set leave the individual unhappy” and eventually, “neurotic”.

    Rimbach Retirement: Life’s Mount Everest p107

    delusions of an inflated ego “derive from a state of ego-self identity which assumes oneself is the center of the universe and hence attaches private significance to outer events which are in fact totally indifferent to one’s existence”. Symptoms of inflation include spells of anger (force or coersion), power motivation, intellectual rigidity (private truth or opinion equated with universal truth), and lust (pure pleasure). “Any desire that considers its own fulfillment the central value,” claims Edinger, “transcends the reality limits of the ego and hence is assuming attributes of the transpersonal powers”.

    “Reality-Limit” sounds like a pretty straightforward term, but I’m seeing it is really an eastern concept, connected with nirvana or perfection. So I’m not sure if I’m taking it the right way here, but it would seem to fit together with Job’s story.

    The “knowledge too wonderful for me” would basically be “beyond ego’s reality limit”, and hence Job represents an inflated ego, in questioning fate (which in Jungian terms, lies in the domain of the Self). Fate as we see is often included with “life” and “death” as the things too big for the ego, and lying totally in the unconscious. Just like what the person cited in the above post had described to me: “Nature just is. It’s life and fate and death, all those things that can’t become fully conscious because they’re bigger than the ego can contain”.
    (“Fate” can be understood as the entire set of cause and effect factors as they come together for a particular outcome. It all seems “random” to us, but each element of every event can be traced. Just not by any of us, because we cannot possibly know all the factors that will lead to an event like an accident, including the forces creating the trajectories involved. Like what makes the person swerve one lane over instead of just a foot, and how much a substance or fatigue may have affected his reaction time, and then what made you be in his path at that moment).

    Life, fate and death are what Job was grappling with. The narrative does portray simply God and Satan as being behind it, but this is not usually revealed, and when we try to speculate on it, we always get it wrong.
    So his “friends” aimed to correct him, but they were just as much inflated, in speculating on him being punished for sin. Likewise Christians who say stuff like “God is testing you”. Basically “assigning a private meaning” to the events of the person’s life.

    One group of people appealed to the Law (God is punishing you for sin), but the truth that would be ultimately revealed was that “by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified”, and nor would it guarantee health and prosperity in the world; and the other takes various New Testament passages on the sufferings of the early church and applies them to everyone. Both views end up playing upon man’s deficiency. Man is a lawbreaking sinner, who deserves pain for one purpose or another: either punishment (Law for the unconverted sinner) or “Trials to make us grow” (Which would presumably be “grace” for the redeemed).

    Christ had paid for man’s deficiency, so both of these positions essentially deny His work and thus represent Satan’s accusations.
    They do make for a nice quick “pat answer” to give the sufferer, and as many teachers today have learned, it also sells to a world trying to deal with pain. (To wit, all the books on “how to achieve victory over problems” or “the abundant life” understood as a state of being able to cope or not let life get you down, through attitude adjustment. Anyone like Job, who doesn’t “get with the program” then gets judged as perhaps “denying the power”).

    Though what strikes me is that if knowing why (regarding fate) is beyond the reality limit, the actual temporal suffering of the stuff that makes us question in the first place (i.e. the effects of fate) is obviously not beyond the limit, and this seems unfair. Hence, the popularity of the above mentioned teachings.

    While I know good and well my portion in nature is pretty small (as is every other ego, though it doesn’t look like it when I see some others profiting and apparently thriving in the world), I seem to operate on the premise that it SHOULD be bigger. That the way everyone else, (including God) does things is wrong, and get upset and depressed (Johnson: “depression compensates for inflation”) when the concrete reality fails to line up with this (thus “putting ego back in its place”)
    My sense of my portion in nature was already damaged because of my Asperger’s social problems, and then my father essentially rubbing it in by constantly setting me apart from the “functioning” world. So it seems my rejecting of my portion in nature was to compensate for this.

    I see they say the goal is to “depersonalize” the anima according to an “impersonal divine background”. This is where I start questioning some of this. It sounds like they’re saying for sure that the divine is impersonal.
    Though the fact that God apparently can’t be experienced outside a subjective “faith” makes it sound like this is right. (Subjectively, I can conjure up any idea). But still, (objectively) we can’t know. Unless by “personal” they mean an individual person.

    Or that the alternative to “personal” is something totally unfamiliar. God does say “whom shall you liken me” (Isaiah 40:25), which is a rhetorical question whose unanswerability is its whole point (like the ones He asked Job), and when we describe Him as “personal”, which is a term not even used in scripture, but rather based on our own deductive reasoning, we are in fact presuming to answer that question. “To whom shall you liken Me?” – “Why, to a PERSON; that’s who!”
    Still, this “otherworldly” reality is scary, when held as the alternative to this painful world}

    AS seems to be what causes me to desire the structure (predictability/familiarity) of both concrete validation and the abstract “stories” of the “private significance” of indifferent events.

    It seems letting go of ego just leaves us in a world where other inflated egos (who seem to be favored by the circumstances, allowing them to credit themselves so much) then dominate, affecting us. Perhaps this is why others who embark on these kinds of paths leave and become monks. Who can stay in this world that provokes ego, and yet the key to wholeness and health is relativizing it?

  4. Trying to understand what the collective unconscious (that ego is supposed to be relativized in favor of) really is. Jumping this part of the topic back to here:

  5. Continuing to digest this stuff,

    Here is a table breaking down Tao vs te, as I understand it from Beebe’s exposition, and extending them to the Gospel:

    Nature (Tao)
    [the natural outgrowing of the universe]
    Integrity (te)
    [what we bring to our participation]
    favor of power
    “laws” of give & take
    sexual drive

    Care (eros)
    Justice (logos)
    Enforcement of
    “give and take”
    “flesh” “spirit”
    Law (universe; sin&death) Grace

    Te is “the integrity we bring to our participation in Tao; the active expression of Tao, resulting from an individual living and cultivating the Tao.”
    (Hence, “self-help” principles in the form of coping strategies involving changing our attitude, and that the individual is the one always given the onus to change, almost never the “system” or even individuals with power. It’s a total “bottom up” process, but to me, it looks like top down would be more effective, but there’s no way to get all the people on top to “move” differently than they are. This was what I described as a greater “inertia”, which is a natural principle, even in the physical cosmos).

    Perhaps this could tie into an explanation of [my long standing question of] why we find ourselves thrust into a world that looks like it’s all “nature” (no God moderating the deeds of the powerful), yet we are supposed to assume there is a divine standard of integrity and not just act out of nature in kind (and hence, to be “Tuccia’s Sieve”; suffering the “piercings” of life, but not letting the water flow through as would come naturally).

    Still, we believe in the equality of all men, so accepting what amounts to a kind of de-facto “superiority” of some, (who manage to gain advantage; even if we argue that it doesn’t really matter), just doesn’t sit well. (i.e. like how in economic rhetoric, defenders of the rich will say “they are just better than you at producing value”, and the same can be said in other areas involving competition, like social; why some guys get girls quicker, etc. All of these issues covering the balance of power in life. Even if one assures this does not determine true “personal worth”, and thus “superiority”, it in practice is a kind of superiority, where we must defer and accept life as it is, and they have more leverage to gain what they want).

    Overall, it still seems the universal message is a favoring of power. Even if we argue that they’ll “get theirs in the end” (like in the afterlife or whatever). We still have to live with these people now, and the more power they have, the less likely they’ll be put in the place where they have to surrender ego to survive, like the rest of us are being counseled.

    To look at what has made life more difficult for me (especially in light of much of the counsel often given by the world) as I’ve noticed over the years, in terms of the functional perspectives:

    Equilibrium: no justice, no correct answers (T)
    Transcendental/existential: the couterintuitiveness/irrationality of “fate” (purpose of events; “[not] meant to be”; randomnity vs divine “testing”, etc). (N)
    Emotional: feelings dismissed (“that’s life, let it go, stop whining, nobody cares about your feelings, don’t be offended— just swallow the tough talk and learn from it, you don’t produce enough value, so just become a better person”, etc.) (F)
    Practical: living with the losses (S)

    Much of self-help is basically about coming to terms with the first three, assuming that will make you cope with the last one (which is really the starting point, of course). I guess, for me, my difficulty with that is a combination of AS, plus S (Sensing function) simply being tertiary; and thus connected with the complexes (ego states) of the Puer (which feels vulnerable and helpless sometimes), and the Trickster (by which I feel totally bound).

    Thus, I have noted, I’m supposed to “accept” a “fate” (even if it’s really God behind the scenes working all things for some purpose) that places others at an advantage, while those people themselves deny fate and say it is their own “character” that caused their success (and others’ lack of character that leads to their failure or struggle).

    This is the heart of the battle between the active legalism of Job’s friends, and the passive legalism of Job (i.e. acknowledging that these “laws of success” expressed by the other side, embodied in the “friends” are true, but protesting that he has held up his end of the deal, and is thus being cheated, and therefore God is unjust).

    God’s “answer” is pure “tao” (nature): “Where were you when I made the heavens and the earth?” and listing all the wonders of nature, showing He is in control of it. (The World Bible points out that the Chinese translation of John 1:1 even substitutes “Tao” for “Logos”; i.e. “the Word”!)
    Job was reacting to what amounted to “Tao”, since even though his calamities were portrayed as God “allowing” Satan to “do” the stuff to him; it was all stuff that frequently occurs in nature, and according to the timing of “fate”; both purely natural (such as weather and disease) or manmade (such as marauding bands of thieves and murderers). He did not know what was behind these things, just as we today (who might read Job and other scriptures and surmise explanations of our own circumstances from them) don’t know.

    While he may have been reacting to nature, what he questioned was the other side of the equation; [God’s] integrity.
    So Elihu’s answer (which prefaced God’s answer) is what covers the “te” side of things, at least as far as the “justice” part of it; that God is just, and the wicked will die, and the righteous prevail. (And he later goes into a bit of nature as well).

    Since we don’t see justice meted out like this in our own world today, many are left to conclude it really must refer to heaven and hell after this life. (And that all die is taken to mean simply that “pain is temporary”; as the consolation).
    But it really shows the age of Law, and in which in reality, all men are wicked and would perish. So what’s missing [from revelation] at this point is grace; the “care” aspect of integrity.

    So in God’s own response, the focus was power, rather than “te” (integrity: care + justice), while the “justice” part was what both Job and his friends were arguing over (the friends defending that aspect of God’s integrity with the assumption that suffering is evidence of personal sin; and Elihu just defending God’s justice in general), but counting on that was futile, as man’s fallen state renders him unable to truly fulfill the standards of justice. (Hence, Job being corrected, and the friends needing atonement for “not speaking of Me correctly”. And the friends did start off with [unspoken] care, but it quickly turned into justice).

    When people appeal to “that’s life” or “the strong survive”, or “I gotta do what I gotta do”, or even “pull up your bootstraps and make yourself the kind of person who produces value for others; then you’ll have more” (usually in justifying some injustice, in the form of bullying or dishonesty, or abuse of power, or the fickleness of people and who they look up to, etc.), they are appealing purely to nature, —without integrity. (Integrity is unique to humans, and while our instincts may line up with “the law of the jungle” like that, to just go on that alone, without integrity, is to be just an “animal”).

    When the Church sets itself up as an institution that must make money to survive (and pay the leaders, so they can “live”), then it too is operating off of nature more than integrity, and the result is people ultimately becoming “numbers”, and faulty number-increasing “growth” tactics; whether stoking up fear on one end, or watering the Gospel down to entertainment or a “prosperity” message on the other end, becoming the main drive.

    Basically, the message, from the Church that employs a number of many tactics or techniques to draw a lot of people and grows, to the “jock” or “jerk”, etc. that wins all the girls, to the corporation or entertainer that produces a product, and makes millions, and people will give up all their money to these enterprises, and the products may not even be that good in the long run, but they will still justify them, while scolding and even begrudging some poor person for supposedly wanting “freebies” they didn’t earn; the whole “produce value and then you will be rewarded” dynamic is pure “LAW.
    It’s a “secular”, naturalistic law, mind you, but still just as much “law” as its religious counterpart: produce ‘value’ for God by keeping His “Law” (believe in Him, “spend time with” Him [in Church worship and personal devotion], “trust Him” in difficulties, “grow” [in ‘character’] for Him, behave well for Him [as defined by the Commandments], save souls for Him, do [numerous other] good works for Him, etc) and you will be (or at least “prove yourselves”) “saved”.

    I’ve found, in battling or struggling with these things over the years, that when their defenders rationalize them, it would always use basically, logical “nature” (“the church and its leaders have to survive too”, “strong confident males will be better protectors, to propagate the species”, “capitalist leaders have so much responsibility, and so should be rewarded for it”, “God/Jesus did so much for you, now you don’t seriously think you can have His favor with nothing on your part”, etc), it would be very hard to answer. It does seem to “make sense”. Yet, something still seemed to be missing from the equation.

    The common denominator of all of it, is the symmetry of give and take; basically, a trade. (This was easy for me to recognize, through my dominant introverted Thinking perspective, which looks for what is “correct” according to properties such as symmetry, which I learn individually rather than some logical consensus, i.e. in the environment. The world often goes for the consensus, and thus seeming to not make sense).

    This, as taught so extensively by Paul, is all apart of pure “nature”. Even the “divine Law” part of it, for while the Law is good, holy and spiritual, it still has to be attempted to be kept by us, who are carnal, sold under sin.

    The Church, ironically as much as it’s colored by nature, still came to see nature as itself what was “fallen” (and in need of replacement with a literal, physical “New Heavens and New Earth”, which many are still waiting for). But it actually remained “good” as God created it. (And this ultimately was the message of God to Job, who obviously came to despair of the physical world and his deflated place in it).
    It was man who lost integrity (state of being “untouched”; in this case, spiritually) when we took on the knowledge of good and evil. (We then projected that lack of integrity onto the physical creation. We see one animal devouring another, even one galaxy devouring another, and we see our own acts of cruelty to other humans in that, and conclude that it’s “evil” and needing to be replaced).

    I guess a lot of the frustration and disillusionment we suffer (including expectations about God intervening) is that we look for integrity in the universe, but it is supposed to be what we bring to the universe, not what we get from it. (Carl Sagan even supposedly figured at one point, if we ever do find intelligent life in the universe, it will be the same old stuff as us. Even if they have a higher intelligence that makes them rise above some of our problems; they still will have developed in a violent universe where any life forms must be “fit” enough to survive amidst laws that make it easy to snuff their life out).

    That I guess is why so many religions and philosophies point “within”. Modern evangelicalism portrays God as external, but the movement (and especially the charismatic element that is having wide influence) has been coming under criticism from Reformed types and others, for being so (in practice) focused “within”, itself, instead of a more “corporate” sacramental focus.
    I would say the criticism has a lot of good points, for the inner focus comes from contextualizing scriptures on suffering and “growth” (to our contemporary experience, when they were addressing issues the first century Church was facing), which then happens to fit right into the “self-help” for the “abundant life” modern man seeks, and paralleling the other religions and philosophies. The Gospel is not about inner strength or growth to cope with life; it’s about the forgiveness of the condemnation of the Law man had brought himself under through trying to take on good and evil through his efforts.

    So grace is God’s ethic of “care” (including the patience of “constancy”).

  6. Nature is good (Gen. 1), but we “sin” when we appeal to it where we should be manifesting integrity. This itself may even be the very act of taking on the “knowledge of good and evil”. We’re saying we know we’re “good”, and essentially blaming nature, in one way or another (either affirming it as good, and our actions good along with it, or saying it’s bad [i.e. “fallen”], and makes us act the way we do, even though we ideally wish we didn’t, and are trying not to, as in the common understanding of “repenting”).
    The way to know whether a pure nature approach is justified, is what Jesus [paraphrasing Hillel] said: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt.7:12); aka the “Golden Rule”; which Jesus described as actually summing up the entire Law!

