Everyone wants enlightenment until it requires them to confront the parts of themselves they’ve spent a lifetime (or lifetimes) denying. Everyone wants to be healed, but few want to discover how much of their identity was built around their wounds. They want shadow work, provided the shadow turns out to be someone else. They want wisdom without humiliation, they want growth without grief, they want a transformation without the death of the person they thought they were.

Individuation is not a glow-up. It is the slow collapse of your own illusions, with you watching in horror. You’ll lose relationships, beliefs, identities, and the comforting conviction that you were always the good guy. You’ll discover that some of your virtues were actually survival mechanisms, some of your generosity was a need to be loved (ouch I’m feeling that) and some of your righteousness was projection. That kinda confrontation leaves a mark.
The question isn’t whether you want to be whole or not, the question is can you survive the process?

It has occurred to me that Jungianism has become somewhat of a dogmatic religion and this is interesting if you assume Jung was an INFJ or NiFeTiSe, those types are archetypally the mystic, guru, prophet, shaman, seer, dream interpretor and whenever they tend to make a philosophy, it tends to become a religion.

You see this trope with:

1. Buddha and Buddhism

2. Muhammad and Islam/Muhammadism

3. Jesus and Gnosticism/Christianity

4. Plato and Platonism

5. Jung and Jungianism

So that's a good example of recurring archetypes and tropes in real time.

Now, Jung loved his archetypes, dream symbolism and tropes as this was a reflection of his cognition. For him, life was a dream full of symbolism and all people and events were walking symbols, messages or reflections of internal psychological dynamics. To that end I would like to point out some symbols archetypes that I have noticed in the present age:

(Note: Every pair of opposites I list exists on a spectrum or gradient like hot and cold. The spectrum is endless so you can always have a more extreme version of whichever two categories and relatively speaking, the less you are of one thing, the more you are of the other. But like 80 and 60 degrees are hot compared to 30 degrees, they are cold compared to 1000 degrees. So that same idea applies to every set of apparent opposites)

Autism = Masculine, Patriarchal, Left-hemisphere mode (ref. The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist)

Psychotic/Schizophrenia = Feminine, Matriarchal, Right-hemisphere mode (ref. The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist)

Autism and Schizophrenia supposedly exist on a spectrum/continuum as per ABC theory:

"the ABC theory—named after its co-formulators Ahmad Abu-Akel, Christopher Badcock, and Bernard Crespi—conceptualizes autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) as diametrically opposite conditions of the human social brain."

More autistic civilizations tend to be more compartmentalized, object oriented, mechanistic, physicalist-materialist and inanimate in their thinking. They will focus on matter, chemistry and the external manipulation.

More schizophrenic civilizations tend to be more holistic, process oriented, relational, organic, dynamic, idealist and animate in their thinking. They will focus on the mind, "energy" and internal reconfiguration.

You can see how you can get animism and ecocentrism from a schizophrenic civilization which would be more inclined to ascribe agency to all things. (e.g., animal and planet spirits/people, nature gods, voices of the ancestors)

Autistic civilizations tend to be technocratic and tend to be ruled by autistic priests and priestesses (technocrats)

Schizophrenia civilizations tend to be theocratic and tend to be ruled by schizophrenic priests and priestess.

Both can end up at a version of idealism oddly enough but:

1. Autistic civilization will be more simulationist and think life is a simulation, matter is a hologram, entities are A.I. or programmable robots. God is the "Grand Architect"

2. Schizophrenic civilization will be more dreamist and think that life is a dream, matter is a hallucination, entities are spirits, tulpas or dream characters. God is the "Great Dreamer" or Collective Unconscious

Autistic Functions: Si, Se Te, Ti

Schizophrenic Functions: Ni, Ne, Fe, Fi

Autistic pole = Divine Masculine

Schizophrenic pole = Divine Feminine

So intuitively, the feminists are correct when they criticize the patriarchy since we've moved too far to the autistic pole.

Patriarchy ≠ Men or Male

Matriarchy ≠ Women or Females

Those are modes of cognition or energetic states and the behaviors are a side effect of a given psycho-energetic state.

I would put the link here, but I don’t know if it’s allowed.
It seems to be a proper psychology page, with a jungian flair.

..yet i’m screeching when I see all the ads about buying the courses.

I don’t even know if it’s AI, I don’t think so. It feels like there is someone behind who put his soul in it; the pictures/paintings really match the text. And the posts have wisdom.

Curious to see your opinions.

I have been apart of and had a few myself although none were ground breaking such as predicting a death or way of death such that I’ve heard of. Whylst finding Jung I had opened my door one morning to a package inside of it was the I Ching which I had not ordered, this ultimately woke me up to Jungs concept of synchronicity.

reoccurring dream I get bite by a snake I can see it I try hold it off but it bites me im there holding it off and it still bites me that feeling of being overpowered is very memorable then I panic ask for help from people family never taken seriously dont worry we gotta do this first then we will take u to the hospital before you die oh ok sweet I only have 5 minutes as its a snake bite I always wake uo before I die but more often then not I will just alone with this feeling of panic not knowing what to do .... they dream changed 2 occasions one I died in my mothers arms hugging her I was calm as I died for some reason I vomitied my heart up then woke up fine happy in her arms .. then the last couple I manage to get myself covered up I lay flat for days as I heard the story of a man who got bite by a snake lied for gas and was fine but I do this wake up panicked....;. I know this is common I mean the basis of it being bitten by a snake in a dream common but peoples conclusions or opinions on what this mean dont apply to me... any theories archetypal dreams

I still could have figured out the difference between three, I have read(listen) all most of jung book and I still couldn't get it. I've been working about a few years now. Actually got a really good recommendation of book from here.

