Unconscious Archetypes in Cognitive Pscyhology - "How far does the rabbit hole go?"

[ParappaTheRapper]

would i be correct in saying you don't understand what archetype means, Shrooms00087?

 

[Shrooms00087]

To me archetype means something that can be repeated. And, blaming others instead of going to the source doesnt allow you to have the freedom to explore new places.

I guess archetype could mean 'something that can be repeated' although what little I know of Jung suggests that isn't it.

"Blaming others instead of going to the source doesn't allow you to have the freedom to explore new places". What?

 

[ParappaTheRapper]

"everything that irritates us about others leads us to a better understanding of ourselves." but ya definitely man. I'm saying my personal interpretation of archetype is a negative connotation after having given it some thought.

But, i understand the word being used as an image that represents itself, but what you are talking about or what i atleast assumed was projection.

Have you ever heard the band "the dirty projectors"?

 

[-=SS=-]

Are you talking about freewill being an illusion?

There's a lot of evidence to support that our subconscious mind is making the decisions while the "conscious" part is merely doing as it's told while also perceiving all decisions as being made.. consciously.

We are literally biological machines, we have no control over our brains the same way as we have no control over our stomachs. We're doing nothing but observing while being fooled into thinking we are in control.

I agree with this post the most. I think the term 'conscious' needs to be examined in its use in relation to ourselves, because from where I stand people are not doing much of anything.. everyone is evidently quite robotic and fast asleep. I think we do have some control over our brains as over time we can reshape patterns of behavior through persistent effort, though a lot of our patterns go very deep as they were programmed in the early stages of our development.

I really don't resonate with Jung to be honest, he is far too poetic for my liking, too wishy-washy and abstract. And like Freud he was interested in promoting his particular brand of psychology. The archetypes and shadow ideas again are too poetic, and the shadow idea I don't believe to be accurate (see next paragraph).

As for unconscious and conscious I don't buy this way of looking at our mind/psychology. It's over simplified and at the same time missing so much. For one it assumes that there is only one of "us".. and that everything else is patterns or behaviors which are just a kind of organic code in the brain.. as opposed the position I take which is that we do have a whole multitude of different ego's inside us but only one point of observation ("we" are the thing that watches all this). These ego's can have a life of their own and sometimes come into competition with each other, and sometimes never see each other (the idea of the shadow doing one thing opposed to the conscious person, mentioned in post #9).

Then there's the brain itself, which we know is composed of three different evolutionary segments, or 'centres' as written about by Gurdjieff. The intellectual (Frontal Cortex), the emotional (old-mammalian), instinctual (reptilian). Each built on to the previous, the previous being the stronger in terms of dominance (reptilian/instinctual is the strongest), however the prefrontal cortex, the seat of "free-will", is able to affect change in these older brain structures over time.. though interrupting signals is possible (think of when you break a reflex).

Most humans function purely instinctively, a lesser percentage from the instinctual and emotional, even fewer from the intellectual emotional and instinctual. To call ourselves 'conscious' is self-aggrandizement on a delusional scale. We are organic robots. Very few have broken beyond this, like the man in Plato's cave.