    To take an example from world politics, both capitalism and communism are Nature at its most feral. Survival of the fittest (i.e. most “powerful”). “control them before they control [and destroy] you”. The only difference was the means of control. (a network of powerful “institutions”, either “government” chartered, or “private” enterprise).
    Both sides construct extensive rhetoric appealing purely to Nature, as if that automatically justifies all their actions, and thus by itself [as it were] synthesizes “integrity”. (i.e. justifying them).

  7. In the area of current race issues, “te” says that we should all be equal, and blacks should not have to be “extra good” (which is like a virtual admission of some form of inferiority).
    But then whites, including cops and others are operating off of Tao (nature), when they approach the black community with fear and hypervigilance (leading to a focus on their “violence”, which for the cops will make them more likely to shoot, even when not really necessary).
    The black youths committing crimes (and then blaming white “racism”) are also following nature. (i.e. the cause and effect dynamic that has led to the current cycles of poverty and crime for many).

    So we can [essentially] demand they develop the integrity to not color the whole race or “community” with the images of these young criminals and thus stop shooting black kids, but we have to realize that we cannot make people develop integrity, so it’s more realistic to expect them to keep following nature.
    So we can try more to develop integrity and not act solely on nature.

    Otherwise, when both sides follow pure nature, then the outcome will be set by nature, and nature favors the powerful. Meaning, we’re ultimately not going to “win”. The cops (as well as corporate interests, etc.) have more power. Even with some advocating our causes in the seats of power (i.e. liberal govt.) there can still always be backlash, and as long as people keep acting the way they do, new generations can always be swayed to the old sentiments.

    Just think of the “soft” kid in the street, and how we tell him, no matter how “unfair” it is, “it’s a ‘jungle’ out there”, and the “strong” survive. They get the respect from the tougher kids, win the girls, etc. “That’s just the way it is” (i.e. “nature”)
    Well the entire black community is in the same position in America. The people doing this stuff in the street can’t keep saying “l don’t care what the white man thinks; it’s his fault I’m killing other brothas in the hood” and expect them to stop shooting and demonizing us.

  8. A perfect example of Tao is the legal industry. At some point, people began suing for every perceived wrong. My previous job being in court records, I was amazed at the volume of case files per year, and just for NY County (Manhattan) alone. After my first year there, they had to switch from five digit file numbers, to six digits.
    All of this increasingly rampant litigiousness forced businesses and governments (like especially on my current job, the transportation field) to create new, stricter rules, to cover themselves in case of an accident or legal dispute. Everyone tries to cover themselves this way, and if there’s an incident, the agency will say that they had the rules in place, and the worker violated them. So they are covered, and it all falls onto the little guy.

    Meanwhile, all the added rules, regulations and standards get to the point where it becomes hard to “breathe” in the world. It raises stress and fear, and has further created what I call an “Ice Age” mentality of hypervigilance. (Yet people with the right connections still manage to get by, at least for awhile).
    Yet while life gets rougher and more complicated for everyone else, the lawyers naturally profit off of this. They even come along and encourage companies to claim their “rights” (Like NYC Transit’s familiar subway route bullets, which seemed to be “public” for a long time, but at some point were copyrighted. That’s why some businesses or other venues trying to create the look of the subway have to change the colors).

    This is another instance where it’s easy to villify lawyers, but then you can’t really, because the first thing that happens to us, most of us will run straight to them ourselves.

    So they have put themselves in a place where their service will be valued, no matter what, which is like the number one rule of success, and why even in political discourse, the highly paid entrepreneurs are always lauded.

    So basically they’ve “mastered” “nature”, and are thus “rewarded” by it. “Integrity” is only something they will develop, at their discretion, if they want to be extra “nice”.

  9. Major upheaval regarding an anima projection.

    What comes to mind is the sad Pre-SD (Becker/Fagen) “68-71” song “Roaring of the Lamb” (the third song on the complete “Android Warehouse” CD, and with the simple production, likely one of the earliest).

    I don’t know what exactly is the meaning of the title. It’s a nice, sad sounding song, but it seems to be about prostitution or something. Like the end of the first verse is “Why in Miss Cheever it’s always raining” (They have to take such a beautiful song and make it so nasty like that). The second verse starts out sounding more neutral, but with “What a shame they start them off so young”; So I take it the “moon pie” they are fighting over is probably some girl. The last verse talks about beguiling someone’s daughter.

    The title draws upon the contrast between the lion and the lamb, with one strong and the other gentle. So this would be the gentle one becoming strong. But what does it mean in the context of these sexual acts?
    The first impression I get from “roaring” is that it’s referring to raw nature or “libido”. But then why is it “lambs”? Or is it about children being exploited and perhaps forced into prostitution or something? (as evidenced by the last two verses).

    In any case, not knowing what to replace it with in this parody, I just left the title in place, as “libido” is a most likely meaning, and if so, it fits.

    primal innocence basic instincts yearning,
    angel stationed with flaming sword a turning
    you must sweat and labor in this jungle
    you can forget — it kid, if you’re softer
    the laws of life say the fittest will prosper

    The roaring of the lambs
    draws the boys into the brine
    seeking what no one can find
    will I get mine?

    go for help; told your attitude is stinkin’
    only way out is to change your way of thinkin’
    pacify — yourself with positivity
    just deny your ego’s desires
    put your mind only on what’s higher

    And the roaring of the lamb
    Then revealed its fleeting presence
    And the substance turned to essence
    they say it’s inside

    Guy is lucky, finds the girl in struggle
    her true self past all she had to smuggle
    had the chance, to tell every man ‘no’
    yet did the dance, to make it certain
    missed the gold; vicarious Soul is hurtin’

    The roaring of the lambs
    draws the boys into the brine
    no consolation and no sign
    [will I] ever feel mine?

    The pull of the instinctual nature is like we see a nice looking object, that draws us down a path past money or some other object, which we see and then pick up. It turns out that the object is really an image from a projector we’re carrying on our heads, for the purpose of finding the money.
    Thing is, even after we’ve retrieved the money (or even perhaps, determined we don’t need it), we are still drawn by the image. It has become an end in itself. (A somewhat similar, more familiar analogy is a carrot on a stick that’s really attached to us). It becomes a “story” even, that is often unfulfilled in this life, but we keep trying to fulfill it as much as possible through the pursuits of desire.

  10. I dropped Beebe an e-mail, asking about the situation I described above (which pertains directly to some of the stuff I discuss in the OP. The person I projected onto basically “dropped the ball” apparently or at least assumedly, which was a bit crushing for me. Not doing anything wrong, but just exercising normal personal freedom, but in a way that didn’t line up with the archetypal hope I had placed on the person. So it’s just “my own stuff”. Should point out that a large part of this affect on me is from autism, but it does still fall into the patterns described by Jungian psychology).
    So he sent me three of his papers, “The Father’s Anima“, “The Trickster in the Arts“, and one he had mentioned to me earlier,  (discussing the difference between the “little ‘s’ self” and the “Big ‘S’ Self”) “Primary Ambivalence Toward the Self

    Very interesting, and I’ll have to keep looking over them, to fully digest them and see how exactly they apply to me.

    For “The Father’s Anima“; I’m trying to figure what exactly it is that was “withheld”. Perhaps compassion itself, as he was an ISTJ, and saw things through an SiTe perspective that was pretty “directive”, and could be cold (“that’s life”, etc.; and then me having an Fe anima that seeks approval from others).
    Tertiary Fi covered his love of the arts, but also usually backed up Te in its sharp motivational approach (especially since no one knew about my ASD condition, and they thought I was just being lazy and obstinate, or whatever). Inferior Ne envisioned better futures we had to struggle to grow to (and I was pretty impatient with stuff like “growth processes”).

    So one time, when chewing me out (a long dressing down probably for everything in general he saw wrong with me), he mentioned doing it because he wanted to see me be happy. It’s like if I just go through this ‘hardship’ now and grow through it, then it will one day make me fit to have success, gain women, etc.; basically to find the ideal wholeness the anima sought.
    I clearly remember that the part of me I associate with feelings of the anima imagined this hypothetical future day in the sun, which seemed so far off, yet meanwhile, all his cutting lecturing was doing was breaking me down further.

    So for now, that’s what I gather from “the father’s anima”. (Also, that my mother is also ISTJ, and typical of the personality of women I often saw around in the black community, and idealized as the mother is what shapes our anima, but the women didn’t like or respect me, and both parents blamed me for being too odd or not “presentable” enough).

    Primary Ambivalence toward the Self” so resonates with me. I see the paper is about borderline disorder (which I don’t have), and I guess he’s saying ASD’s “strong defenses of the self” (which he mentioned to me) has a similar effect?

    The article focuses on the analytic relationship (as did the Integrity in Depth book), where the analyst makes himself become what is known as a “selfobject” (Heinz Kohut) to the patient, in the process called “transference”. I’ve been speaking of “inner objects” more recently, which are images of influential people (especially parents), we retain in our subconscious; which often come up and influence or trouble us in some way. Some are very persecutory, such as what I now recognize as the “Dad object”.
    The anima projectee had also become definitely a “selfobject”, though a more positive one, being used to “shore up [my own] self” (p.100) for various reasons. (And I was particularly moved in various ways, when the person began talking about her and her father’s love for each other, and my ever so dysfunctional father had just died right before this [six years ago] and I then poured out my “First Father’s Day Beyond” article at that time, partly inspired by the video tribute to this person’s father posted earlier that same day; so this probably touches upon the “father’s anima” subject as well. Also, the fact that this was a tough TJ type like him who even reminded me of him in some ways, yet there was much more of an intellectual chemistry).

    While the “big ‘S’ Self” is what’s more commonly known as “the larger Self” or “transpersonal Self”, and represents the “whole” personality or center and totality of the psyche, which includes all that’s unconscious (both strengths and weaknesses), we would think the “little ‘s’ self” (or “personal self”) is what we commonly refer to as our “self”, and thus nearly synonymous with the ego, the center of our conscious life. But it’s really the “ego-Self axis” (Edward Edinger), or “organ of personality that seeks the Self“. So it is “possible now to distinguish self from ego in terms of experienceable needs, and Self from self in terms of their relative roles on the integration of personality”. (p.104-5) The Self’s push to “enter the world” of the ego (and basically reclaim it, which “may be hard for the self to accept”), is called by Michael Fordham, “deintegration” (p.109-10), and can become “associated with painful experiences of disintegration at the hands of unempathic selfobjects”, which then makes the individual feel unsafe and betrayed by the Self. (p.111).

    “For the person caught in primary ambivalence toward the Self, however…not only the analysis, but the unfolding of the individual’s life generally seems to offer continuous evidence of the dubiety of God“. (p.99)

    This is exactly me; what I have been struggling with!
    On the Wikipedia article on The Self, it quotes “In everyday life, the Self may be projected onto such powerful figures as the state, God, the universe or fate.” (Anthony Stevens, On Jung) and this I have been dealing with as well. (Like beginning to think of the idea of the “Self” as promoting “monism”, as I had mentioned on the “Systems vs Individuals” article).

    The article, like the following one (below), mentions the Trickster (p.107), which “corresponds to the castrating aspect of the anima and the envious side of the animus, which seek to undermine rather than to enhance the relationship to the Self. Much of what Kohut calls the self is expressed in the Jungian literature in terms of the imagery, mythology, and dramatic behavior of the archetypes Jung named the anima and the animus“.

    I’ve long recognized that an Se Trickster is what leads me to demand hard current tangible evidence of God, where religion tells you it’s by “faith” (which is essentially in practice, an internal ideation), and all the other self-help philosophies say essentially the same thing (inner strength, self esteem, etc).

    And I don’t just give up and turn away from it; I keep struggling, resisting, complaining, etc. (e.g. “the perverse drive of an energized complex that will not enter treatment, but will not forsake it either” p.98) and everyone gets frustrated with this “ambivalence”.

    I’ve also started thinking, in a sort of reaction to being told “that’s life” so much and then realizing it’s true, that if that’s the case, and my own subjective thoughts, feelings, and even perceptions must give way to “objective reality”, then how is “turning within” always the solution? (I compare it to looking inside a burning building for something to put the fire out). But I recognize this as the “table-turning” reversal of a very charged Trickster complex.

    That brings us to “The Trickster in the Arts“, which actually speaks of the anima (not the ego) needing to integrate the Trickster!

    At mid-life, the task for the male is to integrate the trickster into his anima structure. By anima, I mean his working spontaneous sense of life: not just the sexual urgency or immediate feeling of well-being that signal falling in love, but also his gut emotional responses to any situation. This anima response may run from the sentimental and gullible to the cynical and “worldly.” It is critical for the health of a man’s instinctive, unreflected judgments, that his anima structure include a healthy grasp of the shadow. (p48)

    The trickster currents that affect the mature anima seem to strengthen her alert relation to the world and to the ego-Self axis; so that the liminality of the trickster actually serves to keep the anima aware of what her true limits are. Presumably then her effect will not so much be to project, insinuate, or poison, as when the trickster has not been integrated, but will be to guide and compensate. Indeed, the trickster around her compensates her in a mysteriously helpful way. (p53)

    We think of the ego needing to integrate all the archetypal complexes, but here we see one complex needing to integrate the other.  Else, she keeps projecting it, and yet it keeps constellating, and ends up poisoning the anima’s instinctive responses into becoming like a Trickster herself! (p. 52)

    “Constellation”, as I have been using it, is the more correct technical term for the appearance of an archetype (where elsewhere, the term “triggered” is often used). Beebe explains it:

    The concept of “constellation” deserves some explanation, since it is important to understand better why an archetype like the trickster comes up at all. When an archetype is “constellated,” it comes up like the Big Dipper in the night sky, making its pattern of behavior apparent within the total functioning of the individual entity in whom or in which it appears. The archetypal constellation is even more like the star in the east which led the wise men to that place where an important new being lay. I accept Jung’s idea that the archetype is constellated when it is needed, and not otherwise, and so it was in Jane Wheelwright’s patient’s life. The trickster showed up at the point of the patient’s departure from life. (p36)

    I guess it’s quite obvious that my reactive, table-turning Trickster is not the “integrated” form of the complex, and perhaps this figures in “When a man’s anima has failed to integrate the trickster, she tends to be at the trickster’s mercy, and to become paranoid when she must respond to the shadow side of others” (p.49), which makes perfect sense for me (especially given the associated perspective being Fe, again; and hence, the response of just trying to turn the tables or “reverse the expectations” on them).

    I also take it, this paranoia could be what led the immature anima figure of the “Three Army Surgeons” story he discussed in Integrity In Depth to fall in love with the soldier to begin with?

    Beebe said that the anima is a paradox, being both an archetype of “life”, and also personal vulnerability. I associate the good feelings of life with this image, but the negative parts of life; the “that’s life” moments, I do see as an evil cruel trickster trying to trap me into some form of lower existence where I must accept whatever comes my way (even after being excoriated for offending others, even by accident).  This then rains down on the sunny “life” image; hence the feelings of vulnerability coming through the anima.
    Especially odious is the way we are taught to develop a good attitude, forgive self and others, etc. because it is “good for us“, and we’re “only hurting ourselves“, otherwise (which people will often tritely tell someone in the throes of deep emotional pain). People glibly shoot this out at suffering, but if anyone would really think about it; it’s a very painful catch-22 (i.e. double-bind. And let’s not forget the paradox, in both secular and Christian counseling, in that it’s “just a simple choice”, and hence “no excuses”; yet when breaking it down, it’s really a grueling arduous painful growth “process”, and then become frustrated and all the more cold and judgmental toward the suffering person if they don’t “get it” or “change their attitude” on the spot).