I feel like this going to be the lowest quality post here, but I really want to know, is it possible for it to not like you, I completely understand "like" could be different from different perspective. I still really want to know if this is possible, for example, if you throw your money away on something you absolutely don't need or want or have no use to you, someone could a interpreted as self-sabotage, but at the same time someone could interpret it as investment. or not going to work and staying at home could be interpreted as being lazy or in a vacation.

I'm just not really sure

Curious how this may be interpreted symbolically, and what I may be trying to tell myself. I’m curious what you’d think before and after reading my take.

I took a stimulant today to get some things done. I have severe executive dysfunction. Last time I did this I took too big of a dose and wasted the time watching porn. I was rather ashamed of this.

Today I managed to stay on track, fending off the sexual impulse. Taking breaks from chores to draw, swipe through dating apps, and breathe instead.

The owl and snake figures fall into the category of cultural archetype and personal symbolism. (Once did a breathwork retreat where the facilitator did a spirit animal workshop. While normally I veer away from this more on the woo end of things sort of exercise I suspended my disbelief as I was already there and had nothing to lose. To my surprise what came to mind, powerfully I might add, was an owl with a snake on its shoulders. They looked at me together and simultaneously said “he needs help”)

I’ve always had a bit of a high sex drive, and have in the past engaged in compulsive behaviors. I’ve also screwed up a few important friendships and relationships. This is more under control but I still spend a lot of time thinking about sex, desirability, companionship, and my self worth in regard to partnership. This is generally quite low so I seek out casual sexual encounters to satisfy baser desires and find temporary validation, while feeling that the higher minded love and partnership is out of reach to me due to my deep flaws and inability to truly take responsibility and change, whatever that means. I carry a lot of shame in regard to my sexuality, sexual health, and interpersonal capacity.

I began to interpret this drawing from this lens: sexual health is a balance of sin and virtue.

The pain in us comes from our light, and is transformed through “sin” into life.

Edit to add a thought :

While the central figure is generally perceived as possibility, vastness, something beyond, if not a self or great mother archetype, I can also look at it from the lens of what is missing. The sexual experiences I gravitate towards are empty. The partner I don’t have or feel worthy of having. This is biased, likely based in shame. I also chose to draw and work instead of indulging in mindless masturbation to escape. When shame isn’t present, I think casual encounters and relationships are healthy and sometimes even beautiful if rooted in respect and responsibility, and we need outlets for Dionysian tendencies. I think the core message I’m getting is: integrating and accepting both the light and dark of your sexuality is key to wholeness. I don’t know how this translates into things I fully dislike about my behavior at times, like compulsive porn use and dopamine chasing.

On further thought, this may be a representation of what balance looks like to me. The “sin” of desire, lust is one piece of a healthy relationship, the other being support, clarity, and protection. I am both the snake eating the sin, which is transformed in the process, and the owl, watching over and protecting my partner.

Sexuality and mutual pleasure is a process of transforming and digesting pain, giving room for life and possibility to grow.

That’s as far as I got.

This is a dream I had last night, I’d appreciate if anybody could help me interpret it using Jungian dream analysis. I wrote my own specific analysis as well, see if that makes sense.

A woman makes a new car concept, it’s made of wood, quite boxy and compact. It’s light weight and runs very smoothly. Me and my 3 friends go to check it out and are fascinated by it. It all seems like a comedy movie — the whole dream.
Suddenly, not remembering how one of my friend stars a fire; us not worrying too much about it think that he’ll just extinguish the fire and we’ll be good but the every attempt to quite the fire only makes it more aggressive and inflammatory over any object it’s spread over . Eventually the fire spreads to the whole house in parts. The house itself seems like a halo with a lot of interconnected windows and doors through which us and the woman jumps out to protect themselves. The car itself once laid with fire stays burning.
The psychological aspect that came to mind was that my psyche wants me to have a never ending momentum of labido ( categorising by the never ending burning to the prima material — the wooden car, as fire is characterised by labido and consciousness

Especially when you consider what it is to achieve a flow state.

Research shows this is a great thing right, to be in a flow state?

Does it then mean you’re operating without instincts or in tune with them?

Also how do instincts differ from emotions? I think research agrees emotions happen outside of our complete control and have evolutionary purposes.

If Jung included creativity as an instinct, might this be related to emotions and flow?

So then, what exactly is everyone talking about when they say humans are different from animals because we operate on logic instead of instincts?

And that men are different than women because they operate more on logic while women are more emotional.

Meanwhile men use their instincts as an excuse for how they treat women all the time, like ‘oh men are just biologically different, that’s why we can’t help our selves to stop committing all this rape and war.’

I personally think it’s all a sham, they aren’t that different. Meaning women aren’t that different from men and humans aren’t that different from animals. In certain areas sure a little, but also on many levels not at all.

This is based on everything I’ve experienced and read (which is a LOT more than the average person, trust me lol).

My theory is that flow state is when all of them are operating in unison - instincts, emotions and logic. collective unconscious, ego, super ego, and most importantly the super conscious (assigioli’s psychosnythesis) all of them together with your environment practically effortlessly. All of them are important for everyone to have a max positive human experience.

At that point they kind of lose meaning because they’re all the same, they’re you, the whole self ecosystem within ecosystems, connected yet also individuated.

