The Jungian Shadow Theory: Practical Applications

[Giles]

So, in conclusion, the nitty gritty is that one effective way of accessing your Shadow is simply to look at how you view others then find and own <that> (which you recognise in them) in yourself as well.

Remember, if you weren't like <that> yourself, you would be unable to (re)cognise <it> in others.

This practice can decathect massive amounts of bound energy, which is invaluable for constructive endeavours.

Be warned. ⚠️ It can be a wild and terrifying ride, which is why most don't even get onboard, except by accident...

 

/thread ends/ (unless someone has something add). 😉

[ilumairen]

44 minutes ago, Giles said:

So, in conclusion, the nitty gritty is that one effective way of accessing your Shadow is simply to look at how you view others then find and own <that> (which you recognise in them) in yourself as well.

Remember, if you weren't like <that> yourself, you would be unable to (re)cognise <it> in others.

This practice can decathect massive amounts of bound energy, which is invaluable for constructive endeavours.

Be warned. ⚠️ It can be a wild and terrifying ride, which is why most don't even get onboard, except by accident...

 

/thread ends/ (unless someone has something add). 😉

I do have something to add.

 

While you present this as if things have neatly been packaged with a bright bow, I am not sure to what extent I agree with the packaging - i.e. premise set forth with the quote, “Remember, if you weren’t like <that> yourself, you would be unable to (re)cognise <it> in others.” And I am reminded of marblehead’s response to a certain poem meant to highlight what you present. He was no rapist - a simple observation which throws a wrench in an argument (and paradigm) about projection which itself is wrought with projection imo.

Edited September 27, 2020 by ilumairen
dang autocorrect

[shunka]

55 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

I do have something to add.

 

While you present this as if things have neatly been packaged with a bright bow, I am not sure to what extent I agree with the packaging - i.e. premise set forth with the quote, “Remember, if you weren’t like <that> yourself, you would be unable to (re)cognise <it> in others.” And I am reminded of marblehead’s response to a certain poem meant to highlight what you present. He was no rapist - a simple observation which throws a wrench in an argument (and paradigm) about projection which itself is wrought with projection imo.

 

excellent point!

For example,  I do not have to be a "spousal abuser" in order to recognise "spousal abuse" behaviour in another person.

All I have to be is "sufficiently educated in the topic" and "observant".

 

walk in beauty

shunka

[Giles]

59 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

I do have something to add.

 

While you present this as if things have neatly been packaged with a bright bow, I am not sure to what extent I agree with the packaging - i.e. premise set forth with the quote, “Remember, if you weren’t like <that> yourself, you would be unable to (re)cognise <it> in others.” And I am reminded of marblehead’s response to a certain poem meant to highlight what you present. He was no rapist - a simple observation which throws a wrench in an argument (and paradigm) about projection which itself is wrought with projection imo.

 

Ultimately, if you're able to get onboard, light the touch paper and hold on until the end of the ride, you'll discover that everything is a projection.

[ilumairen]

36 minutes ago, Giles said:

 

Ultimately, if you're able to get onboard, light the touch paper and hold on until the end of the ride, you'll discover that everything is a projection.

Not so fast there.. conventionally the world exists, and whatever meaning we place on whatever we wish to discus would be the projection and a reflection of what we carry imo and ime - with ever deepening nuances and subtleties.

 

 

[Taomeow]

 

4 hours ago, Giles said:

So, in conclusion, the nitty gritty is that one effective way of accessing your Shadow is simply to look at how you view others then find and own <that> (which you recognise in them) in yourself as well.

Remember, if you weren't like <that> yourself, you would be unable to (re)cognise <it> in others.

This practice can decathect massive amounts of bound energy, which is invaluable for constructive endeavours.

Be warned. ⚠️ It can be a wild and terrifying ride, which is why most don't even get onboard, except by accident...

 

/thread ends/ (unless someone has something add). 😉

 

"Shadow" is a metaphor.  It stands for one's unconscious defense mechanisms developed in response to traumatic developmental history, real early personal history the memory of which is repressed, relegated to the unconscious, and usually unavailable for retrieval in any "talking" or "thinking" or "analyzing" therapies. 