    Believing in yourself is a choice. It’s an attitude you develop over time. -Jack Canfield

    This I see as the epitome of a cold, godless universe, trying to, as it were, basically “rape” my anima. Trying to project this onto a strong, real world person would seem to give her a strong and solid embodiment, but no one can really carry that for anyone. (The chosen person, a seeming successful solar “alpha” type with a bright-looking future, nevertheless ironically, had recently expressed feelings of not accomplishing enough, despite the big new milestones in life including a relationship, huge health and education successes, the father’s continuing support and encouragement, etc. A big part of the whole “hook” was that I never expected someone like that to ever have responded to me so positively, seeing me as a potential help in ways. While I had mentioned in the OP Suze Orman [who’s the same type], as being too “solar” [and also definitely “alpha”, a concept I’ve adopted since writing the OP] to receive an anima projection, this other person has some definite obvious “lunar” qualities as well, and also confided or “divulged” some weaknesses, life frustrations, etc.)

    But perhaps integration is realizing that it’s the same “life” that is embodied by the anima to me, that is the same “life” that I feel she [the anima] is threatened by.
    So the task is how to reconcile them. Perhaps this is where the “knowledge of good and evil” really plays out. We split life into a ‘good’ anima and a ‘bad’ Trickster (particularly pronounced for me with Se as the perspective of the complex), but it’s really the same body of [emotional] energy, which we interpret that way, due to its effects on our comfort.

    So I guess this is what the Self is about; the hidden inner strength? (Quoting Edinger on p.104-5, “Since it includes the totality, it must be able to accept all elements of psychic life no matter how antithetical they may be.” [Which I guess would include what I call “powerlessness”, and of course, all other aspects of the “shadow”]. “It is this sense of acceptance that gives the ego its strength and stability. This sense of acceptance is conveyed to the ego by the ego-Self axis. A symptom of damage to this axis is a lack of self-acceptance”. So, “the task of psychotherapy is to strengthen the [self], so that the healing properties of the [Self] may be better utilized.” (Here we see a goal of Jungian analysis, which people claim seems to have no practical “solutions”).

    And so, I take it, the un-integrated Trickster is causing the anima to resist this process and energize the Shadow? [Which is what I believe he implied in an earlier message, creates the contrasexual orientation of the Opposing Personality complex]. For me, the Trickster reacts to a perception [from its tandem-mate, the Senex; a bit more on this complex below] that just finding inner strength “justifies” all the wrong in the world, by making me “roll with the punches”, and keep taking more).

    He had previously said the inferior function would relativize the ego’s claim to know how to cope with the challenges to life, so again, that would mean turning toward Fe more. Still not sure how to do that, though.

    Further description of the trickster archetype:

    The article also mentions artists as Tricksters, and this right away makes me think of Steely Dan, who created their very unique “jazz-rock” hybrid sound, by throwing surprise chord changes into their songs that create these unusual, unexpected “hooks” that draw in people like me, but I can now imagine are what makes others dislike them passionately. (And not even be able to explain why. It’s said “you either love ’em or hate ’em”, and this I have definitely seen. People who hate them from what I have seen so far, seem to be Fi-syntonic types [i.e. “Ordering Assessments” in the Intentional Styles model], who are perhaps subconsciously irritated by the awkward changes of emotions evoked by the different chords).

    I believe both of the leaders of the group, Donald and Walter[RIP] are ISTPs (Ti genius + Se sensory mastery), and Puer Ni “playfully encrypts their recollections into the deep meanings of songs and album concepts” as I mention in “Pretzel Emotions”. Ne as their own Trickster, would back this up.

    A perennial example of the sentiment of the “trickster” is the unfaithful partner of their song “Everything She Did”: “I NEVER KNEWwww YOU! You were a rollerskater!” (Then proceeds to demand she do all the same sex acts she did with the lover, and even to “Turn down the Eagles, the neighbors are listening!” –which then prompted this real-life other band to return the shout-out by including the word “steely” in their subsequent hit “Hotel California”).
    SD is very similar to the Beatles in unclear or ambiguous meanings, whom Beebe mentions as producing “trickster” songs:

    When a work of art involves the trickster archetype, I think it is likely both to have a trickster subject in it and to be a trickster itself in the way the total work makes its audience react. In the Beatles song, Martha the dog is the trickster subject, but the song is the real trickster, since the meanings continue to ramify in their ambiguous suggestiveness even after we know who Martha is. [He later mentions an example in “Penny Lane”; which is more familiar to me. Never heard of this other song before]. In Magritte’s painting, the famous pipe is the trickster subject, but it is the total painting that provides the trickster effect. And in Hamlet, the Prince becomes a trickster, but the play is the ultimate trickster. And so on with the sadistic feature editor, Shrike, and Miss Lonelyhearts; with the haunted governess and “The Turn of the Screw”; and with the enigmatically smiling subject and her painting, the Mona Lisa.
    In each case, the work is the concealed trickster, which tricks us into responding to the subject as well. I am concentrating in this discussion on the living trickster quality of the work itself, on all the ways in which the work works upon us, contriving to fascinate and upset us. Not least of these ways is the haunting anxiety that such a work can generate.

    Jung points out that when we cannot evaluate an unconscious content with clarity, it tends to exert a fascinating quality. Often trickster individuals that we meet in life exert a similar fascination, because we can’t decide how we feel about them. They behave exactly like unconscious contents of our own, and in a sense they are, because we are not conscious enough to know how to deal with them. The trickster work of art exerts a similar fascination.

    Often its trick is to get us into a double bind, by making us think or feel two different things at once, all the while exerting a hypnotic fascination that makes us want to stay within this ambiguous field. This is the uncanny fascination of Billie Holiday’s singing, and of Greta Garbo’s acting. These great trickster performers had the ability to project two contradictory emotions at the same time behind a mesmerizing facade. The effect of their art was both divine and satanic.

    The double bind stems directly I think from the duplex aspect of the archetype itself. Jung stressed this duplicity in his discussions of Hermes’s Roman descendant, lithe wily Mercurius,” who became the alchemical trickster. It is an unsettling ambivalence, a splitting into two minds, that the trickster work is able to accomplish. This split can take place within a single individual, or between members of a large audience. It is typical of the trickster, in art and in life, to split people into warring camps. Containing opposite feelings is what makes being a trickster so difficult. And perhaps the trickster is responding to some cultural double bind placed on him. As Gertrude Stein, who worked diligently at the effort to be a trickster artist, said, “it is doubly hard to be a poet in a late age.

    The trickster kind of artist is inordinately concerned with the response of others to him, so that trickster artists like Hitchcock, Garbo, and Billie Holiday often have enormously complicated relations to their publics, which involve elaborate strategies for winning and retaining the confidence of others in the face of numerous violations and betrayals of public expectations. Their publicity becomes part of their art. I think this phenomenon goes with the archetype. The trickster seems to love most to win the confidence of those who would have every reason not to trust him. (p37-8)

    For me, you can see these mixed feelings in the “Pretzel Emotions” article, as Steely Dan goes from producing deep anima-stirring songs like “Aja” and “Dr. Wu”, to the horribly blasphemous rant “Godwhacker”, and beautiful conscientious “difficult world” laments such as “Any World”, “Fire in the Hole” or “Royal Scam”, to really immoral hedonistic stuff like “Everyone’s Gone to the Movies”, “Cousin Dupree” and “Gaslighting Abbie”; and then me having to feel guilty for enjoying the sounds of songs like the latter, or listening to any of their stuff altogether. (And I in the above comment mentioned the questions regarding the meaning of the beautiful, sad sounding song “Roaring of the Lambs”. Also, the fact that even the true meaning of “Godwhacker” was initially obscured, as a rumor started that it was about Saddam or other religio-political leaders. Numerous other songs are the likewise).
    These guys are truly textbook “tricksters“!

    “shady lies; you can see it in their eyes…”

    So we see “ambivalence” is the entire theme and hallmark of the Trickster archetype, and hence the connection between two of the papers, for me (and the anima connecting one of these with the third paper).

    Putting together everything about the anima and the Shadow; the anima was always said to be the “bridge to the Shadow”, and at first, I didn’t know what that meant, but we see now how the complex of the inferior function is connecting to the lower complexes.

    I’ve already mentioned how the anima can energize the Shadow, and thus “fall in love with” the defenses of the Opposing Personality (shadow of the dominant or “Hero”, which also then apparently takes on the anima’s contrasexual nature. So I associate with the classic archetype of the “Amazon” [which the tough “alpha”, yet accepting and confiding anima projectee was embodying for me], and for a female, it would be a “Warrior”).
    Beebe had mentioned to me in an earlier message that the purpose of “integrity in depth” (the anima becoming more mature), is to deal with the problem of character, represented by the demonic/daimonic personality. This “last place” complex (the “shadow” of the anima/inferior itself) is said to be a “Bad Object”, and the anima deals in “object relations” (as we see in the discussion of Kohut’s “selfobjects”).

    He when discussing the relation of the anima to the Demon, he had previously pointed me to the movie As Good As it Gets. Not knowing a lot of movies (but my wife does), I just now this year, a few weeks ago, get around to seeing it. The “Melvin” character (representing the Demonic personality) is a horrible OCD kind of person, who often is terribly nasty to the anima character (Carol) in the diner she works at (in addition to throwing a neighbor’s dog down the trash chute). I take it the “holding him with integrity” (which in the end transforms him into a positive “daimon” figure) part means being strong and not letting him walk all over her. He begins to soften down, and she begins opening up to him, but he still says or does things that are upsetting. At one point, she orders him out of her life, but then changes her mind, and the neighbor persuades him to tell her he loves her, and it ends with them in a relationship, with him being more polite and lightening up from his OCD ways.

    So now, we see how the anima relates to the Trickster, shadow of the tertiary or Child.

    The only thing left, which I haven’t seen yet, is the Witch[Crone]/Senex, which is the shadow of the auxiliary or “Parent”. I’m sure he’s probably taught on this somewhere, and I’ll ask him next chance I get, but for now, I can draw a clue in something Lenore once mentioned to me, that the Senex personifies the drive to develop an ego to begin with. Its “enduring paradox” is that when a psychological process matures through consciousness into order, it becomes habitual and dominant, and thus, unconscious again!
    When we are in the grip of the Senex, we become one-sided with our dominant function. A one-sided functional awareness will harden into a brittle ego-centricity around the power of “I know”, and this is where we will feel negated by the rest of the world when it doesn’t favor our dominant perspective, which is the theme of the archetype.

    However, the Senex complex itself is specifically associated with our “6th place” function (again, the auxiliary in the opposite attitude).
    I can certainly testify to this as well, as I struggle with things in life not making sense (T) to me (i), and then a negative internal (i) big picture (N) of my “place in the universe” always forms around this. And so then I become very disgruntled and cynical, just like a “grumpy old senex”.
    I also end up tending to make everything that happens in life “about me” (including, for instance, the projectee’s life choice, which stirred up painful disappointments from my own younger days I was trying to compensate for vicariously), for again, the Senex is looking at a “big picture” or “grand story” regarding my place in life through apparent patterns that often seem too calculated toward certain common outcomes to be “random”, and which then can become like a living “Truman Show” where it is “all about me”; and this is part of what led me into religion, where it was taught by many that everything that happens is part of some “plan” God has for you, but soon seeing that everything that happens is still the same “that’s life” sort of principles my agnostic parents and others spoke of and I was trying to circumvent (here we see the Se Trickster at work again!
    This has pretty much backfired, because it then has the God of the universe placing a divine stamp on a lot of painful stuff, and you are just as much in the dark on what it’s really about or any sort of immediate compensation, and now told to stop questioning or complaining and just “surrender”. Basically back to square one, but now with a cosmic “Judge” standing over you whom you’re presumably angering!)

    So perhaps this Senex issue is where I’m supposed to start?

    So it looks like a progression of:


    Pay heed to the inferior function of the ANIMA

    to loosen the grip of the Senex via one sidedness of the dominant function

    Stop running to the “warlike” defenses of the Opposing Personality

    Integrate the Trickster instead of projecting it

    Develop the integrity of the ego-Self axis to transform the Demonic personality (by which we feel our ego is being disintegrated by life, rather than simply deintegrated by the Self) into a Daimon that infuses new spirit into the psyche

    In other reflections, while I held “gold stars” and other female “heterogins” up as having a kind of “power” (recall, that’s part of what the “Virgin” archetype is about; we can sum it up as the power to have said “no” to every man), the non-gold stars in all fairness really have their own kind of power as well.
    Most I have seen give their stories basically hold their previous hetero experimentation as just something they tried and moved past, now finding their true preference and being happy and fulfilled in it. A few previously identified as gold star, or were simply bisexuals or inbetween or uncertain orientation who had not happened to have had a full relationship with a man before, but later did fall in love with one, including NYC’s own “first lady”. (They’re not looking at it in terms of “loss” of some archetypal “purity”, which, if you may have possibly caught it, is the subject of the last verse of my retooling of “Roaring of the Lambs”; but instead seem to be happy).

    So it’s really a kind of freedom to explore (which being monogamous, and previously inexperienced, I did not have), or to overcome the pressure they faced, and not be fazed or feel “broken” by the earlier concession. So they’ve nevertheless maintained a kind of “integrity” (“untouched”-ness). I feel a bit jealous of them, at times, since I’ve been struggling trying to “get over” all the stuff (including power issues) in my life I’ve felt “broken” by, and feeling the need to project this sense of integrity onto others, vicariously, to begin with.

    So again, my task now is to find a way to integrate the Trickster into the life-sensed anima, and stop projecting it onto the extraverted Sensory data of actual tangible “life”.
    I was just thinking today, that I’ve been reacting a lot to the “universe”, and how motivational type people keep saying it doesn’t “owe” us anything, in response to anyone suffering and less than content, but then it’s not really the “universe” itself saying this. Clumps of soil/rock, gas or ice making up planets, stars, and the galaxies they make up, comprising this thing we are calling “the universe” and its laws, cannot “say” anything. They are not fellow people interacting with us, where someone “owes” or is “due” or can make claim of any such thing. (Which is the language of the “knowledge of good and evil” defining a “fallen” existence of humans). It’s these people interpreting what they see in the universe.
    But why do they appeal to the “universe” and who “owes” who, in the first place? It’s just a way of appealing to an ultimate “authority“, since they have no other answer, and most of these people don’t believe in God (where the religious can easily appeal to “God” as the one who doesn’t “owe” us, demands stuff from us, etc). It’s basically a de-personification of God, or a partial personification of the universe. So I guess I should not be getting too hung up in this lingo. But again, it’s the Senex and the Trickster looking to latch on to something to fuel their perceptions, and thus, the provocative rhetoric resonates with them.

    So that’s a start for me, of withdrawing the Trickster. Now, I just need to know more what to do with the extraverted Feeling aspect of the anima. (In SD’s “Fire in the Hole”, their own apparent Fe anima; i.e. “a woman’s voice”, reminds them to “serve and not to speak“. [BTW, on the SD Fans FB group, someone posted a rap video that sampled this song, including the first two lines: Gangsta Boo – Yea Hoe (Wick-it Mashup)]. Not even sure how exactly to “serve”, unless it’s just being a good worker and husband, and not complaining about life).