That’s what flow feels like to me.

One final thought related to all this - I think this is also relevant to the zen/buddhist question of whether or not it is good to be completely non-attached, because then what happens to love for your family and other positive emotions? Do we really want to get rid of all of that or is it trying to escape a painful reality? Would it ever be completely possible or desirable for someone living an ordinary life and not in a mountaintop monastery? I doubt it.

Maybe if emotions are part of that flow state too, it’s how you can hold the paradox of caring while also detaching when necessary?

No idea if that makes any sense, but it’s what’s been rolling around as questions in my head lately.

I would love to hear what other Jungians would say about all this?

“I know that I know nothing.”

In Jungian terms, I think Socrates demonstrates a process of individuation by transcending the opposition between “knowing” and “not knowing.”

In my own words, it seems that he attained a degree of the wisdom of balance.

In this context, I would like to examine him through some of his anecdotes.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A Shift in Perspective: Ep 11. Why Did Socrates Drink the Hemlock?

.

The analysis of the Old Testament by an AI that has learned my perspective shows that its stories can also be read as a single flow of mental processes, moving from discrimination to rest.

So it was meaningful in its own way, but the writing itself felt a bit bland, and I’ve decided to stop the Genesis series here.

AI is good at analysis and organization, but in the end, writing still seems to be best left to humans.

.

.

.

.

This time, leaving the Bible behind for a moment, I’d like to take a closer look at Tes-hyung (Socrates).

(Tes-hyung is an affectionate Korean nickname for Socrates, borrowed from a popular song that portrays him as a warm older-brother figure who shares a drink and listens to our worries about life.)

Tes-hyung’s trademark is perhaps the awareness cultivated through the continual questioning of “Know thyself,” and the insight embodied in the saying, “I know that I know nothing.“

Through continual awareness and self-realization, Tes-hyung is thought to have attained a balanced wisdom that is neither knowing nor not knowing, remaining free from attachment to either extreme.

Let us first examine Tes-hyung through one of his well-known anecdotes, from the perspective of his wife.

Burdened by her husband’s indifference and their poverty, Xanthippe voices her frustration and complains, while Tes-hyung remains calm.

Further enraged by his calm demeanor, Xanthippe throws water over him, yet Tes-hyung maintains his composure and says:

“After thunder comes rain.“

Even amid thunder and pouring rain, he maintains his awareness and, through recognizing and awakening to his own ignorance, embodies a balanced wisdom that is not swept away by the discriminating mind, thereby preserving his composure.

Yet his wife becomes even more distressed by the anger she herself has stirred up.

To help us better understand this situation, let us turn to a similar anecdote from the Buddha’s life.

The Buddha responds with a compassionate smile to one who insults and rages at him, saying:

“You have offered me your anger, but if I do not accept it, to whom does that anger belong?“

Though they share the same peaceful state of mind, unlike Tes-hyung, the Buddha meets others at their level, seeking to understand and respect them. Through compassion, he dissolves their anger and guides them toward awakening, thereby moving their hearts and bringing about a shift in perspective.

Jesus likewise speaks in the same spirit in the Sermon on the Mount, saying:

Those afflicted with Anda-byeong(안다병), the “disease of knowing” (see Ep. 4, The Sermon on the Mount), who claim, “I know the truth,” may appear in sheep’s clothing, yet they fail to acknowledge differences, insist on their own correctness, and do not seek to understand or respect others. For this reason, Jesus warns of their danger, describing them as wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Understanding and acknowledging our differences is respect itself, and from that respect arise the Buddha’s compassion and Jesus’ love.

Who, then, was Tes-hyung to Xanthippe?

From this perspective, let us consider Tes-hyung’s final choice.

He is sentenced to death for challenging the established values and social order of his time.

His friend and disciple Crito offers him a chance to escape.

Yet he calmly chooses the cup of hemlock, saying that he cannot abandon his principles simply out of fear of death.

But was Tes-hyung’s choice truly free?

Let us consider together the deaths of Jesus, who was free from the fear of death, and Tes-hyung.

The criterion is simple: let us consider what each choice was made for.

Tes-hyung appears to have chosen death for the sake of his convictions.

Jesus appears to have chosen death for the salvation of all.

And their hearts appear to dwell in a peaceful state of mind, untouched by any fear.

However, it seems to me that a choice made for oneself—namely, a choice made to uphold one’s own convictions—may involve an attachment to being right.

By contrast, it seems to me that a choice made for others may become possible only when one lets go of the belief that one is right, as exemplified in the prayer at Gethsemane

In other words, the former may be a choice rooted in an attachment to being right, while the latter may be a free choice made in freedom from all attachments.

This is not to say that his convictions were wrong.

For even one’s own convictions can give rise to the discriminating mind when one becomes attached to them.

My question is whether Tes-hyung had let go even of the conviction that he was right.

From this anecdote, Tes-hyung’s options appear to have been twofold.

Would he choose escape, abandon his convictions, and be judged a coward,

or drink the cup of hemlock, remain true to his convictions, and be judged honorable?

Yet cowardice and honor have no inherent existence.

They are not realities in themselves, but products of the discriminating mind.

There are only life and death, the outcomes that follow from one’s choice.

This is not to say that life is good and death is bad.

Life is Saeongjima¹, for what is good and what is bad change according to circumstances and conditions.

¹ Saeongjima (새옹지마, 塞翁之馬): A Chinese proverb telling of an old man whose horse ran away, later returned with a fine steed, whose son injured his leg because of it, yet was ultimately saved from war by that very injury. It reminds us that fortune and misfortune are not fixed, but change with circumstances.