 

What is accomplished in those therapies instead is another level of split from consciousness, from one's actual what-really-happened-to-me early life events.  This split then takes the form of the creation of mythological ideation around unresolved feelings, frustrated early developmental needs, experienced developmental adversities and, too often, atrocities.  This traumatic history is both ontogenetic and phylogenetic. 

 

You essentially assert that there is no such thing as ontogenetic history.  This is true for anyone who has severe traumatic amnesia instead of memory of their own early life.  Many people are looking into a blank abyss when trying to remember themselves before a certain very late date in life -- prior to which their development was already 95% complete!  4 years of age, 5, 6...  or, in cases of heavy repression due to horrendous abuse or neglect, even one's teens.  No wonder people wind up perceiving themselves as a collection of assorted "others" -- they have no idea who they are.   

 

Whereas 95% of who they are is someone they don't remember.  A blank abyss. 

 

They themselves are the shadow cast by that abyss.  They are not someone "with" a shadow but the shadow itself.  

[Giles]

9 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Not so fast there.. conventionally the world exists, and whatever meaning we place on whatever we wish to discus would be the projection and a reflection of what we carry imo and ime - with ever deepening nuances and subtleties.

 

 

 

That's an interesting theory based on the conventional majority view but an examination of the nature of dreaming can be used to reveal that the world has no more reality than a lucid dream. Alternatively, the conventional belief in the existence of the world can be deconstructed by a myriad of other methods.

However, those are two completely different topics.

The topic of this thread is the practical applications of Jung's theory about the Shadow.

 

\thread ends\ (unless anyone gets back on topic within 48 hours.) 😉

Edited September 27, 2020 by Giles

[ilumairen]

4 hours ago, Giles said:

 

That's an interesting theory based on the conventional majority view but an examination of the nature of dreaming can be used to reveal that the world has no more reality than a lucid dream. Alternatively, the conventional belief in the existence of the world can be deconstructed by a myriad of other methods.

However, those are two completely different topics.

The topic of this thread is the practical applications of Jung's theory about the Shadow.

 

\thread ends\ (unless anyone gets back on topic within 48 hours.) 😉

May I (admittedly pointedly) ask, is it your wish to engage in discussion here, or simply pontificate, and “prove” the point you attempted to make in the original thread?
 

[liminal_luke]

4 hours ago, Giles said:

 

\thread ends\ (unless anyone gets back on topic within 48 hours.) 😉

 

Your participation in the thread can end within the next 48 hours or whenever you care to end it.  When the thread actually ends it´s impossible to say.  Just today a member profitably revived a thread originally begun in 2008.  If I was prone to armchair psychoanalysis (guilty as charged), I might say....oh nevermind.

[ilumairen]

12 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Your participation in the thread can end within the next 48 hours or whenever you care to end it.  When the thread actually ends it´s impossible to say.  Just today a member profitably revived a thread originally begun in 2008.  If I was prone to armchair psychoanalysis (guilty as charged), I might say....oh nevermind.

Something about “the manager” over asserting itself? 
 

 

[Taomeow]

31 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Your participation in the thread can end within the next 48 hours or whenever you care to end it.  When the thread actually ends it´s impossible to say. 

 

Possibly never.  As one of my favorite protagonists, the devil himself in Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" intimated, "Manuscripts don't burn."  And that was written a long time before the internet.    

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, Giles said:

Given two unexpected reactions to my last post (from Bindi and Nungali), I've rewritten that post, as I saw that it was considerably lacking in clarity.

Sorry!

 

" Unexpected "  ? 

 

Thread title : The Jungian Shadow Theory:

 

" I disagree with any assertion that it's necessary to read Jung in order to do effective Shadow work. In fact, I consider that reading Jung makes the job unnecessarily complicated and potentially impossible because Jung is so convoluted. "

 

If people dont read Jung , how they gonna know what the theory is .

 

Also there is the case of definition of 'shadow ' ; it might mean something totally different to me than it means to you . In your case it seems to mean what you outlined   about seeing yourself in others . A very simple and singular definition.  Now look what Taomeow   posted on it . It can be a whole huge complex, something that  merely 'bugs ' one or  something  that overpowers and can possess them .

 

But you actually defined what the approach is to be here due to the title you selected . 

[zerostao]

I've read the Bolligen series. Shadow was in there somewheres. Hidden, yet always lurking.

You cant have Jung without Campbell. 

 And one should also ponder upon Northrop Frye and Claude Levi-Strauss. Even Freud. 

