He speaks of the archetypes as necessary psychological figures, but degrades them as being just that...if you have any awareness of their artificiality, then what is the point in constantly rehashing them? >inb4 curing psychosis>inb4 curing homosexualityAnd then what...?
Archetypes are the opposite of artificiality. They are natural and surge without us being aware of them.
>>23982063>their artificialityWhat makes you say that? You don't seem to quite understand Jung.
Archetypes are patterns of psychic activity. They are autonomous but they aren't 'figures'.
>>23982063How are they artificial?
>>23982063Analytic psychology needs to observe and expose abstractions or it never gets anywhere. You don't have to concern yourself with those archetypes but you do need to have some way of compressing common aspects of human psychology if you want to see further and be more pragmatic.
>>23982147Then what is the point in identifying them?>>23982172>>23982180Artificial in that they have been given a specific function. It's like saying, you ought to eat ice cream in hot weather, in order to cool yourself down. No one argues the utility of this, however, it lacks subjective description. There is an image in the collective unconscious of children running excitedly to an ice cream truck. We accept this as "good". We do not assign a utilitarian function, "The children's reward centers are manipulated by the colorful shapes, this adds to the category of 'youth' and 'innocence'. These are "good" because the natural order, where children must go through these experiences to move towards adulthood..."It seems artificial to remove yourself from direct involvement with life, and assign categories to emotional states. What aesthetic does a businessman derive from his awareness of his place as a businessman? According to Jung, he must be perverse to derive any spiritual meaning of his role, "I will practice my handshake in order to give off a better impression..." It's a perverse, lifeless philosophy.>>23982240Utility.
who else /outlaw/ here
>>23984213archetypes are not "given" a specific function, they are in and of themselves functions of the persona.
>>23982063Jung more or less thought they acted as 2 way switches, you can understand aspects of the collective unconscious and gain insight into personality. As to the larger point of your question this is another part of Jung's system where there is usually a higher faith requirement on the adherent than anyone else, not unlike MBTI in this sense. The results of this type of analysis are basically oriented to normalizing rather than anything else. I have received results that have placed me in both innocent and warrior, I usually always receive outlaw, and have been categorized as ruler, joker, and magician. Don't presume any scientific merit, they are just personality checks and the basis for them is tenuous.
>And then what...?Keep reading and you'll perhaps see what he has written.