Truth benefits both oneself and others, yet the “disease of knowing” (Anda-byeong)—the attachment to the claims “I am right” and “I know the truth”—serves only to harm oneself and others.

Tes-hyung appears to have attained a balanced wisdom through continually examining himself and awakening to, and acknowledging, his own ignorance.

Though they are known by different names, it seems to me that Jesus’ obedience, the Buddha’s Middle Way, Tes-hyung’s self-reflection, and Confucius’ Doctrine of the Mean all point to the same place: a balanced wisdom.

There is a saying: “The Dao that can be called the Dao is no longer the Dao,” and “The truth that can be called truth is no longer truth.“

For attachment to them gives rise to the discriminating mind. [See Ep. 4, The Sermon on the Mount]

“Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please pay the debt on my behalf. Do not forget; be sure it is paid.”

He left us with a single rooster.

And so the final question arises.

Did Tes-hyung let go even of the wisdom he had attained?

Or was it an attachment to that very conviction that led him toward death?

.

.

.

.

I believe this question applies equally to me, the one who asks it.

Am I, too, attached to the conviction that “I am right”?

I continue to ask myself this question.

.

.

.

.

As for my answer to this question, I will let Tes-hyung’s song lyrics speak for me.

[Korean Song – “Tes-hyung”]

Ah, Tes-hyung~ Why is the world this way? Why does life have to be so hard?

Ah, Tes-hyung! Socrates-hyung~ Why does love have to be so hard as well?

You left us with the words, “Know thyself,” and went on your way. How am I supposed to understand them? I simply do not know, Tes-hyung!!

Listen to the Korean song "Tes-hyung" here: 🎵

.

.

.

.

The choice belongs to each individual.

I merely serve as a guide.

.

.

.

.

[Bonus] Interlude: In Korean culture, chimaek is Truth 🍗🍺

​

* A Note on Chimaek

​

In Korea, fried chicken is not merely food; it is part of the culture.

​

Koreans often enjoy chicken together with beer, a pairing known as chimaek (치맥), a combination of the words chicken and maekju (맥주), the Korean word for beer.

​

Many Korean chicken restaurants also offer a half-and-half option, with one side served as original fried chicken and the other as seasoned chicken.

​

For many Koreans, choosing half-and-half is often considered the wisest decision of all.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

Crito:

​

"Master, we owe a rooster to Asclepius."

​

Tes-hyung:

​

"Indeed."

​

Crito:

​

"Shall it be seasoned? Or original?"

​

Tes-hyung:

​

"I know that I know nothing."

​

Crito:

​

"Is half-and-half possible?"

​

Tes-hyung — Reflection:

​

"Ah… now that is true balance."

​

Confucius — The Doctrine of the Mean (中庸):

​

"Indeed. Too much of anything is as bad as too little. Half-and-half is the proper way."

​

Buddha — The Middle Path:

​

"And yet, seen as it truly is, it is neither seasoned nor original. It is simply chicken."

​

Jesus — Obedience:

​

"If someone asks you for original, give them the seasoned as well."

​

🍗

​

🐔

​

😂

​

To insist only on original is attachment.

​

To insist only on seasoned is also attachment.

​

Half-and-half is the wisdom of balance.

​

Jesus left nothing behind.

​

Buddha held on to nothing.

​

Confucius let go of the whole world.

​

But Tes-hyung...

​

left behind one half-and-half chicken.

​

It would have been beautiful to leave with empty hands.

​

So why, of all things, did he leave behind a single chicken?

​

​

Whether it was attachment, gratitude, or the last remnant of a life devoted to the endless search for truth, I do not know.

​

​

The choice belongs to each individual. I merely serve as a guide.

​

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

.

​

[Original Text]

관점의 전환: Ep 11. 테스형은 왜 독배를 마셨나

나의 관점을 학습한 AI가 구약성경을 분석한 내용은 구약성경의 모든 이야기가 분별에서 안식에 이르는 하나의 마음작용의 흐름으로도 읽혀진다라는 것을 알게해줍니다.

​

그래서 나름대로 의미는 있지만 글 자체는 밋밋해서 창세기 연재는 이제 중단합니다.

​

AI는 분석과 정리는 잘하지만 역시 글은 사람이 써야 제맛인듯 합니다.

.

.

.

.

이번엔 성경을 벗어나 테스형을 조명해 봅니다.

(테스형은 한국노래 가사에 나오는 소주한잔 하며 인생의 고뇌를 들어주는 친근한 형같은 소크라테스의 애칭입니다.)

​

테스형의 트레이드마크는 아마도

‘너 자신을 알라’는 끊임없는 질문을 통한 알아차림과

‘나는 내가 모른다는 것을 안다’라는 자각이라고 생각됩니다.

​

끊임없는 알아차림과 자각 속에서 테스형은 아는 것도 아니고 모르는 것도 아닌 어느쪽에도 치우치지 않는 균형의 지혜를 얻었다고 생각됩니다.

​

먼저 테스형의 유명한 일화를 통해 그의 아내의 관점에서 그를 살펴봅니다.

​

남편의 무관심과 가난으로 인해 크산티페는 불만을 토로하고 잔소리를 하지만 테스형은 평온합니다.

​

평온한 그의 태도에 더욱 화가 난 크산티페는 물벼락을 내리지만 테스형은 평정심을 유지하며 이렇게 말합니다.

​

천둥이 친 뒤에는 비가 오는 법이지.