To understand Jung's shadow, you will also need to be versed in his other theories: anima/animus, persona, self. It all ties in together. Trying to cherry pick one, like shadow, and disregarding the others, leaves one with an incomplete understanding. The theories have to balance each other.

Edited September 27, 2020 by zerostao

[Apech]

10 minutes ago, zerostao said:

I've read the Bolligen series. Shadow was in there somewheres. Hidden, yet always lurking.

You cant have Jung without Campbell. 

 And one should also ponder upon Northrop Frye and Claude Levi-Strauss. Even Freud. 

To understand Jung's shadow, you will also need to be versed in his other theories: anima/animus, persona, self. It all ties in together. Trying to cherry pick one, like shadow, and disregarding the others, leaves one with an incomplete understanding. The theories have to balance each other.

 

Northrop Frye - my man!   yes, yes yes.

[mrpasserby]

Jungs shadow theory, IMO his purpose was to let fly in the face of those who could receive its practical application, the use of the watered-down version of the information that he had gleaned from his understanding of the ancient meanings found in the ethereal realms collections of comments which are, that IMO: when it comes time for a sentient being to gain a physical body, it is necessary to split the ethereal version of the gray matter into two parts forming a negative/positive spirit and then letting them mentally duke it out so that they both are strengthened. 

 

My support for those who admit to and admire nonverbal communication In my experience: when working in the ethereal realms, we have a saying (                       ), this bit of nonverbal communication very much supports everyone broadening their horizons- when leaning into the infrastructure of the ethereal realm, in my experience: much understanding can be gained and can be obtained by not expressing in words deeper meanings when they can be better understood by those who are able to receive them nonverbally.

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by mrpasserby
clarity

[rex]

On 27/09/2020 at 1:38 PM, Giles said:

The topic of this thread is the practical applications of Jung's theory about the Shadow.

Charlie Morely is interesting in this regard. His YouTube channel is worth a browse, though here’s one that’s attention grabbing:

 

[Giles]

I’m glad that I didn't get around to hiding this thread after my 48 hour deadline expired (as I’d originally intended) because eventually your post brought it back on topic. Thanks Rex! Lesson learned... 🙂

The first 5 minutes Morley’s video seems to cover most of what I wrote earlier, including the fact that Jung’s Shadow theory is perfectly comprehensible without reading any Jung because the Shadow is not actually Jung’s original discovery. Nor is it anyone else’s original discovery, as I learned myself some years after I stumbled across my own Shadow. Jung personalised his own experience, generalised it, popularised it and projected it onto the rest of humanity. That’s invariably the wont of aspiring messiahs who haven’t accessed and integrated that aspect of their own Shadow (which isn’t to say that many people do not gain immense benefits from Jung’s legacy).

In hindsight, I wouldn’t have chosen this thread title for what this thread morphed into but at the outset I’d intended to use this thread for a purpose that was then forbidden by one of the moderatos who also invited me to repurpose it instead of deleting it or moving it to a personal area of the forum.

I’ll look into Morley’s work further because on the evidence of the first 5 minutes of this video, it looks quite interesting, despite the fact that I disagree with some of the points he made.

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, Giles said:

I’m glad that I didn't get around to hiding this thread after my 48 hour deadline expired (as I’d originally intended) because eventually your post brought it back on topic. Thanks Rex! Lesson learned... 🙂

The first 5 minutes Morley’s video seems to cover most of what I wrote earlier, including the fact that Jung’s Shadow theory is perfectly comprehensible without reading any Jung because the Shadow is not actually Jung’s original discovery. Nor is it anyone else’s original discovery, as I learned myself some years after I stumbled across my own Shadow. Jung personalised his own experience, generalised it, popularised it and projected it onto the rest of humanity. That’s invariably the wont of aspiring messiahs who haven’t accessed and integrated that aspect of their own Shadow (which isn’t to say that many people do not gain immense benefits from Jung’s legacy).

In hindsight, I wouldn’t have chosen this thread title for what this thread morphed into but at the outset I’d intended to use this thread for a purpose that was then forbidden by one of the moderatos who also invited me to repurpose it instead of deleting it or moving it to a personal area of the forum.

I’ll look into Morley’s work further because on the evidence of the first 5 minutes of this video, it looks quite interesting, despite the fact that I disagree with some of the points he made.