    It seems life is forcing us into the role of “Tuccia’s Sieve” (we’re all “broken”, but have to find a way to simulate “integrity” in it), but my problem is I don’t want to be a pot that’s punctured and yet contains water as if it were not punctured (which comes off to me like a mockery of “wholeness”); I want to identify with the unpunctured pot that allows water to flow (which is like a counter-mockery of the “brokenness” characteristic of “life”. Here again, we see the table-turning nature of the Trickster).
    Maybe it’s the unrealistic demands of an “inflated” ego? Or more likely, just an autistic reaction to the unmanageable feelings of negative emotions. Or even more likely; both, as the latter causes or at least exacerbates the former. In whatever case, this is my dilemma.

  11. Just finished (after several years of sporadic reading) Anbinder’s Five Points. While the last chapter is on the influence of Jacob Riis on “the End of Five Points”, it was a few chapters before, when covering the wave of immigration in the 1870’s, that the prologue features the story of Riis (p337-42).

    I was captivated as I read, of him in teens falling “passionately in love” with a girl, but both she and her stepfather rebuffed him, leading him to insult the stepfather “apparently destroying all prospects of winning her affection”. Four years later, he tried proposing, but the stepfather rejected him again.
    He then decides to leave Denmark for America. The girl’s mother feels sorry and sends him a picture and lock of her hair, which he “lived on for six long years”.

    He bounced around to different places in the States, such as New York (including Five Points) and Pennsylvania, often with no real home and no money. He also tried volunteering for the French and Prussian war, but kept missing the ships.
    Meanwhile, the girl got engaged to a “dashing cavalry officer”, plunging him into a terrible depression. But he continued gaining experience in the newspaper industry, and learned that the girl’s fiancé had died, and he was sold a newspaper, allowing him to pay off all his debt.

    He writes a letter to her, “pouring out his heart” and begging her to marry him. She was still mourning her fiancé, and angered at his “insensitivity”, wrote another rejection letter, but Riis’ mother, whom she gave it to, read it and didn’t send it, leaving him to wait for it.
    Her fiancé in his dying days had encouraged her to accept a man who loved her and was faithful (even if she didn’t love him), and then finally decided to contact him, and that she was willing to go with him to America. He soon went back to the Danish town and proposed, They were married two months later and returned to America, and he eventually returned to Five Points armed with his camera, to take the pictures that eventually got the area cleaned up..

    Such a beautiful story, and I’m not usually into “love stories”, real or fictional. Never knew this about him; or anything, besides his book, and the beach named after him I used to go to a s a child.

    I myself had recently been feeling down, and did a long mulled “24 Baxter selfie”, placing myself in the very spot of the impoverished children from an old Riis photo I had become intrigued by over the years (to capture how I feel emotionally at times; though I know, practically/physically, my life is nowhere near Five Points children), and on the very spot I had plotted where the old photo had been taken. (Right next to where I worked right as Five Points became a news item again around the turn of the millennium. This was actually planned particularly in the event of the anima-projectee’s life choice [above post], which my Ni Senex had seen coming years earlier).
    Had to position myself in just the right spot (counted the lines and squares in the ground) to line up to the template I traced from the overlay I did, and also had to get the passerby taking the picture for me, to stand in the right place.

    Feeling better now, experiencing a wonderful 25th anniversary vacation to Key West, and the beautiful resort closest to the “southernmost point” of the continental US. (Though some landfill, including what parts of the resort sits on, expends out past the old marker now).

  12. Part of the struggle for a sense of “integrity” (“untouched”-ness) is, as has been mentioned, the issue of power.So I’ve been thinking of what’s keeping me from just “giving up” and just looking to the afterlife as solace and incentive.

    Even though we want to believe we are the masters of our own fate, and have “earned” all we have (and perhaps more), we still want to believe we are “favored” by things beyond our control; whether “fate” or “God”. This would make us feel we are really special in the “grand scheme of things”: we are simply “chosen”.
    (So the Calvinist who says God is in control of who gets saved is just as guilty as the Arminian who says each individual controls his own salvation. To the Calvinist, we still “choose” Christ, and are “held responsible” if we don’t, and we were still chosen OVER others, who then remain in the “hated by God” position; attributed to their “willfully chosen sin”; and to the Arminian, there is still a strong element beyond our control, such as where we’re born, who gets to us with the Gospel or not, etc. so blind “fate” still figures, or then they claim God is in “control” of it, unwittingly conceding to the Calvinist premise, at least in part. In more conservative forms of Calvinism, behavior is held as evidence of election, and in actual practice, must still be ‘chosen’ to be changed by the will; it’s just that God is seen as specially enabling the will. But this still becomes a source of merit, and judgment of others).

    Or, it removes some of the guilt, as it isn’t our doing that life is unfair in our favor. But of course, we still have to claim some credit, and so the “rugged individualism”, where you just ‘choose’ to ‘delay gratification’ (which in one sense makes it “just”; we’ve had all our privation sooner, and so now we benefit, while it’s now others’ time to suffer), and then just pull yourself up.

    This is a big part of what makes any notion of afterlife compensation un-encouraging (aside from it being not even assured, but only inferred, imagined and hoped for). Like we can imagine getting everything we ever wanted and could not have in this life, but then it’s like “too easy”. Of course we can have it now. There was no longer any “challenge” we defied in getting it.Like when buildings are torn down, and we can imagine getting them back in “Heaven”. But that’s not the same thing as them surviving in this world of decay. (This “heavenly” existence removes them from their original contexts of purpose in this world).
    There’s something like the unlikeliness of getting something that made it all the more “special”. Just letting us have it in a world where we can have anything seems like a “copout”.

    It’s like granting the validity of all the injustices of this world, by saying yes, that’s the way it was supposed to be, and now here is your “compensation” for it. It’s like when we work and are paid for it. The work we did is what we were supposed to do, and according to an agreement, we are then given money for it, thus validating the labor. It’s basically the same “give and take” motif of the fallen existence.

    (Perhaps the fact that such an afterlife would turn out to exist at all is the “unlikeliness” that would make us appreciate it? Or that the same “fate” that can give us something so unlikely and special can also take it away. Hence “store up treasures not where thieves can break in and steal…”).
    It also brings to mind the Twilight Zone episode where the “everything he wants” world is really “the other place”)

    I’ve also at the same time found a church with online podcasts that sounds very interesting, called “New Abbey”, based in Pasadena. It’s very progressive; yet really focuses on what the scriptures actually teach in their original contexts, like the Fulfilled View, and also emphasizes love and compassion.
    The pastors speak of the “narrative” of our lives, and that each “story” is important.

    So I outlined what is basically my “story”:

    My story is one of having “high functioning autism” (Asperger’s syndrome), which was enough to make both physical and social skills difficult, but not enough to be recognized as a real condition. So expectations of both others, and myself were for that of a neurotypical individual (and the resultant disappointments and frustrations of others and myself, and from there, guilt and shame).

    The biggest problem was the difficulty coping with the frustrations of life, and getting cold, pat answers, that I was then judged for not receiving with the right attitude, and following through in action. What I needed was emotional support, but almost never got it, as everyone thought I just needed more pushing.
    At 20, I then began turning to the Church, for grace and divine help, but only found more of the same lack of support, cold answers and judgment, under the premise of a “rugged individualism” that is based on “promises” for God to “heal” us if we “come to Him” with the right attitude. Pain and unfairness now basically received a divine stamp, as part of His “Plan” that we had better not “murmur” against, or we might not actually be saved!

    This is what makes the message of “accepting our story”, including its pains, so hard for me to receive, now.

  13. The Role of Instincts

    Addressing the subject of “Man Deserving Pain” ( also naturally brought to mind the role of our instincts, which supposedly are what get us into trouble (with God, and with life in general) in the first place. Also, politics, where the tensions, especially racial, are based on instinct. Everyone can point out the bad behavior of others, but both sides are acting purely on instinct, including the various defense mechanisms involved.

    Man is driven by instincts for survival and reproduction.
    These, unchecked can create havoc and disrupt the order needed for human society (and thus, ironically, ultimately, our survival and reproduction).
    The Fall introduced shame (not the instincts themselves as assumed).
    The shame then made us obsess and/or oppress the instincts.
    This only made the problems “burst out” more, later.
    The divine Law shows us the areas where unbridled instinct becomes evil.
    This was to show us that we could not successfully suppress the instincts and be “holy” by our own efforts.

    The instincts keep driving, even when satiated. This is why they seemingly can never be satisfied. The pull of the instinctual nature is like we see a nice looking object, that draws us down a path past money or some other object, which we see and then pick up. It turns out that the object is really an image from a projector we’re carrying on our heads, for the purpose of finding the money.
    Thing is, even after we’ve retrieved the money (or even perhaps, determined we don’t need it), we are still drawn by the image. It has become an end in itself. (A somewhat similar, more familiar analogy is a carrot on a stick that’s really attached to us).
    But even this, in itself, is not necessarily the “Fallen” aspect of the situation.

    The survival instinct covers our aversion to pain and desire for comfort.
    This too has been interpreted as part of the “fallen” nature (aka the “flesh”). The “new nature” according to or at least implied by common “spiritual” teaching welcomes pain, because we “deserve” it because of our “sin”; it’s a substitute for worse pain we are spared from, and it’s “good” to make us “grow”.
    [So the part of us that dislikes pain is the very part of us that warranted it].

    The survival instincts, driving our desire for comfort, in turn drive our systems of “give and take” (or “trade”), to determine who is due the limited resources of convenience. We are geared to think we have “earned” everything good, and that others haven’t.
    This is what becomes corrupted into power mongering and avarice, in addition to [spiritually] “self-righteousness”.
    We worry about looking bad to others, because if others are displeased, then we won’t get stuff (whether favors, friendship, respect, etc.) from them. So then, we justify everything we do, even if patently evil. Or we worry and get anxious about what others think.

    Why illusion of scarcity amidst so much abundance:
    Survival instinct has run amok in the highest places. No matter how much gain is made, it is never enough, and they are still reacting as if living in scarcity (keep gaining, amassing, hoarding, tightening, passing this down, etc.)
    The Church always taught how nothing is ever enough, and would sometimes even point to the rich as the ultimate example, but this primarily is to tell others not to “envy” them, but otherwise, they defend their gains, by whatever means they can gain them.

    We are now caught up in runaway “survival mode” (the “ice age” as I call it). But the conservative Church sees no problem with this (always focusing on the reproductive drive; i.e. sexual behavior) but in fact is caught up in it and justifying it themselves; both economically and socially.

    There’s really an abundance of money and convenience at the top, but out of control survival instinct leads them to continue reacting as if under scarcity. So they hoard these resources, and then pass down scarcity to everyone else, by claiming things are tight, and they’re under pressure, etc. and so must cut back and raise demands and pressure for everyone else. They can then appeal to “nature” (“survival of the fittest”), and from there, assign blame to those without power for not doing more to keep up. This is to justify the system they are benefiting from.

    Racism is the survival instinct gone overboard, where you are concerned about the survival of the group, even beyond your own life (e.g. worrying about the overtaking of the race decades from now, when you won’t be here, or a “return of Christ” would have occurred sooner, rendering that event impossible).

    (Racism is still not ingrained upon the Church as against scripture. You have more “progressive” types now saying it is, but it is not seen by the more conservative as against “the core of the Gospel”, or a threat to “historic Christianity” as acceptance of homosexuality, where hundreds of leaders come together, –on the 500th anniversary of Luther’s theses and the start of the Reformation, to issue a united statement
    The Church, aiming to follow the divine Law (which they in some other areas say was abrogated by Christ), has gotten things backwards. Consensual behavior is to be opposed by them, but things that affect others [re. Matthew 7:12] such as racism, meanness, or even sexually, Trump’s behavior, are forgivable.).

    “Race realists” and other extremists (including religious ones) claim all the “facts” support their ideology. Others are essentially “wrong” just for being, and of course, any defense of theirs is an attack against the “truth” (and perhaps even attributed to the “fallen human nature” or some other moral defect).
    But the universal instinct is to survive, and if your ideology is [ultimately] not conducive to this, the people have every right to survive, whether you deem their defenses “right” or “wrong” or not. So you show yourself a danger to life, rightly resisted by others, (and you can condemn this resistance all you want, but you can’t stop it, at least not completely),  and will have to justify it in a way that admits diminishing others’ humanity and right to life.
    Once you do that; deny people’s rights to their own survival instincts (based on stuff like “we’re bringing the TRUTH!” or denigrating instinctual drives altogether), then it’s only one step from trying to exterminate the people! We see here why there is such an alarm, and comparison to Naziism and fascism.

    The insensitivity of past culture (such as race; being widely decried now in pop culture, but then defended by claims of “oversensitivity”) forever puts the lie to the common conservative notion of past society being “godly” until the 1960’s. It was a selective ‘godliness’ framed around a bunch of mostly sexual hangups, that often went way beyond even scriptural standards.

    The only thing that changed in the 60’s was a partial loss of power of one group, and stressed is partial; they were still dominant (never totally stripped of power, or “persecuted”, like many claim now).

    It started and the strife perpetuated, when when with power TAKE from others, then set up a false premise where they’ve already “given” [i.e. their fare share] (“we’ve made your lives better”), or the victims have already taken (“you’re lazy/sinners, and so are in debt now”), and so equity/equilibrium is actually maintained. From there on, they heavily preach principles of give and take, and guard against anyone “taking” from them, as if it was always universally wrong.

    They put down instinct so that people resisting their control don’t have a right to do so. “The truth” is that they’re to be subjected, and it’s due to their own shortcomings, never any wrong on the part of the subjugators.

    Sexual desire is a combination of two instincts: a hormonal arousal, and a desire for intimacy (stemming from the fact that parts of us are kept private by instinct, due to the the physically vulnerable position of both coitus and waste elimination. So we share these parts only with those we decide to be ‘intimate’ with).

    The hormonal disposition is usually toward the opposite gender.
    But for some, it’s for the same gender. When this occurs, the other instinctual desire, of intimacy, is still present, but now directed toward that same sex.
    (This has nothing to do [necessarily] with any sexual wantonness or “jaded”-ness, as commonly assumed).


    We should just realize that we are all driven by instincts, and try to keep them in check, rather than denying our own (i.e. ours are already kept in check via religious, cultural and/or genetic “superiority”), while only others are captive to them (and thus need to be brought under our control, or scared into submission through religious teaching).


    (My own inner observation; may differ for other people, especially since the associated function for the anima/animus will be the inferior function for each type).

    “FAULT” objects (I’m blamed for things):

    Dad object (concrete [S], logical[T]), what I should be doing in the tangible world for practical consequences (what “the world” expects of me)
    “come out of your IDEAS” (i.e. “dream world”, etc.)

    God object (abstract [N], ethical[F]), what I shouldn’t be doing for conscience sake and hypothetical consequences (what “God” expects of me)
    “Come out of your LOGIC” (“intellect”, “reasoning”, etc.)

    FATE” objects (about the things I cannot control; I do the blaming):

    “Universe” object (tangible, logical), the tangible working out of fate, including other people.

    “Big picture” object (abstract [N], values; i.e. “bad” [F]) What fate tells me about my sense of being. (What I fight in the quest for symbolic integrity). About “deintegration” (Fordham)

    So, overlaps with “fault” objects, in that Dad was the one telling me “that’s life!”, and God was the one I expected to change life, but didn’t, but instead seems to put a “divine stamp” on all the things in life I didn’t like.
    Both then will often add an element of “Fault” to it, in the implications that either I could/should do more to change situations, or not react [“sinfully”] to them (including blaming God and losing ‘faith’). Both speak of proper “attitude”.
    Fate objects often defy both my ideas and logic (and comfort [S] and Feelings as well).