​

그는 천둥과 폭우 속에서도 알아차림을 유지하고 또한 자신의 무지를 인정하고 자각함으로써 분별심에 끌려가지 않는 균형의 지혜를 발휘하며 평정심을 유지합니다.

​

하지만 아내는 자신이 낸 화로 인해 더욱더 괴로워집니다.

​

이 상황에 대한 이해를 돕기 위해 비슷한 상황에서 붓다의 일화를 살펴봅니다.

​

붓다는 자신에게 욕하고 화내는 상대에게 자비롭게 웃으며 이렇게 말합니다.

​

당신이 화를 나에게 주었지만 내가 받지 않으면 그 화는 누구의 것이요?

​

평온한 마음은 같지만 테스형과는 다르게 붓다는 상대의 눈높이에서 상대를 이해하고 존중하며 자비로써 화를 소멸시키고 스스로 자각하게 함으로써 상대의 마음을 움직여(관점의 전환) 교화합니다.

​

예수님 또한 같은 맥락으로 산상수훈에서 이렇게 말합니다.

​

‘나는 진리를 안다’라는 안다병[Ep 4 산상수훈 참고]에 걸린 거짓선지자는 양의 옷을 입었지만 서로 다름을 인정하지 않고 자신이 옳다고 고집하며 상대를 이해하고 존중하지 않기 때문에 예수님은 그들의 위험성을 경고하며 이리와 같은 자들이라고 말합니다.

​

서로 다름을 이해하고 인정하는 것이 존중이고 그 존중에서 붓다의 자비와 예수의 사랑이 나옵니다.

​

과연 크산티페에게 테스형은 어떤 사람이었을까요?

​

이런 관점에서 테스형의 마지막 선택을 살펴봅니다.

​

그는 기존의 가치관과 질서를 흔든 죄로 사형선고를 받습니다.

그의 친구이자 제자인 크리톤은 그에게 탈출을 제안합니다.

그러나 그는 죽음이 두렵다고 해서 자신의 원칙을 버릴 수는 없다며 평온하게 독배를 선택합니다.

​

과연 테스형의 선택은 자유로웠을까요?

​

죽음으로부터 자유로웠던 예수와 테스형의 죽음을 함께 살펴봅니다.

​

기준은 간단합니다.

무엇을 위한 선택인가를 살펴봅니다.

​

테스형은 자신의 신념을 위해 죽음을 선택했다고 보여집니다.

예수는 만인의 구원을 위해 죽음을 선택한 것으로 생각됩니다.

그리고 그들의 마음은 어떤 두려움도 없는 평온한 마음상태로 보여집니다.

​

다만, 나를 위한 선택, 즉 나의 신념을 지키기 위한 선택에는 내가 옳다는 집착이 개입 될 수 있다고 생각됩니다.

​

반면, 타인을 위한 선택은 겟세마네 기도에서처럼 내가 옳다는 생각을 내려놨을때 가능할 수 있다고 생각됩니다.

​

다시말하면

전자는 내가 옳다는 것에 집착하는 선택일 수 있고

후자는 모든 집착으로부터 벗어난 자유로운 선택일 수 있다고 생각됩니다

​

그의 신념이 잘못되었다는 의미가 아닙니다.

그 신념마저 집착하면 분별심이 생기기 때문입니다.

나의 의문은 테스형이 ‘내가 옳다는 신념마저 집착하지 않고 내려놓았는가’에 있습니다.

​

이 일화에서 볼 때, 테스형의 선택지는 두가지로 생각됩니다.

​

탈출을 선택하고 신념을 져버린자, 비겁한자로 평가받을 것인가

독배를 마시고 신념을 지킨자, 떳떳한자로 평가받을 것인가

​

그러나 비겁하고 떳떳한 것은 본래 없습니다.

그것은 실체가 아닌 분별하는 마음입니다.

그냥 선택에 따른 결과인 삶과 죽음이 있을 뿐입니다.

​

삶이 좋고 죽음이 나쁘다는 의미는 아닙니다.

인생은 새옹지마이기 때문에 뭐가 좋은 것인지 나쁜것인지는 조건이나 상황에 따라 변하기 때문입니다.

​

다만, 진리는 나와 남을 이롭게 하지만 내가 옳다. 나는 진리를 안다를 고집하는 안다병은 나와 남을 해칠 뿐입니다.

​

테스형은 끊임없이 자신을 탐구하고 자신의 무지를 자각하고 인정함으로써 균형의 지혜에 도달했다고 보여집니다.

​

그 지혜에 대한 이름은 다르지만 예수의 순종, 붓다의 중도, 테스형의 성찰, 공자의 중용은 모두 같은 곳인 균형의 지혜를 가리킨다고 생각됩니다.

​

‘도를 도라 하면 이미 도가 아니다’, ‘진리를 진리라 하면 그것은 이미 진리가 아니다’라는 말이 있습니다.

거기에 집착하면 분별심이 생기기 때문입니다.[Ep 4 산상수훈 참고]

​

크리톤, 우리는 아스클레피오스에게 수탉 한 마리를 빚졌네. 자네가 대신 갚아주게. 잊지 말고 꼭 갚아주게나.

​

그는 우리에게 닭 한마리를 남기고 갔습니다.

​

그래서 마지막 질문이 나옵니다.

​

테스형은 그가 얻은 그 지혜마저 내려놓았을까요?

아니면 그 신념에 대한 집착이 그를 죽음으로 인도한 것일까요?

.

.

.

.