 

 

Nope !

 

Morley above talks about 'what we hide from others'   as you do ; "  Basically, whatever you are able to see in others but unable to see in yourself is your Shadow. "   BUT  Jung talks about what is hidden in the unconscious  from ourselves.

 

Jung's 'personalisation '  should be obvious as it is observed to be  his own experience  of the  core dynamic of the Shadow, not that the core dynamic is wholly Jung's experience .   We are back at definition again , which  already posted on.

 

Can you tell yet , what you are doing here ;

 

" what I wrote earlier, including the fact that Jung’s Shadow theory is perfectly comprehensible without reading any Jung because the Shadow is not actually Jung’s original discovery."

 

?

 

How can you know what someone's theory is without bothering to read it ?  Unless one had some type of experience  and then assumed that is what Jung was talking about  and then said Jung was wrong about his own theory, because you think you understand what he meant due to your  own experience .

 

Thats some fancy  'shadow dancing' you got going on there . 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Nungali

[Giles]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Can you tell yet , what you are doing here

 

Yes, I can (but that would be off topic and I'm not going to help you in your ongoing attempt derail my own thread 🙄).

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

How can you know what someone's theory is without bothering to read it ? 

 

I've not the faintest idea how anyone could possibly know what someone's theory is without bothering to read it.

 

However , as I have "bothered to read it", your question's entirely irrelevant (both to me & to my purpose. 😉).

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Giles

[Giles]

On 27/09/2020 at 11:49 PM, zerostao said:

 And one should also ponder upon Northrop Frye and Claude Levi-Strauss. Even Freud. 

To understand Jung's shadow, you will also need to be versed in his other theories: anima/animus, persona, self. It all ties in together. Trying to cherry pick one, like shadow, and disregarding the others, leaves one with an incomplete understanding. The theories have to balance each other.

 

That's interesting but also off topic as it has zero practical application (if you'll pardon the pun?).

[Nungali]

21 hours ago, Giles said:

 

Yes, I can (but that would be off topic and I'm not going to help you in your ongoing attempt derail my own thread 🙄).

 

 

I've not the faintest idea how anyone could possibly know what someone's theory is without bothering to read it.

 

However , as I have "bothered to read it", your question's entirely irrelevant (both to me & to my purpose. 😉).

 

 

Now you attempt to escape by misinterpreting your own meanings   

 

[thelerner]

We had one member who's bottom tagline was I am the problem. 

He was pretty wise and the saying struck me as particularly spiritual.  I am the problem, ie when trouble arises, first look to yourself as a cause.  See if your own actions or reactions have created or added to it.  Sometimes not, sometimes yes. 

 

Putting the locus of control/responsibility on us, gives us a better chance to own it and find a solution.  Versus our problems being 'there' fault and we're powerless.  

[Giles]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Now you attempt to escape by misinterpreting your own meanings   

 

 

On 01/10/2020 at 10:42 PM, Nungali said:

Thats some fancy  'shadow dancing' you got going on there . 

 

 

Maybe I should make a request change my username to Shadow_Dancer? 🤔

[Giles]

1 hour ago, thelerner said:

We had one member whose bottom tagline was I am the problem. 

He was pretty wise and the saying struck me as particularly spiritual.  I am the problem, ie when trouble arises, first look to yourself as a cause.  See if your own actions or reactions have created or added to it.  Sometimes not, sometimes yes. 

 

Putting the locus of control/responsibility on us, gives us a better chance to own it and find a solution.  Versus our problems being 'their' fault and we're powerless.  

 

Reminds me of a couple of things that Epictetus apparently said,

 

Quote

Remember, it is not enough to be hit or insulted to be harmed, you must believe that you are being harmed. If someone succeeds in provoking you, realize that your mind is complicit in the provocation. Which is why it is essential that we not respond impulsively to impressions; take a moment before reacting, and you will find it easier to maintan control.

 

 

and

 

Quote

Small-minded people blame others. Average people blame themselves. The wise see all blame as foolishness.

 

 

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Giles said:

 

 

Maybe I should make a request change my username to Shadow_Dancer? 🤔

 

I would be happy to read about  Giles' theory  on Shadow Dance . 

 

But not Giles' theory  of Shadow Dance being described as  '  Jungian  Shadow Dance  Theory ' .