    All four objects seem to reflect “shadow” faces SeTe or NiFi

    ST, NF effective in “being”; (idealistic in “doing”)
    SF, NT effective in “doing”; idealistic in “being”

    How I fight against the four “objects”:

    resist/react against any [practical] expectation imposed on me.
    Anger at [“secular”] “motivational” talk and talkers

    resist/react against any moral implication imposed on me
    anger at “tough” preaching

    Universe (The “What/who/how”):
    initial anger at things not going my way (eventually degrades into next category)

    Big picture (the “Why”):
    Negative meanings assigned to “universe” events
    Feel “wronged”, and thus “owed”, or on the other hand, “worthless”
    To prove this, will greatly exaggerate events and try to place blame.

    How extraverted Feeling “anima” receives objects (adopting the values of others):

    Dad: “You have not provided enough value to people; you have not earned respect”
    God: “You’ve made people not like you through sin”; or not fellowshipped with God
    Universe: becomes jealous of others favored by, or even accepting situations
    Big picture: feels greatly inferior, asks “what did I do wrong?”, and then employs [possessing] Trickster (see comment above) to distort and reverse perceived meanings

    (Then degrades into Demonic Fi which judges “universe”, including people and God, as “bad”, or myself as no good).


    Unmanageable feelings (when needing emotional support) original triggers:

    “THAT’S LIFE!” (NO ONE’s to blame; “FATE”; “Acts of God”, “TIMING”)
    Become disgruntled about the “big picture” implied by events

    “YOU’RE NOT DOING ENOUGH!” (YOU’re to blame; “FAULT”, effort “TALENT” i.e. that you could develop; matter of “character”).
    Become deeply antagonistic to “motivational” “tough” talk, such as secular and spiritual “self-help”, and political and religious “conservativism”. Wish “moderates” would respond more strongly. Struggle with inner “voices” (“objects”) and “conscience” vs self-will.

    [“Temperament” (“Functions”; i.e. cognitive type): ignored/not recognized; outcomes all placed on “talent” (fault)
    practically speaking; tied to “timing” (fate), since we’re born with our temperament]

    Both are put together into a schema where life “favors” others (objects needed for blaming)

    “Serenity Prayer”:
    “The things I cannot change” (fate)
    “The things I can change” (fault)

    What others do is “fate”, since we can’t control it, but can be contrived as “fault”, since we can influence their behavior, like doing something to garner a negative or positive reaction from them. This (our part in it) is deemed what we can change, but how they’ll react to any given behavior (what they’ll like or how much they’ll forbear what they don’t like, etc.) is what we can’t change.

    (The way this was often put forth to me made it feel like “they” were “part of the universe” [fate], and I was some subject who alone was responsible for all outcomes I was involved in [fault]. It was like the worst of both worlds!)

    Fault ultimately merges with fate, because of the fact you have no say-so in the fact that such “responsibility” has been placed on you. That too is “just the way it is”. (This parallels Calvinist theology’s “God is sovereign; man is responsible” premise, where man can’t help sin and fail to convert, without God’s particular “election”, but He still punishes you for your helpless state).

    Job illustrates the debate between “fate” and “fault”.

    nature = “fate”; integrity = “fault”

    When something is the other person’s “fault”, that (from your perspective) is “fate”, since you can’t control them. (Even if you can “make” people do things through “authority” or coercion, you still couldn’t control whether they would acquiesce or rebel).

  15. Sep 22, 2019 9:44 PM

    “anima projectee”

    having a good conversation about her field of expertise, and then suddenly cut me off for supposedly not “getting” stuff she says, and then ignoring my query of what this was about, and eventually got further annoyed that I still “didn’t get it”. Then goes into some past frustration about others who didn’t “get her”, and she “thought I was different”.

    She reportedly has some sort of dissociative condition. She seems like a completely different person from the one I knew years ago. As mentioned elsewhere, dissociation is the dynamic that separates our “ego states”, and it becomes a “disorder”, when it’s too great, creating “sub-personalities”. Of course, my “disorder” was High Functioning Autism, which she previously said she understood in some of our misunderstandings, but now tells me not to blame it for me being “self-absorbed”. (So what is it, then? It seems to be about these people “not getting her”, which ironically, was a pretty “self-absorbed” thing to say! She essentially made an assessment of my condition “all about her”. You can’t blame one person for your frustration at others. But it’s pretty typical of people judging me when they’re doing the same thing themselves! “Autism”, BTW was so named from “autos”, Greek for “self”, to mean “morbid self-involvement”).
    I was actually trying to be considerate in offering not to bother her anymore if she didn’t want, and previously, I even asked how she wanted me to interact with her, since I know I do go on with my interests a lot.

    But now, I’ve just spoken to my ASD specialist about this, and she thinks it’s from all the “missed cues” (the primary ASD problem), and even my attempts there to be considerate were still too much “all about me”. (Edit: just found this article that might shed light on mistakes that can eb made in communication that otherwise seems good: )

    I just feel done with people, and there’s no hope to ever have a “tribe”, even online. (Outside of close family and wife’s friends. The person said she was sorry she ever did her online persona. I sometimes feel sorry I was ever online period! Like I know I’m just going on about myself in topics like this).
    And as I’ve said in my treatise on pain, all the world (including counseling/therapy, and of course, religion) can be is “Job’s friends”, and give formulaic answers about “changing your thinking”. (And Job’s friends’ message can easily be translated into this). I can’t even voice my frustration by saying “I blew it again”, because that’s too “black and white” (another common problem). But the CONSEQUENCES of these “missed cues” and other “social blunders” are often “black and white”, and can be severe. The judgments others make and actions they take. And not just ASD problems, but financial/economic problems, race and politics, group and cultural dynamics, etc. But spit it back to the world, then there’s no such thing; no black and white, it’s just my thinking. I feel like I’m arguing my case with some shifty attorney trying to justify someone’s behavior with denials and gaslighting. One of my favorite sayings of Jesus from the beginning was how people “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel”. Look at what’s in the White House, but if you’re an “alpha”, anything goes.

    I guess it’s all my Trickster at it again, as the world is so bound in “give and take” (which I believe is directly connected to the “knowledge of good and evil” of the Fall), but when you’ve been accused of “taking” and not “giving“ enough (both individually, and collectively, like race and economic blaming), then this creates guilt, as if people have “strikes” against you, then you haven’t “earned” anything good, or have instead earned bad things. (Whether social, economic, respect, etc.) So to claim to be wrongly judged for something and suffer a consequence for it, then you’re the one who’s been wronged, and not indebted to the world. That’s what the “black and white” language is about. The world seems to know what this implies, and so shuts it down when articulated.

    So she is definitely a “Trickster” figure, which would then perhaps create such a “hook” for a Trickster-possessed anima, as I describe above. As quoted, from Beebe: “Jung points out that when we cannot evaluate an unconscious content with clarity, it tends to exert a fascinating quality. Often trickster individuals that we meet in life exert a similar fascination, because we can’t decide how we feel about them. They behave exactly like unconscious contents of our own, and in a sense they are, because we are not conscious enough to know how to deal with them.”
    I’m so torn between “Oh, she can’t help it, it’s the dissociative personalities”, and just being so angry at her. People in my life long questioned her (precisely the type of “judgment” she complained about with all the “silly people” who “don’t get her”), but now I don’t know. She basically reaffirmed all the judgments people made of me (before they knew about ASD), by denying ASD. I had thought she was so different from everyone else, but it looks like I was wrong.

    [Edit: I think more now, a lot of it is likely the person’s own, admitted poor job of giving cues. This had happened before, where she said she deliberately gave a “cue” about something, and I didn’t get it, and when I ran back several things I think could have been it, nothing matched, and I don’t see what else it could have been. (I might miss cues as they happen, but if I’m looking for them, I’ll be more likely to see them. When recounting this years earlier, from an earlier misunderstanding, she pointed out “I kind of put you in the category with everyone else. No, you didn’t want anything from me physically, financially or materialistically [like others], but you wanted the relationship to be a give/give and not a give/take”. I guess this would explain why she complained about other people who don’t “get” her in that context. Thing is, she had just told me a month earlier I was “fine” in communicating. But this “categorization” is unconsciously controlled, and can probably change at any time, and for subconscious reasons).

    Then, I remembered the time she actually tried moving up here, and the “clue” to what her upcoming “special announcement” to her followers would be was wearing a T-shirt of her hometown baseball team. We were all supposed to figure “{my city’s baseball team}”–>”baseball”–>”I’ve moved to the New York area”. (I guess “baseball” was supposed to convey “Yankees/Mets”? In any case, there was no real logical connection at all. Or, I guess,, the association most likely comes from the presence of a Minor League affiliate team. Still, it’s not anything anyone else would pick up from just a T shirt of the unaffiliated local Major League team).
    Sure enough, no one got it (my natural guess: “Oh, so you got a job with the team?” “With the League?”) and she admitted it was a horrible “clue”.
    Part of this might also simply be being an introverted iNtuitive (NJ) type, and that perspective might possibly get its infamous “aha” from such an obscure clue (like from an unconscious association of baseball specifically with the wellknown teams of the nation’s largest city), but others won’t get it like that; yet they are so used to gaining their information that way, they might expect others to as well.

    Also, something I’ve seen from these types across the board is to suddenly place people in negative “categories” (which would be the unconscious Ni perceptions) and then slam the door on them sometimes for no apparent reason. The INFJ is the one infamously known for a “door-slam”, but then as an introvert, and a Feeling type, this is the “softest” of the “directive” NJ’s, and so it’s very sudden and unexpected, but only after a very long time of the person being hurt, and expressing it to no avail. But what I find is that the NTJ’s have a “door slam” too (which might be more expected for these totally task-focused types), and this can be just from offending them somehow, or if they feel you have trampled on their turf, and with their Feeling being introverted and tertiary or inferior, they won’t even express the offense; they just start snarking at you, and if you fight back strong enough, they then go on the defensive and claim you’re “bullying” them, while still lobbing increasingly stronger verbal assaults themselves. (Which is what happened with the other person I was combating for years, giving more evidence she wasn’t really INFJ, and it wasn’t even her turf she was attacking over, and there were a couple of other trollish people I’ve had runins with as well, and I find their NiFi “introverted face” is very good at figuring out how to push your buttons! You react; you’re now the “aggressor”! You just “bought” their actual behavior!)

    Unlike other INTP’s, I don’t think any NJ type would have been a good match for me. If the INTP is Phlegmatic instead of Supine, they would be in a better disposition to deal with these types as they’re not as “needy” and sensitive. The Phlegmatic is good at handling the Choleric.
    In my mind, I’ve always credited this person for never going “jugular” on me like the others (and like she has rapidly done to others who’ve angered her), though calling me “self-absorbed” and not even telling me what the offense was, was hurtful enough. The new persona seems to be more like an ESTP, which is a type that I have almost no ability to sync with, even with the common Ti. It’s still an Se/Ni perspective [“Realizing Awareness”], though now the S is dominant, the N inferior, and so the NT “common fields of interest” is now gone. It seems to be really working out for her, with what she wants to do online now, so she’s probably trying to put the old persona behind her, and perhaps had to basically force herself to be an NT again, to engage in my discussion).

    Also, since introverted Sensing is deep in the shadow for them, they are very poor, and usually avoidant, at revisiting and resolving past things like this. They can’t understand why other types won’t “just let go” of it and just “move forward”. She didn’t want to try to remember this previous “cue” I missed, or fully resolve the earlier problem; it was like “just forget it” (even “…if you want to keep communicating”!) But sure enough, years later, the same issues crop up again, and this time, she gets fed up and bows completely out. The other person (and prominent in the type field, no less, and so should know better than anyone else), was the same exact way. But the past is important, as it helps us learn from mistakes, as to not repeat them. When you ignore it as “irrelevant” (which is what we usually do with our shadow function perspectives —when they are not erupting out of control at the behest of the associated shadow complexes), that is when they can come up from the unconscious and wreak havoc for us!
    All of this would be a great example of how mutually shadow function types can misunderstand each other].

    As for now, I’m just continuing my major Scooby 50th anniversary project (which was pushed behind because of this midlife crisis; was supposed to be finished by this year), and perhaps, online, just speak when I’m spoken to.

  16. Jung’s Map of the Soul- An introduction by Murray Stein

    A switching job where I do only a few moves during the day allowed me to catch up on my Academia emails, which months ago included this book, which is a great primer on Jung that has helped me begin to better understand concepts like the Self.

    Among the things clearly defined:

    The “complexes” (those partially dissociated lesser senses of “I”) stem from both archetype (the “ruling patterns”), and “trauma” as we collide with the outer world. (p39ff also 106, 161)

    psychic energy = libido (ch.3)
    animates the structures of the psyche: ego consciousness and the complexes.

    “psychic” sounds “occult” of course, because the noun form has come to mean someone dealing in the “paranormal”. Then, they and other occult religions will often speak of “energy”, which seems to be about “magic”, and so “psychic energy” sounds especially “occult”.

    But it is really simply desire and emotion (p59), as an “expression of simple instinct” (p65).
    (Freud of course made “libido” mainly concerned with sexuality)

    My own conclusion from this is that the “collective unconscious” is really little more than from instinct. That’s where the “ruling patterns” (archetypes) of “mother, father, child, hero” etc. come from. (Though p99 discusses the “close connections” of archetypal patterns and instinctual drives, saying “one might be tempted to reduce one to the other”, which was “the Freudian option”, Jung rejected as “biological reductionism”, which he could not really refute, except to point to archetypes’ “distinctly numinous character which can only be described as ‘spiritual’, if ‘magical’ is too strong a word”).

    So both of these understandings should help de-mystify Jung’s teaching.

    Then, there’s the “[larger] Self”. This is basically the “imago Dei” or the “image of God” (p.159). At first, this should make it more compatible for the Biblical religions, as that’s how they see man. It’s not God Himself, as it may sound like, but rather simply a reflection of His sapience and character. In both scriptural and worldly “spirituality”, this “image” is where you “turn inward” through prayer (or its analytic counterpart, “active imagination”), to draw “inner strength” to both cope with life, and also “grow” from it.

    The problem arises, because he turned to Gnosticism (along with alchemy and astrology) to further shape the concept, and here’s where he later conceived the Self (“the prime archetype”, the archetype of “wholeness”, “from which all the other archetypes and archetypal images ultimately derive”) to be “The One” (p156). The book closes on the concept of “causality”, and “synchronicity”, which is basically about what are commonly called “coincidences” (and though not directly mentioned, though brushed upon, I would think could also include “cosmic entanglement” of disparate particles), and in regard to ascribing causality to archetypes in connection to synchronistic phenomena, he connects them to “operators” that organize synchronicity. “Jung posits that such coincidences [as dreaming about a plane crash, and then it happens the next morning] rest on organizers that generate psychic images on one side and physical events on the other.” (p210)
    This now is creating that “trancendant”, “transpersonal” entity (that lies in the ‘unconscious’) that is not God, but sort of fills in His place in cosmic events.

    This (what causes causality, essentially and thus ultimately, the whole notion of “fate”), to me, just brings us back to the question of the “supernatural”, which theists ascribe to “God”, and everyone else will ascribe to more “mystical” entities, and science will just declare unknown. It’s ultimately about who or what is in control of “fate”; of the ‘events’ of the universe. No one can prove or disprove anything about it; it’s all ultimately subjective, where we must interpret often unabsolute data, and try to give ‘meaning’ to what is absolute. Everyone claims to have this “knowledge”, but it’s ascribed to different overall belief systems, and the only commonality is some form of “faith”, and that if you “turn within” in some way (even as some theists reject this and insist God is totally “objective”, yet still accessed only by a subject’s own “faith”, prayer and devotions), you will access this reservoir of knowledge and power. It parallels the debate within theism between Calvinism and “free will”, and the degrees involved (“absolute predestination of all things”, “passive” and “active” divine wills, foreknowledge, etc.)