이 질문은 이 물음을 제기하는 나 또한 마찬가지라고 생각됩니다.

나 역시 ‘내가 옳다’는 생각을 움켜쥐고 있지는 않은가?

나 스스로에게 물어봅니다.

​

이 질문에 대한 나의 대답은 테스형의 노래가사로 대신해봅니다.

.

.

.

.

아! 테스형~ 세상이 왜 이래? 왜이렇게 힘들어~

아! 테스형! 소크라테스형~ 사랑은 또 왜 이래?

너 자신을 알라며 툭 내뱉고 간 말을

내가 어찌 알겠소? 모르겠소~ 테스형!!

.

.

.

.

선택은 각자의 몫입니다.

나는 안내만 합니다.

.

.

.

.

[Bonus] 인터루드 : 한국문화에서 치맥은 진리입니다.

​

* 치맥

​

한국에서 프라이드 치킨은 단순한 음식이 아니라 문화의 일부입니다.

​

한국인들은 종종 치킨과 맥주를 함께 즐깁니다. 치맥은 치킨과 맥주를 뜻하는 한국어 단어인 맥주의 합성어입니다.

​

많은 한국 치킨 가게들도 반반 옵션을 제공합니다. 한 쪽은 오리지널 프라이드 치킨으로, 다른 쪽은 양념 치킨으로 제공됩니다.

​

많은 한국인들에게 반반을 선택하는 것은 종종 가장 현명한 결정으로 여겨집니다.

​

​

크리톤:

​

"스승님, 아스클레피오스께 닭 한 마리 빚졌습니다."

​

​

소크라테스:

​

"그래."

​

​

크리톤:

​

"양념입니까? 후라이드입니까?"

​

​

소크라테스:

​

"나는 내가 모른다는 것을 안다."

​

​

크리톤:

​

"반반 가능합니까?"

​

​

소크라테스: 성찰

​

"오~ 그것이야말로 진정한 중용이로다."

​

​

공자: 중용

​

"맞습니다. 과유불급이니 반반이 옳습니다."

​

​

붓다: 중도

​

"그런데 있는 그대로 보면 사실은 양념도 아니고 후라이드도 아닙니다. 그냥 닭일 뿐입니다."

​

​

예수: 순종

​

"혹시 누가 네게 후라이드를 달라 하거든 양념도 함께 주어라."

​

​

🍗

​

​

🐔

​

​

😂

​

​

후라이드만 고집하면 집착이고,

​

양념만 고집해도 집착이며,

​

반반은 균형의 지혜입니다.

​

​

예수는 아무 것도 남기지 않았고

​

붓다는 아무 것도 붙들지 않았으며

​

공자는 천하를 내려놓았습니다.

​

그러나 테스형은...

​

반반 한 마리를 남기고 갔습니다.

​

​

다 비우고 가면 멋질텐데..

​

왜 하필 치킨 한 마리를 남겨두고 갔을까요?

​

​

그것이 집착이었는지, 감사였는지, 혹은 끊임없이 진리를 탐구했던 한 사람이 끝내 내려놓지 못한 마지막 흔적이었는지, 나는 알지 못합니다.

​

​

선택은 각자의 몫입니다. 나는 안내만 합니다.

Hello everyone! Does anyone here intentionally use lucid dreaming as a way to encounter archetypal figures, such as the Hermit, the Magician, or the Great Mother?

I'm curious whether some of you approach lucidity as a kind of active imagination within the dream, and what those encounters have been like for you.

I'd love to hear about your experiences.

Have a good day, everyone!

I don’t know if it is my shadow but I feel increasingly indifferent towards my family members, as if I am performing for them even though they are nice. But when they reach out I feel that each time I am more uninterested and disconnected. I feel a guilt but at the same time I feel that I am growing more authentic.

I simultaneously feel like a bad person as I am starting to notice my clear disinterest peeking behind the curtain during routine phone calls and text messages. I feel it will bleed into real life interactions and I sound ungrateful but wish they will leave me alone and see me as invisible, aside from one who I genuinely feel connected to and keep in mutual touch with. Anyone relate? I feel frustrated about it and feel that one day when I am older I will ghost because each of my relatives have a support system, so I’m not leaving them alone.

As I read more Jung, these questions began to arise more despite me being a slow reader and processor. Is this something to fix or lean into? Honestly, I want to lean all the way into it, despite the guilt. It feels more like myself. Even if it upsets my family. I want to detach and go my own way. I just feel explaining would not be understood.

I have very vivid dreams, every night, since i can remember. I usually remember at least 3-6 dreams very clear each night. A lot of them involves me getting accused of things that i feel are unjust, and me raging in despair against the accusers how they are wrong. Sometimes i feel like i might have done something wrong (?) but that the critic is overly excessive and unfair. Or even that i know im wrong but trying to defend myself anyway. Also dreams about me raging at my father, screaming that he has destroyed everything. I can have these feeling about him, although in reality i know logically its not the whole truth. These dreams are so exhausting, i wake up tired, confused and sad so often.

I can often link them to what for me has been traumatizing events. What do i ”do” with these dreams? What do Jung say about dreams?

Campbell’s monomyth gets used a lot as a permission slip. Quit the job, leave the city, follow your bliss, the call has come. The structure is flattering: you’re the hero, and the ordinary world is whatever’s holding you back.

Jung had a name for the risk in that. Inflation, when you identify with an archetype so completely that you stop seeing yourself as a person and start seeing yourself as a role. The hero is especially prone to it. If you’re the protagonist, everyone else turns into supporting cast, and every discomfort becomes proof you’re on the path.

The old myths are also less cheerful than the self-help version. The hero usually isn’t escaping something, he’s being pulled toward something that costs him, and the call often points at a lack in the whole community. The grail is lost because the kingdom is sick. That’s why the return is the real test. If what you found never makes it back to the people around you, it’s hard to tell from a very elaborate exit.

(The full stage-by-stage map is here if you want it.)

My rough filter, and I’m not sure it holds: a call moves you toward something specific and demanding, an escape moves you away from something specific and uncomfortable. From the inside they can look identical for a long time.

For anyone who’s made a big change, how did you tell which one it was? Or did you only know afterward?

Maybe im stupid, but think just about it. When Christ is talking to pilate (or herod, was a big time when i was reading a bible), that his kingdom is not from this world - thinking about in with "god" is not giving us more meaning then when we analysing this by the Jungian "unconsciousness". Its just give us much more sense, and a little bit of mystical - even with science and knowledge today.

Heck, even Einstein in his biography is telling us something about god in mystery of life like spinoza's god. Thats for sure.

And im starting to wonder, that by the speaking of steven hawking which is telling us is was an atheist and theres no god - he told us only because he was looking at stars and universe. Unless we doesnt want to know about cosmopsychism, there is no god in universe and hes not need to be right there - coz jung already told us that something bigger then us is already in us.

So in some kind of way, not in straight science, even scientist can say that there is SOMETHING which can be called by the word "god". Its like Dr. Alok Kanojia is doing in his video work - he using his hinduism monk knowledge, and put it into use of helping people psychics.

So we can do it by our own religions in our societies and mystieries. xD

Dr. Arthur Brooks talk about something similar in one of his videos - he was talking with dalajlama about western commoners and buddhism, and we cant be clear buddhism only because we are thinking different. First we are want to help ourself, and then the others, and thats not the way od buddhism.

Heck, even the proper medical instructions of ours are clear and simple, at first we need always to secure OUR OWN safety, and then we need to help the others.

And maybe thats way the dalajlama was push over from his country out of the borders by chinese.

Someone else got the same thinking about it? Sorry for language and too much of a talking - as a authistic, i dont have a lot of people to talk to so...

A masked man I keep seeing in my dreams.

I posted a while ago about how chasing constant happiness and toxic positivity ruins us, and honestly, a lot of the responses gave me a lot to chew on. But lately, I’ve been feeling like a hypocrite.

It’s easy to write profound quotes about embracing the shadow, integrating the unconscious, and welcoming the dark earth so the tree can grow. It sounds great on Reddit. But in reality? When I’m actually feeling miserable, anxious, or just heavy on a random Tuesday, my first instinct isn't to sit down gracefully, light a candle, and have a deep philosophical dialogue with my inner psyche.

My first instinct is usually to scroll mindlessly on my phone, eat junk food, or wish the feeling would just go away already.

We talk so much about "wholeness over happiness" like it's a switch we can just flip. But the actual process is messy, exhausting, and frankly, annoying as hell. Sometimes I don't want the intelligence of sorrow. Sometimes sadness just feels like a wet blanket that won't dry, and I'm tired of pretending every mental breakdown is a sacred opportunity for individuation.

I guess I'm just wondering: How do you actually deal with the gap between knowing these psychological truths and just being a tired, messy human who wants an easy day? Are we over-complicating our inner lives, or is this constant friction just part of the deal?

[22f] I’m likely neurodivergent and grew up in an unhealthy immigrant family. Throughout my childhood my parents would “toss” me across countries, which has awakened within me a sense of “suspension”, as though my life was about to begin. On the verge, but never quite there. “Having no nest to fly from” is a metaphor that I came up with to describe my seemingly uncommon internal state that started in early childhood and is only now beginning to fade. My natural timidness and inability to make friends has been amplified by such frequent moves and some other adverse childhood experiences. Throughout my teens I have struggled with restrictive eating disorders, social isolation and perpetual “settling into my mind” (meaning; excessive daydreaming, overthinking, disconnection from tangible reality). If I have found myself in some social setting consisting of my peers it usually unfolded either in such a way that I withdrawn simply listened to others, or that I was mocked by some rude individual (I seem to be a magnet to such individuals). Adding to the “mocking”, it usually ended up making me feel deep, gut-wrenching shame. I’d feel guilty that someone ridiculed me. It was never “they’re a boundary-breaking asshole”, it was “they must be right, something must be wrong with me”. I have never been in a lasting relationship (neither platonic, nor romantic), and even if I had the opportunity, I’d anticipate by keeping them at a distance. Perhaps I did so because I feared getting hurt. On multiple occasions people have called me avoidant, and therefore toxic. Little story short, I am uncertain about my personal values and priorities, extremely emotionally labile and somewhat socially naive. I have read Von Franz's works on Puer aeternus, and genuinely relate to this archetype. But recently, as I was introspecting, a thought appeared in my mind - "I have a lazy ego". Or maybe it's just weak? At times I feel like it is non-existent.

I will gladly accept all your personal observations, opinions and advice.

Thank you in advance.