    Other points:

    Numbers are an example of “the archetype of order” (p213-4)

    Psyche is limited by where the ego can go (“The whole territory of the psyche is very nearly coterminius with the potential range of the ego”, though they are still not identical “since the psyche includes the unconscious, and the ego is more or less limited to consciousness. But the unconscious is at least potentially available to the ego, even if the ego does not ever experience much of it”)

    (Was beginning to wonder what exactly was the difference between the psyche and the Self. I figured the Self was more “trans-personal” where the psyche is individual, and the “Self” then was aboutthe “potential” of the ego, based on something I had read; but didn’t understand the basis or full meaning for the “transpersonal” concept until now).


    The difference between transformation and sublimation spells out a basic distinction between the theories of Jung and Freud. For Freud, civilized human beings are able to sublimate libidinal desires, but sublimation onlyproduces substitutes for the true objects of such desire. Libido will attach tot he substitutes, but these remain only second best. In reality, the libido wishes to return to early childhood, to mother and father fixations, to Oedipal fantasy fulfillment. Freud’s analysis, therefore, was always reductive. Jung agreed that the libido originally seeks the mother’s body because nurturance is essential for the baby’s survival. Later, the libido is drawn into sexual channels and flows along those gradients: procreation is necessary for the survival of the species. But when the libido finds a spiritual analogue, an idea or image, it will go there because that is its goal, not because this is a substitute for sexual fulfillment. For Jung, this is a transformation of libido,and culture arises from such transformations. Culture is a fulfillment ofdesire, not an obstruction of it. Jung is convinced that the nature of the human being leads to culture formation, to the creation of symbols, to containment of energy so that its flow can be directed toward these spiritual and mentalcontents.

    Chapter 4 is about “the psyche’s boundaries”, and introduces the term “psychoid” (Eugen Bleuler) meaning something that acts like the psyche, but is really on its fringes separating it from either the physical world (below) or the mental/spiritual world (above) and the boundaries themselves, Pierre Janet’s partie inferieur and partie superieur

    “Jung’s view of the psyche posits that it moves along a scale whose outer limits gradually disappear into a psychoid (psyche-like) area”

    “Psychoid processes lie between somatic life-energy and sheer bodily processes on the one hand, and true psychic processes on the other”

    “As information moves from soma to psyche, it passes through the psychoid region, and as a result there is a considerable softening of biological determinism, which then gives way to a more ‘extensive and freer application… where it begins to show itself accessible to a will motivated from othersources.'”

    «At this point in his argument, Jung takes up the subject of human instinct. Instinct is rooted in the physical and enters the psyche as impulse, thought, memory, fantasy, and emotion. To be sure, the whole subject of instinct is a problem with regard to humans. Because humans have the ability to choose, to reflect, and to act or not to act on so-called instinctual impulses, as other animals do not, it is questionable how large a role instincts play in human behavior. Jung recognized that for humans the instinctual side of behavior is far less determinative than it is for animals. Nevertheless, people are to some degree influenced by physiological, as distinct from psychic, needs and processes. This part is controlled by hormones and shows a compulsive character that has led some to speak of “drives.”
    Insofar as hormones dictate what we do or feel, we are subject to drives and instinct. The partie inferieur, that is, the somatic level of the psyche, is strongly influenced by bodily processes.»

    p97 As information moves from soma to psyche, it passes through the psychoid region, and as a result there is a considerable softening of biological determinism, which then gives way to a more “extensive and freer application… where it begins to show itself accessible to a will motivated from other sources”.

    “The appearance of will is decisive for establishing a function as psychic”.
    Hunger and sexuality are instincts, but “will enters the picture, since choices can be made about what is eaten or how to satisfy one’s sexual urges”

    “The ego is motivated in part by instincts, in part by mental forms and images”.

    So I guess it’s like this:

    [psychoid realm: “parapsychological”; archetypal]
    “partie superieur”; consciousness, psychic, “mental“
    psyche (incl. ego-consciousness and personal and collective unconscious)
    “partie inferieur”; physiological processes, instincts, etc.
    [psychoid realm: life-preserving functions of body and CNS]
    world, body

    p98 psychoid boundary defines the gray area between the potentially knowable and totally unknowable, and potentially controllable and wholly uncontrollable aspects of human functioning

    Chapter 6 is “the Way Deep into the Interior”: The Anima and Animus

    Here we see:

    The real psychic purpose of the conventional man’s affair with his very unconventional anima woman is to produce a symbolic child, which represents a union of the opposites in his personality and is therefore a symbol of the self. It is this encounter of the ego with the anima or animus that Jung thought was so rich with potential for psychological development. The meeting with the anima/us represents a connection to the unconscious even deeper than that of the shadow. In the case of the shadow, it is a meeting with the disdained and rejected pieces of the total psyche, the inferior and unwanted qualities. In the meeting with the anima/us, it is a contact with levels of the psyche which has the potential to lead into the deepest and highest (at any rate the furthest) reaches that the ego can attain.

    “Every man carries within him the eternal image of woman; not the image of this or that particular woman, but a definitive feminine image”, Jung writes in 1925 in an essay on marriage. This has come to be the more or less standard definition of the anima in analytical psychology. Here Jung is pointing to the archetypal nature of the anima/us, and he leaves aside the way in which this inner attitude is complementary to the persona. He goes on to say that this is “an hereditary factor of primordial origin” and offers an image of woman as she appears to man and not as she is in herself. Similarly, the animus is a woman’s internal image of the male personality. The images, thoughts, and assumptions generated by these internal structures are behind all the confusions and obfuscations between men and women. They misunderstand one another because they are often relating to images of the other sex rather than to actual people. It is evident how these inner structures can distort reality and cause misperceptions between otherwise fairly rational and well-meaning individuals. The male and female images housed in the unconscious of each gender respectively are primordial and relatively unchanged by historical and cultural circumstance. They are close to permanently stable images that repeat their portraits in individual human psyches from generation to generation.

    This I would say is apart of instinct, as the joining of the opposites to create the whole is what in the physical world, continues life.

    Chapter 7 is on the Self, and goes into its main representation through a “mandala”, representing “wholeness”.

    The mandala consists of four octahedra, connected at their apices, and the other four corners representing various biblical figures This creates a cycle that can be summed up as basically:

    “spiritual man” (ideal)
    “carnal man” (shadow)
    “physical matter”

    “Man” (“Homo”, lower Adam or ego consciousness”) is the common apex between spiritual and carnal man, “Serpent” is the common apex between carnal man and physical matter (which is also called the “Paradise” quaternio, and incudes “tree”, “Euphrates” and “Pihon”; elements of Eden!) “Lapis” (stone), which appears to be named after a crystal that symbolizes “wisdom and truth”, is the common apex between physical matter and energy. The cycle is completed from the physical end at “Rotundum”, and from the spiritual end at “Anthropos” (higher Adam).

    Since both the “spiritual” and “energy” at their root are about “ideas” (i.e. not [yet] having a physical form), they connect to each other, completing the cycle.
    That means that “spirituality” (whether Christian or otherwise) is about going through the realm of ‘ideas’ (unproven, materially, and accessed from within, mentally) to reach the spiritual, rather than going the other way, through the material world, which could be such as demanding hard evidence. (So this is what my whole dillemma has been!)

    Each level gradually morphs into the next one. We know the fuzzy line between “spiritual” and “carnal”, especially in Christian spirituality. Carnal is driven by the physical instincts shared with animals, which are designed to keep the body (the physical organism that occupies the material realm) alive.
    On the quantum level, “matter” really consists of fields of energy (in one theory, consisting of vibrating loops of ‘strings’) that repel each other, and so on the macro level, prohibit objects from passing through each other, and reflect sound and light waves, providing the carriers for our “senses” of “material” objects.
    In string theory, the smallest possible physical length is the Planck length (10-35m) below which reality breaks down, and existence is said to be governed by something like non-commutable matrices. This is now the level of “ideas” that only get played out in the world of energy and matter. (I compare it to a set of chess moves on a paper using coordinates, that then get played out on the board. On paper, it’s just an ‘idea’ that has not taken physical form yet). I’ve also said this would likely be the realm of God, since He is not confined in space and time.

    The disconnect comes because, true to this hypothesis, we can sit here and “imagine” this, but can’t “prove” it, which by definition means reproducing (“falsifying”) it in the material realm. This is the great divide between “science” and “faith”. (And why some in science are skeptical about string theory, similarly as to religion, saying it’s “not even wrong”. So it’s looking like string theory is aiming to arrive at the same conclusion as “spirituality”, but from the other direction, through the realm of material and energy).
    Whatever happens in the material world, we have to agree on as that “it IS”, and then adapt to it (whether passively like “accepting what you cannot change”, or actively, like “changing what you can”).

    But with the spiritual (including beliefs about an entity above all of this who claims “I AM”), it ends up totally malleable in the material world, where people can come and say anything about this Being and the “spiritual world”, and different people interpret different aspects of the material world as proving one thing or another regarding the spiritual. (Like Christian arguments about “general revelation” against many scientists’ assumptions of atheism). Even with an agreed upon tangible authority (in a particular group) such as scripture, everyone has differing interpretations.

    It seems God’s creativeness is the power to translate ideas into energy and resulting matter in an actual space (where matter and energy can coexist), and time (through which it can change position and interact with each other).

    For us, it’s a matter of our ideas often not matching up with the physical reality. (And it is very hard to manipulate the ‘energy’ realm to have more ability to do that. It’s clear on the other side of the quaternity of quaternities from our consciousness. “Occult” religion then, represents various claims of being able to do this in ways).
    The next step, in [non-occult] religion then, is to just project the ideas into the “afterlife”, when we’re no longer bound by the physical world. It’s easier to believe in better outcomes then, because they can’t be refuted empirically. But then they can’t be proven either. So they end up seemingly “neither here nor there” as hypothetical “hopes” (“faith”) we use to try to give ourselves something to look forward to in order to better cope with the material “here and now”.

    The question then hinges on, essentially, whether our consciousness is bound indelibly to the material world (where there would be “nothing” after this life, as our material makeup has died and dissolved), or if there is a nonmaterial part of us that transcends the body (a “soul” or “spirit”). Even then, in many non-monotheistic religions and concepts, we may still lose our individuality in a sea of “consciousness” of everything.
    If we see our ‘souls’ as consisting of particular bits/bytes of data in the neurons of the brain that can be expressed mathematically, then that is something of our individuality that can exist in an abstract, hypothetical/potential way beyond the body, and be able to be put back together in some other realm of existence. Yet, the precedent of the current cold, impersonal “life” seems to disfavor the afterlife being any way we would necessalily ‘want’ now.


    “spiritual man”: N, F
    “physical man”: S, T

    All the “value” and “meaning” (F, N, “connotive”) we place on things is ultimately illusory. It’s just a bunch of matter that “just is” (T, S, “denotive”), and we’re projecting value and meaning into it that’s really stuff within us.
    (But then we’re matter that ‘just is’ as well. Our need for value and meaning stem from survival instinct, which ties it to the ST-denotive realm, but the way it plays out is through the NF-connotive realm).

    So it’s this whole cycle that represents what Jung calls “[the larger, aka ‘big S’] Self”. We can see how it goes way beyond the access of ego consciousness. It’s impossible for our limited senses of “I” to be able to access all of that. And this, then is the quasi-‘entity’ that is said to reclaim the ego (the center of consciousness) itself later in life, as the true center of existence.

    So what exactly is this thing? It’s definitely not God, as it (even the entire “wholeness” of it) is still obviously tied to the created order, including even on the level of ‘energy’ (unless one takes a pantheistic approach and say that that creative energy IS “God”), and “spiritual man” (unless one elevates the spiritual man to the level of God).

    It is an “archetype” let’s not forget, which is a “ruling pattern” of existence. This particular pattern is one of [hypothetical, at least] wholeness, and also, ultimately, the idea of “fate”. I would say it must be this thing called “life” itself. I don’t mean “life” only as the biological state people, animals and plants exist in. But rather like when bad things happen, and we say “it’s life”, and even like my father used to say, “death is apart of life”. It often gets personified as God, like when natural disasters are called “acts of God”. No longer providing “special revelation”; He is not saying one way or the other what His role in these things is, so people have been left to fill in the blanks themselves, with religious types saying He’s punishing us for sin (or more passively letting us “reap the consequences”), or using it to make us grow; or as is common in evangelicalism, both! Others then saying it is unknown, and many denying God’s existence altogether, or looking directly to these metaphysical concepts.

    So this, for me, would explain the “primary ambivalence toward the Self”.


    The psychological mechanism by which individuation takes place, whether we are considering it in the first or the second half of life, is what Jung called compensation. The fundamental relation between conscious and unconscious is compensatory. The growth of the ego out of the unconscious—driven by a powerful instinct to become separated from the surrounding world in order to adapt more effectively to the ambient environment—results in a separation between ego-consciousness and the unconscious matrix from which it comes. The tendency of the ego is to become onesided, to become excessively self-reliant. This is, as we have seen, based on the archetypal pattern of the hero. When this happens, the unconscious begins to compensate for this onesided-ness.

    The function of compensation is to introduce balance into the psychic system. These compensations are tuned precisely to the present moment, and their timing is governed strictly by what consciousness is doing or not doing, by the onesided attitudes and developments of ego-consciousness.
    Over time, however, these many small daily compensations add up to patterns, and these patterns lay down the groundwork for the spiral of development toward wholeness that Jung terms individuation.

    The second half of life involves a different kind of movement from what transpires in the first, however. In this second phase of individuation, the pattern’s accent is not the separation of the ego from its background and from its identifications with the milieu, but rather the unification of the whole personality. Jung would sometimes speak of the “return to the mothers,” which is a metaphorical way of saying that when ego development climaxes at midlife there is no further meaning in continuing to pursue the same old goals. In fact, some of the goals already achieved are now called into question as ultimate values, and this leads to reassessment of what has been achieved and reassessment on where further meaning lies.

    There is more to life than making one’s way in the world with a solid and well-structured ego and persona. “Been there, done that” sums up the mood of the midlifer. Now what? Meaning lies elsewhere, and psychic energy changes its course. The task now becomes to unify the ego with the unconscious, which contains the person’s unlived life and unrealized potential. This development in the second half of life is the classic Jungian meaning of individuation—becoming what you already are potentially, but now more deeply and more consciously. This requires the enabling power of symbols which lift up and make available contents of the unconscious that have been obscured from view. The ego is unable to carry out this larger unification of the personality by its own efforts. It needs an angel to assist.

    Note, the “Hero” is what constellates from the ego’s one-sided self-reliance (independence from the outside world); hence Beebe assigning this archetype tot he dominant function of typological ego consciousness, and the result being “compensation”, which will then be most embodied in te inferior or anima function.

    The Five stages of consciousness (p.179):

    1) Participation mystique; where the infant has not yet recognized the distinction between himself and the environment. It “is based on identification, introjection, and projection. These terms describe the same thing: an intermingling of inner and outer contents.”
    “The infant’s world is highly unified. In this sense the first stage of consciousness anticipates the final stage: ultimate unification of the parts into a whole. At the beginning, however, it is unconscious wholeness, whereas at the end the sense of wholeness is conscious.”

    2) This is where “The infant becomes aware of certain places where its own physical being collides with outside objects, and it begins to watch out for things and to recognize differences between self and other and among the objects in the world around it.”
    “When good subject/object differentiation exists and when self and other are distinct and clearly different, projection and participation mystique change. This does not mean that projection has been overcome, but only that it has become more localized, focusing on a few objects rather than on the whole wide world. Some objects in the world are clearly now more important and interesting than others because they carry projections and are the recipients of libidinal investment. Mother, favorite toys, bright moving objects, pets, father, other people become special and singled out and distinct.”

    I think I can remember entering this stage (that ealier “unity” being broken at every turn it seems), and for some reason feeling self-conscious that that thing in the mirror was “me”, and not being just some immaterial observer of the world, as one may think just by looking out into the world and not seeing yourself. Or, as united with the objects int he world, but instead beinn this vulnerable creature that faces many potential dangers and constantly gets “put in its place”.

    This is when we begin to project omipotence and omniscience onto our parents, and then in teens, revoke the projections and think they don’t know anything at all. (Which is “another kind of projection”). Also, around that time, the “massive” anima and animus projections, of falling in love.

    “Like the first stage, the second is one that no one leaves behind completely. As long as one is able to be enchanted, to feel the stir of adventure and romance, to risk all for a mighty conviction, one continues to operate out of projection onto concrete objects in the world. And for many the development of consciousness stops here. Such individuals continue to project positive and negative features of the psyche massively into the world around and to respond to the psyche’s images and powers as though they were located in external objects and persons”

    3) «a level of abstraction that is relatively free of concretism—one becomes aware that specific projection carriers are not identical with the projections they carry. The persons who have carried the projections can step out from behind the projections, and as a result they often become de-idealized. At this stage, the world loses much of its naive enchantment. The projected psychic contents become abstract, and they now manifest as symbols and ideologies.

    Omniscience and omnipotence are no longer granted to human beings, but such qualities are projected onto abstract entities such as God, Fate, and Truth. Philosophy and theology become possible. Supreme values take on the numinous power once attributed to parents and teachers. The Law or the Revelation or the Teachings become invested with archetypal projections, and the concrete everyday world becomes relatively free of projections and can be interacted with as neutral. To the extent that this stage of consciousness is attained, a person becomes less vulnerable to fears of evil enemies and forces. One need not fear the reprisals of human enemies because God is in control. Or it is assumed that one can manipulate and take control of the world rationally because it obeys the laws of nature and is free of spirits and demons who might not like a highway here or a dwelling place there.

    In this stage, “there are still projections of unconscious material. But these projections are invested not so much in persons and things but in principles and symbols and teachings. Of course, these projections are still considered ‘real’ in an almost concrete sense. God really does exist somewhere, He or She is a distinct personality, and so on. As long as one believes that an actual God will punish or reward one in the afterlife, this indicates a Stage 3 level of consciousness. The projection has simply become transferred from the human parent to a more abstract, mythological figure.»

    This would be the stage I entered at the beginning of my 20’s when, frustrated with the world, I then decided to “try God”. It was still difficult, because I was grappling with an apparent disconnect between “life” and “God”. A “life” filtered through parents solidly in the fourth stage, which then influenced me starting in and screwing up the second stage, which in turn is what pushed me into the third stage in desperation! (And seemingly corrupted by the fourth stage already, and too early).

    4) This stage

    represents the radical extinction of projections, even in the form of theological and ideological abstractions. This extinction leads to the creation of an “empty center,” which Jung identifies with modernity. This is the “modern man in search of his soul.” The sense of soul—of grand meaning and purpose in life, immortality, divine origin, a “God within”—is replaced by utilitarian and pragmatic values. “Does it work?” becomes the primary question. Humans come to see themselves as cogs in a huge socio-economic machine, and their expectations for meaning are scaled down to bite size chunks. One settles for moments of pleasure and the satisfactions of manageable desires. Or one becomes depressed! Gods no longer inhabit the heavens, and demons are converted into psychological symptoms and brain chemical imbalances. The world is stripped of projected psychic contents. No more heroes, no more evil villains—humans become realistic. Principles are only relatively valid, and values are seen as derived from cultural norms and expectations. Everything cultural appears to be manufactured and without inherent meaning. Nature and history are regarded as the product of chance and the random play of impersonal forces. Here we arrive at the attitude and feeling-tone of the modern person: secular, atheistic, perhaps slightly humanistic. A modern person’s values seem hedged about with reservations, conditions, “maybe’s,” “not sure’s.” The modern stance is relativistic.

    In this fourth stage of consciousness, it seems as if psychic projections have disappeared altogether. Jung points out, however, that this is undoubtedly a false assumption. In actuality the ego itself has become invested with the contents previously projected out onto others and objects and abstractions. Thus the ego is radically inflated in the modern person and assumes a secret God-Almighty position. The ego, rather than Laws or Teachings, is now the recipient of projections, good and bad. The ego becomes the sole arbiter of right and wrong, true and false, beautiful and ugly. There is no authority outside of the ego that exceeds it. Meaning must be created by the ego; it cannot be discovered elsewhere. God is not “out there” any more, it’s me! While the modern person appears to be reasonable and grounded, actually he is mad. But this is hidden, a sort of secret kept even from oneself.

    Jung believed this fourth stage to be an extremely dangerous state of affairs for the obvious reason that an inflated ego is unable to adapt very well to the environment and so is liable to make catastrophic errors in judgment. While this is an advance of consciousness in a personal and even a cultural sense, it is dangerous because of the potential for megalomania. Anything goes! If I want to do it and figure I can get away with it, it must be okay. Not at all immune to the seductive persuasions of the shadow, the ego is easily led to indulge in the shadow’s lust for power and its wishes to gain total control of the world. This was Nietzsche’s Superman, and this hubris is reflected in the various social and political catastrophes of the twentieth century. Already prefigured in Dostoevski’s protagonist Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, we now witness a human being who will kill an old woman simply to see how it feels. The Stage 4 person is no longer controlled by societal conventions related either to people or values. Consequently the ego can consider unlimited possibilities of action. This does not mean that all modern people are sociopathic, but the doors for such a development are wide open. And the worst cases might be those that look most reasonable—the “best and the brightest” who think they can calculate an answer to all questions of policy and morality.

    Jung said jokingly that on the street one meets people at all stages of development—Neanderthals, medieval people, moderns, people at all conceivable levels of conscious development. Living in the twentieth century does not automatically confer the status of modernity on one’s development of consciousness. Not everybody approaches Stage 4. In fact, many people cannot bear its demands. Others consider it evil. The fundamentalisms of the world insist on clinging to Stages 2 and 3 out of fear of the corrosive effects of Stage 4 and of the despair and the emptiness it engenders. But it is a real psychological achievement when projections have been removed to this extent and individuals take personal responsibility for their destinies. The trap is that the psyche becomes hidden in the ego’s shadow.

    These first four stages in the development of consciousness have to do with ego development and the first half of life. The person who has achieved the self-critical and reflective ego characteristic of Stage 4 without falling into megalomaniac inflation has done extremely well in developing consciousness, and is highly evolved in Jung’s assessment.

    So I identify with quite a few things in this stage, (though not the “sociopathic” stuff, of course!) This was egged on by at every turn realizing that people are just acting upon instincts (which I’ve been mentioning a lot, like in my new “deliberateness” essay) and other factors, and and as angry as I get and wish some form of “justice”, you can only blame them but so much for things. As I point out there, this is the playing out of the “command” given to “Be fruitful and multiply”. But this was originally intended to be raised above the level of animals by a kind of integrity that was lost in what was called “the Fall”.

    The total smashing of my ego in stage 2 shot me into stage 3, seeing God as the ultimate fulfillment of the projection of blame onto the world. It was like, so, wow; there’s some good use of those preachers and their ever-so-threatening “Hell” doctrine after all! All I have to do is get on God’s side by “believing” (even as I struggled with this, and couldn’t really prove it to myself, let alone the people I felt called to “witness” to), and I’m not doing sex and all the other sins anyway, so there’s really nothing much to even have to “give up”.
    So YEAH; God is going to GET all those people who ever crossed me, from the unbelieving family, to every bully and the kids who rejected me as weird; to the old slaveowners and racists and modern capitalists and bureaucrats who created this system that continues to make life miserable for all of us; and even those preachers themselves, who were hypocrites, and just as much apart of the system they condemned. (This was the ‘oneupmanship” I sometimes discuss, and adding the sabbath and dietary laws taught by some groups further proved I was “more obedient” to God than they were). I at first felt a whole weight lifted off of me, and that I would finally find “justice” soon, as God finally came to SMASH this world system, and lift me up as among the new “kings”, as Jesus and the book of Revelation promised! “So the last shall be first, and the first shall be last” (Matt.20:16) was one of my favorite sayings of His! I no longer had to seethe at the world itself directly anymore; God would take care of it. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood”, but against the spiritual realm (Eph.6:12) I took to heart.

    But as time went on, no sign of His coming surfaced. It was then God I turned to with disappointment, at the way the world was. Following Archbishop Ussher’s dating system (printed in the old copy of the KJV my grandmother gave me), the 6000th year of Creation likely marking the end was to fall in 1997, and I began looking for the 7 year “tribulation” to begin in 1990, with the Gulf War as hopefully the start of it (with all the dates that had been set; I was so surprised that NOBODY else anywhere caught this one, especially given the popularity and often loud insistence of the 4004 BC Creation theory).

    But instead, the dates (the ones I figured, along with all the others that people had proposed) came and went like nothing (Not even the much feared “Y2K” computer bug did anything to the world order). “Life” just continued as normal, and people and their systems were still the same, surviving by any means necessary, including often stepping on others.
    Through all of that, I eventually realized, that if I were them, I might do the same thing! It’s instinct they’re going on. Whether it’s capitalism (with conservative arguments playing on “nature” being hard to answer), or “pest” animals such as rodents or insects, it’s all the same drive. We can try to employ religion to say God expects man to rise above his instincts (and thus the level of animal existence), and this is what he will be “held responsible” for and condemned over, but what good does that do for us now? Especially when we’re living just as much by instinct most of the time!

    This realization is also seen in KRS’s portrayal of a drug kingpin in “Love’s Gonna Get Ya”:

    I got a 55 inch television you know
    And every once in awhile I hear “Just Say No”
    Or, the other commercial I love
    Is when they say, “This is your brain on drugs”
    I pick up my remote control and just turn
    ‘Cause with that bull____ I’m not concerned…

    It was clear there is absolutely no reasoning with such people. They are driving on pure survival instinct! We see there they brush aside reason (whether moreal or intellectual), for it’s not what immediately works for them; all the impassioned pleas from the public campaigns on these things falls on deaf ears. Three simple words “just say no” are nothing more than ‘hot air’ they basically laugh at! Who the hell cares if it’s portrayed as frying people’s brains like an egg? (And threats of Hell, which many Christians think are what were needed, also don’t faze them).
    Conservatives (defending western—i.e. white “exceptionalism”) use all this against us, but again, their ruthless conquests, and now, systems like capitalism and global war, are the same exact thing; just on a larger scale. They’ve simply justified it in more elaborate ways (often using “moral” premises and religion), which to them is more valid than blaming racism for street crime; but is really the same survival instinct; and just as impervious to any kind of “reasoning”, except that used to justify it!

    The turning point in realizing all this was in reflecting on a relative who was schizophrenic, and gave her child a horrible upbringing. The few times I spoke to this person, it became obvious that what else can you really expect from her? How can you blame her? I never bought the IFBs’ belief that “all mental illness is a choice” (and the person is actually a devout Christian anyway, and so presumably “regenerated” which in their view is the “cure” for mental or “soul” problems), so what could you do? It didn’t make sense to wish punishment on people like this, because we all still sin (and feel we couldn’t help it, or are doing the best we can), and so could all be judged then. That’s the central teaching of the Gospel, and thus the basis of the whole idea of “Grace”, and what much of religion (focusing on behavior control) has missed!
    (But it’s totally frustrating, as now this completely ambiguates the whole notion of “justice”, or any compensation for what pain and difficulty such people have caused us).

    A saying of Jesus that is so significant, that I have taken notice of in recent years and wonder how I could have glossed over it before is John 9:41: “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” The person who can “see” everyone else’s flaws so well (and even presume to see their own and be improving them), is really the most “blind” one! This is what the Johari Window covers; that yes, you can see yourself and others, and show others what you want to, but there will always be parts of you that you do not see (the Shadow), and some of it is even exposed to others! So what good does it do to judge others beyond a certain point?

    But now, I’m right back to square one, from phase 2. It’s just “life”, and all this anger has nowhere to go; no one to legitimately be directed to, no one to expect any exacting of justice from; not individuals or even “systems”; you’re supposed to just “swallow” it, or do a bunch of self help and/or religious exercises (and with ASD, add “Cognitive Behavior Therapy”, which I find to be a lightened combo of all the other approaches I had gotten), to diffuse it by (what I consider) “psyching yourself out” with some sort of “hope” or “inner strength”. While external “life” continues to be absolute and batter you and override whatever inner beliefs or ideas you have.

    So in phase 3, you put it all back on “God”, who now in practice becomes conflated with this “life” the nonbelievers such as my father spoke of; that is the immutable [quasi-personalized] entity that [metaphorically] tells you to “sink or swim”, but is not “loving” or “moral” like God, and yet also unlike God is completely absolute. (You can disbelieve or disobey God and live the rest of your life, with the punishment supposedly being after death, which no one has ever seen, and thus many people aren’t fazed by; but try to disbelieve or disobey gravity, and the “consequence” is immediate and obvious to yourself and everyone watching you!)

    Stuck in this loop, you just become cynical, and scoff at everything (both secular and religious teaching), and this is what creates the stage 4 mindset, where only the ego can be trusted, (and at the same time, the ego is turning on itself for being so helpless in the situation!)
    This is when people’s spiritual lives will be marked by “deconstruction“, and “nihilism” will be a term those people (especially religious) in phases 2 and 3 like to toss out at them!

    5) “postmodern”:
    «which has to do with approaching the re-unification of conscious and unconscious. In this stage, there is conscious recognition of ego limitation and awareness of the powers of the unconscious, and a form of union becomes possible between conscious and unconscious through what Jung called the transcendent function and the unifying symbol. The psyche becomes unified but, unlike Stage 1, the parts remain differentiated and contained within consciousness. And unlike Stage 4, the ego is not identified with the archetypes: the archetypal images remain “other,” they are not hidden in the ego’s shadow. They are now seen as “in there,” unlike in Stage 3 where they are “out there” in metaphysical space somewhere, concretely, and they are not projected onto anything external.

    To approach the archetypal images and to relate to them consciously and creatively becomes the centerpiece of individuation and makes up the task of the fifth stage of consciousness. This stage of consciousness produces another movement in the individuation process. The ego and the unconscious become joined through a symbol.»

    So I guess this is the stage of the ideal “inner” focus, which so many people who are really in stage 3 claim to be practicing, but it’s never impressed me, as their actual output doesn’t seem like it. (They are still projecting outward, and wonder why they are still miserable, and figure they must just keep “struggling” harder to obtain “peace”. Buy more books on self-development or “spiritual growth”, only providing others a massive industry of profit).
    But the “in there” part is where I’m hung up, because seeking to follow the “type 3 form of type 5” advice (or continuing to imagine it, since I find trying it doesn’t work) just does nothing, and the outer world with its absolute demands keeps distracting and causing distrust in anything inner (except for the ego’s cynical assessments). So it seems this isn’t something you really strive to reach, mechanically (as the popular teachings generally pitch).

    But the key question for me is what really is the difference between “identfication” with the unconscious material, and it being “in there”? To me, identifcation is “in there”. How do you have it inside, yet still “differentiated”? What does that even mean, really? I guess this is supposed to be what he “ego-Self axis” is all about.