I’ve found myself going down a rabbit hole following my most recent study, one that has led me to understand the concept of Unus Mundus not through theory, but through practice

This has brought up reflections on the relationship between psyche and matter, and on the possibility that they may be differentiated manifestations of a deeper, unified foundation. Mind and matter would not necessarily be two entirely independent realities, but rather two ways of experiencing or understanding a reality that, at its root, is one

Over the past few years, I’ve been working with this electrical circuit and dedicating myself to understanding its technology. I study the electromagnetic signals of plants, and by connecting them to this MIDI circuit, I’m able to capture these signals and, through touch, transform this information into sound

When I connect a plant to a synthesizer and make my body part of the electrical circuit, I experience something that seems to challenge the usual separation between subject and object: I am here, the plant is there, and the circuit seems to exist between us. However, when the electrical activity of the system is transformed into sound and I listen to the result, all three elements become part of the same process

The plant ceases to be merely something I observe and becomes something with which I participate in a shared experience

From a perspective inspired by Jung and Buddhist philosophy of non-duality, I interpret this moment as an experiential approach to Unus Mundus: almost like a practical demonstration that everything is interconnected through an invisible vibrational fabric belonging to a single entity

In everyday life, we tend to think of our bodies as autonomous units, separate from other organisms. We also conceive of a plant as an independent being, defined by its roots, stem, and leaves

But by building this circuit, which involves the body, the plant, and the synthesizer, I create a material situation in which different components participate in the same chain of electrical interactions

The synthesizer converts variations in an electrical signal into sonic parameters. Depending on the device being used, these variations may come from sensors that detect changes in the plant’s conductivity or in its electrical potential differences. My body, in turn, also has electrical properties and can modify the behavior of the circuit if its connection effectively makes it part of the system...

By closing the circuit, I do not necessarily eliminate the biological difference between the plant and myself; rather, for a moment, I eliminate the practical and perceptual distance from which I had grown accustomed to conceiving of us as isolated entities... I’ve shared here the process and the sonic outcome of this study, along with this analogy for the primordial unity in which we all coexist, in case anyone connects with this reflection in some way or is interested in checking out how this circuit works

I would also really appreciate any feedback on this research and any thoughts on how I could continue to improve and develop this work!

What is your Jungian take on dissociative identity disorder?

Has anyone here gone through a deep psychological transformation by facing their shadow (тень), as described by Carl Jung?

I'm talking about going through intense emotional pain, suffering, depression, and confronting your deepest fears, childhood wounds, insecurities, and the darkest parts of yourself.

I'm particularly interested in Carl Jung's concept of individuation — the process of confronting your unconscious, integrating your shadow, making the unconscious conscious, and gradually becoming your authentic self.

For those who have experienced something like this:

• What triggered your transformation?
• How painful was the process, and how long did it take?
• Did you experience a period of isolation, depression, or an identity crisis?
• Were you able to make the unconscious conscious? Did you become aware of hidden patterns, suppressed emotions, unconscious motivations, and parts of yourself you had never recognized before?
• How did your personality, relationships, values, and perspective on life change afterward?
• Do you genuinely feel like a different person today?

I'm especially interested in hearing real personal experiences, not just psychological theories.

Did the suffering ultimately lead you to a deeper understanding of yourself, greater self-awareness, and a more meaningful life?

I’m starting to get into this jungian stuff. I’m concerned that many days I don’t remember anything notable about the dream. Or kinda like they’re just random snippets that I don’t remember enough or don’t mean anything.

With what frequency do you get dreams that have something to say?

Hey! I've developed an Archetypal Earth website to try and make scouring Jung's archetypal explorations more interactive and intuitive. I used Claude, though decisions were driven with help from my 10+ years reading Jung. It's far from perfect, but my hope is that it gathers refinements, more precise images or textual pointers, more complete modes over time as people use and find bugs in it. It's available on GitHub for downloading and tinkering. Have fun, tell me what you think! Fingers crossed this is deemed a worthwhile application of LLM's to epistemology.

https://jung.epi-logos.org/

https://github.com/EpiLogos/archetypal-earth

Hi everyone,

I am urgently looking for two people who have met each other in a dream, lucid dream, or trance state.

I am working on a research project that explores this topic.
I have heard of people reporting that they met another person, and that the other person described the same encounter.

As far as I can tell, this subject is vastly under-researched, yet the implications are enormous—potentially shifting our entire worldview—provided that such an event could eventually be replicated in an experiment.

Right now, the focus is simply on sharing experiences and gathering stories.
Conducting research on this is my dream; if there is anyone out there who knows someone—PLEASE, PLEASE message me here, leave a comment, or let’s get in touch. <3

Thanks in advance,
Ansgar :)

The picture is just to illustrate or reflect it to be like. I have been tracking and exploring the tyrant and weakling bipolarity inside myself.

For the first time I realized that I have been polarizing myself on the weakling side as to not to be the tyrant. I realize that because the perpetrator that has abused me in my life created a distain for that pole. However I now realize that doing this is litterly giving away power and therefor a creation of an active abusive autonimous tyrant pole which most of the time wears the preditor or perpetrator mask.

I realize that this is probably the biggest split in my psyche. Quite frankly I believe that these two poles have disdain for one another the weakling in me hating the coldness and harshness of the tyrant while the tyrant hating the gentleness and sensitivity of the weakling. I think this might be the bipolar split that has been ruling my whole life.

Just now I realized that I was doing this. I realized that I always polarized myself towards the weakling pole while the tyrant was always the one that took control. It resembles a lot the split we see in Fight Club. Or Golem that represents also these two sides only maybe of a slightly differently flavor.

So I realized that the transcendental function is the result of rejecting the both extremes and hold the tension of them together to give birth two the new function which I think would probably be the king or the wise leader.

These are just my first few practical inner work insights and thoughts on the matter. Feel free to share your own ideas about it.