    “Officially Jung stopped at Stage 5, although in several places he indicates that he contemplated further advances beyond it. There are suggestions in his writings for what could be considered a sixth and perhaps even a seventh stage.”
    At this point, you see stuff like Yoga mentioned and “states of consciousness in the East that far surpass what is known in the West”, (with something called “Kundaline” mentioned as the 7th) so it’s obvious where that line of thinking went.

    So the cycle I have seen:

    Instinctual drives produce the projections onto the world (including the anima projection)
    This takes on an archetypal projection of “wholeness”
    The frustration of the drives then produces a feeling of “brokenness” that exacerbates the projection and seeking of “wholeness”
    I seek going back to the original sense of “wholeness”, because that’s all I know (this is further fueled by having introverted Sensing in the tertiary “Child” archetype position).
    The world recognizes that “wholeness” is to be reached internally through the spiritual realm, yet teaches a direct striving for this, not realizing there are stages of development, and most are not ready to enter what is the 5th stage.

    • Concluding thoughts on this, which have taken me so long to put together (and in part, from a pick change where I don’t have a job with as much free time).

      Hypersensitivity to feelings of brokenness leads to overconstellation of archetypal desire for “wholeness”. Even since childhood, I was always deeply disturbed by usable or interesting things being broken (like what kids do just for fun)
      This creates an aggravated demand for a tangible manifestation of “wholeness” to match (equal) the tangible reality creating the sense of brokenness, leading to a total distrust of the ‘spiritual’ (including the unknown ‘afterlife’). I notice a reaction to a cognitive dissonance between feelings of “satisfaction” and situation-produced emotions.

      I’ve long created an ideal image of ‘wholeness’ that starts from an essential ‘redo’ of parts of childhood and adolescence, but without certain of the painful situations (and this itself started in adolescence, and was only further frustrated by the way things continued to go).
      Realizing it can never be realized in this world, some of this I simply projected into the afterlife, but that is of course unknown, and the majority of discussion on the afterlife is from Christians, who believe it will be mainly about “worship of God”, though many will add nice conditions such as “peace”, “love”, etc. for those who live there. But that’s where it begins to get totally speculatory (beyond what scriptures actually state) and fanciful, and then there’s all the uncertainties of that; like whether it is true, and then, if their doctrine is true, then are you disqualified from “grace” just for wondering whether it’s true, etc.? At this point, they begin saying it can’t be fully known.

      An obsession with fire (you can see a lot of this here: and particularly how it mars the whole image of Coney Island, which is associated with “fun”) stems from the fear of destruction of the ideal. This began with the rash of fires in the neighborhood that accompanied its decline. This was capped off by the big 5 alarm fire that took out the row of stores right next to our complex (potentially threatening us directly [as what the fire industry calls “exposure C”], and also afterward created a huge vacant lot that exposed the hidden dead end to the busy avenue. Life in the neighborhood was never the same after that, and the superintendant, who was my unofficial “uncle” and the more traditional “outdoorsman” picture of a father) didn’t even want to leave the building long enough to take us camping anymore. In 7 years, it was so bad, we had to leave, and he hit the lottery and followed a year later).

      Inbetween, fires did eventually occur in our buildings (including in the boiler right beneath us), but those buildings I found were actually good at containing them to one unit. Unless, it’s the cockloft, as I’m seeing in more recent fires in similar buildings across the city. And it seems new firefighting protocol focuses on cooling off the fire floor (for the sake of the inside hose line crews and potential search and rescue operations), at the expense of feeding it more air through what’s called “vertical ventilation” (cutting holes in the roof, which as you can see on news footage, quickly causes it to flare up, and rapidly overtake the cockloft and then the entire top floor. Then, they’re delaying even putting any water on it from above, for fear of creating steam inside!*
      Recently upset by a Christmas night Yonkers fire on a block that resembled Flatbush, and one corner of the back of the 4 story building burned pretty intensely for awhile, before spreading to the front and across the top. This building didn’t seem to be quite the NYC type you see a lot in Westchester, including its next door neighbors which amazingly survived having the large flames next to them, but rather may have been one of those with the rear porch that can also be found up there, which might have fueled it, as one video shows the solid wall of fire in an indented space in the middle of the rear. Never heard what started or created the intensity of fire. Someone in the rear video said they saw blue flames, indicating gas, and there were some large booms at one point. So perhaps a gas explosion is what tore through the rear. But I guess it was still a sound building for it to take as long as it did to spread to the front, and this is what makes it disturbing).

      *Here, we see “We also can’t ignore that much/most/some of the fire service still believes they will push fire throughout the building and, in my scenario, they are willing to let the fire grow for 5 minutes because of that belief.” This is exactly what it looks like I am seeing in many of these videos and news footages! Continuing: “I don’t believe that you can care about civilians and still let a fire grow for 5 minutes, but they say they aren’t flowing because of the civilians. Ultimately, it is a training issue, both practical and theoretical.”

      The growth of these fires to me seems to represent how many bad things in life didn’t have to be (and at some point looked like they were under control), but were allowed to spiral out of control, because of some protocol (that sounds good on paper, and so is good for a legal case, but not always the most practical).
      But the presence of these forms of symbolic destruction of course points to the fact that all of these fantasy images rely on elements of the physical world. But destruction is caused by the fact that the energy in the universe is always seeking to move, and change, and physical objects we attach ourselves to are difficult to be kept in those same forms. So it’s easy for them to fall apart from corrosion or gravity, or for the energy in the atoms of the carbon-based matter when mixed with oxygen to get activated and released as fire. That I guess is why we’re told in spiritual teaching not to attach to things in the physical world, “where moth and rust corrupts…” (Matt.6:19), and thus, the “inner” world (where we exercise “faith” in a higher reality) ends up as the only “safe” place. For one thing, you’re more in control of it, unlike the realm of external “fate”. But the problem is this makes that world end up totally malleable, which creates the imbalance of the physical world far outweighing perception of the spiritual world. (One result: hundreds of religions all teaching different things as “truth”). If you stand before a pit or gap, and it’s a matter of following the laws of the universe, or “choosing to believe in your heart” there is no pit there, which way will win, every time?

      Even if I could get an ideal world, removed from the context of this world (of ‘survival’), I’m afraid it would have no meaning, and only become “A Nice Place To Visit”, the Twilight Zone story of the criminal who dies and goes to a “heaven” where he gets everything he wants, but then gets bored with it and finds it’s really “the other place”.

      It’s a matter of “chicken or egg”. Is the archetypal world an adaptation to the physical world of instinct (the “naturalistic” view), or is the physical world a “type” or “figure” of some other kind of realm the archetypes represent? (the “spiritualistic” view).

      This would affect the place “wholeness” fits in the universe. Is our need for wholeness just a survival instinct (including reproduction, inasmuch as it leads us to seek a partner). Or is it really some primal “soul” need, immersed in a world of survival? And who will grant us this “wholeness” in the afterlife? The same Being who subjected us to this life, of “brokenness”? (i.e. if “general revelation” is true, then in a universe that constantly “puts the ego in its place”, and this is explained with “His ways are higher than ours”; then the coniunctio would seemingly more likely involve the dissolution of our differentiated egos in the Whole, judging by the way things appear to go).

      I do not know what the nature of ‘compensation’ (the dynamic that makes parts fit together into a whole) entails, and what good it would do in the afterlife. It’s an idea that is appealing NOW, but the afterlife (when we’ll actually be freed from the pains we need to cope with, yielding the need for these ‘hopes’ to begin with) is too unknown to give the idea any practical meaning.

      So I’m stuck not knowing how to seek “wholeness” (which seems to ultimately be, from every viewpoint, just accepting the state of brokenness with a good attitude [for the purpose of mere ‘coping’], which includes pretending not to be broken). Wholeness now (in practical terms) is the coping strategy that stems from “faith” in an afterlife “wholeness” (at least for religious types).

      “Wholeness” is really something that could only be attained outside of this ‘broken’ life, but people keep saying you can have it now, but only in some intangible way, yet no one is “there”, and this will usually be admitted, yet it keeps being taught like it could be attained (by our own efforts).

      The two main ways I’ve been seeking wholeness are anima projection and justice (including “reward”). The first has been a total washout and ultimately causes more problems, and the second is neither here nor there, as I don’t even know what good it would do as far as actually compensating for things now. (This is, assuming the afterlife), and then it could even be argued that hoping in such is narcissistic, or whatever.

  17. Now have begin to turn my attention toward this “unifying symbol” that ultimately represents “wholeness”. It’s supposed to be embodied in round objects, and I’ve always had a thing with certain round objects or shapes and not wanting to see them broken. My grandmother had a picture of the UN over her kitchen table when I was young, and I saw the round dome (which I believe is the proletariat building), and hoped it was a whole sphere.

    So I found this
    It beats around the bush and doesn’t really or clearly tell you what it is, but instead concludes: “We Can’t Figure Out or Create the Symbol”, because of its “numinous” character.

    The “redeeming symbol” comes “from the place where nothing is expected, [and] it also appears in a form that has nothing to recommend it.” The “place” Jung refers to here is the inferior function, that part in us we disparage or disdain, and the “form” often is surprising, unexpected, even embarrassing.

    The sense of a symbol “is often something that could just as well be called ‘nonsense,’ for there is a certain incommensurability between the mystery of … human understanding”[15] and the nature of the symbol. Symbols get created in

    “processes steeped in mystery; they pose riddles with which the human mind will long wrestle for a solution, and perhaps in vain. For, in the last analysis, it is exceedingly doubtful whether human reason is a suitable instrument for this purpose.”

    Why so? Because, Jung reminds us, “No one can know what the ultimate things are,..”, the “psyche cannot know itself,” and the essence of the symbol “cannot be perceived by the senses or thought by the intellect.” Intellectual smarts, sharp logic and all the determination to “figure it out” will get us nowhere in our efforts to create a “reconciling symbol.” This is very frustrating given the nature of our Western way of living.

    Physically, the “symbol” is embodied in the mandala, which is a circular pattern of symmetrical shapes and curves, and I guess staring at it and meditating is how you’re supposed to get something out of it. (Clearly an Se/Ni exercise, and something those types will more likely be inclined to. Of course, we’re not supposed to say “But I’m this [other] type, so I can’t do it”; doing things outside our normal preferences is the whole key to growth in these theories. (Though another reservation is that this sounds like it is again, getting into the “occult”). But then on the other hand, that makes these things sound slanted toward the Se/Ni “Realizing Awareness” perspective, which would call into question this being the specific key to getting more in touch with the “Self” and the “transcendant function”, which represent wholeness not divided into the functions. (So no functional perspective is going to be “closer” to the Self. The transcendant function by definition “transcends” them all!) Is there a more Ne/Si (Inquiring Awareness) way of approaching the “unifying symbol”, since those are split off from undivided reality too?

  18. I see that my craving of “justice” is a form of circular “wholeness” (i.e. like the mandala): that every negative action should have a compensating reaction.
    (This of course forms a symmetry). That everyone who wields power against another is made to feel what those they have harmed felt.

    [why I can’t “let go of things” and “move on”. An entire order of things has been upset, and I can’t pretend things are “right”. Especially in a world that demands ‘rightness’ from me. And this has been the primary instance of this disparity!]

    Life doesn’t seem to afford this kind of wholeness. Things are slanted in favor of ‘power’; from nature (animals and inanimate matter/energy) to human interaction (which is really another part of nature).
    Those in power have insisted that wholeness has been maintained in arguing that they ‘paid their dues’ to get where they are. But when you point iut other factors that have hampered others, they then fall back on “that’s life; life isn’t fair”, whereby they admit the ultimate lack of compensatory symmetry.

    In Christian theology, the symmetry is that you sinned and all the pain you experience is a result of this, and God came in the person of Christ to suffer pain, as the compensation. (And the saints go to this perfect place called “Heaven” when they die).
    (Then, you had Augustine who pushed ‘justice’ to the point of laying the groundwork for Calvinism’s election and reprobation, but by that point, it’s so off-base, they must fall back on the “incomprehensibility of God”, and what they call the “awsome asymmetry” of millions being helplessly trapped on a path to Hell, and “held responsible” as if that really made it ‘just’).

    The issue again is whether a universe that seems so slanted toward the tangible (the interactions of matter and energy in spacetime), would even allow these deep abstractions such as ‘wholeness’ to exist and be just as real, at least in a way that will become conscious to differentiated ‘souls’ who experience the lopsided ‘reality’ of the universe today.

    Both Western and Eastern concepts end up using the attaining of this “wholeness” to pacify people through some supposed ‘inner’ access. This perpetuates the “unwholeness“ (in favor of certain people) under the premise of the true wholeness (compensation) lying altogenher on some other plane of existence. This is what seems a bit questionable.

    With the typological functional perspectives:
    Truth (T)= what’s congruent with reality (S)*
    Good (F)= what’s congruent with human benefit (which is not specifically N, but is an example of it, as a set of ideals, wants, imaginations, etc.).

    So judgment is about congruence. (This term is often used for Fi, at least in the Berens/Nardi circle, but that would be ethical congruence, as determined by the individual. T is logical congruence, and Fe is ethical congruence determined by the environment).

    This congruence is another form of wholeness. So for “rational” types (those with a dminant judging function, whether introverted or extraverted), this congruence will be most important. For me, it’s T, but for me it works with N rather than S, so I’m constantly wishing my ideas (N) of what’s “true” (T), lined up with reality (S).

    *(People who claim the ‘spiritual’ world is just as “real”, or even “more real“ than the physical world, need to define “real”. The initial sense of the word is as in “realty”, meaning physical property. So it is tied to the physical world).

  19. Thoughts regarding the whole “purity” concept, that feminists are really coming against:

    •Female carries and nurtures the young.
    •Carrying moves the reproductive faculties to the inside of the body.
    (And nursing places the vulnerable breasts out in front)
    •For mammals, the fertilization process takes place inside, and so the fertilizer has to get inside in order to do its function
    •So then the female, by definition (according to the current design) must be penetrated in some way
    •This means taking inside a foreign element, to deposit more foreign material
    (which itself then penetrates the cell which then forms the new person)
    —The male is not penetrated nor impregnated. Nothing goes “into” him

    This is where the negative connotation of sex for women comes from
    We think of something being “pure”, meaning having no foreign object or substance IN it. If something is IN it, it has “lost” purity.

    We can think of being “in” something as losing purity, where it would get “dirty”, meaning something ON it. (I think of the Sarlacc on Star Wars; the perennial “vagina dentata” in the grounds of the desert as sort of representing this sort of “marring” of the external by being “eaten” by the internal. Though this then is not about pollution, but rather total destruction). But external pollution is easily cleaned off. Internal pollution is not as easy, and is assumed to corrupt the whole object. Especially when dealing with something less than solid, such as a liquid, gas, or granulated solid, where the new substance then mixes with what it is impregnating on a small particle level. (An external object dipped into something can be completely corrupted, but this is by something getting INside of it. For men, this would be like an STD he gets from inside an infected woman, when it somehow enters his bloodstream. Her inside is now on his outside, and from there can infiltrate his inside. But since this takes place on the inside, it’s not as obvious, and therefore does not stick as well as the notion of a woman being polluted)

    So this is what has generated an archetype of feminine “purity” in regards to sex.
    (The people carrying the “female” archetype ultimately want to be “whole” and not shaped [or {seen as} ‘marred’] by the male).

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. “Solar” vs “Lunar” in Gender Dynamics and Individuation |
  2. Solar vs Lunar
  3. The Other Side of the Puer: the Senex | "ERIPEDIA"
  4. Duggar controversy and the battle over who has “morals” and can judge “morality” | "ERIPEDIA"
  5. Next Step: the Transgender Debate | "ERIPEDIA"
  6. Book Review: Beebe “Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type” | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: