The shadow self

[Mark Foote]

14 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

To allow the unconscious to become conscious, we need to allow the language of the unconscious to be given a voice. That language is primarily emotions, if I’m looking anywhere else, I’m not looking in the right place. The language of the unconscious isn’t rational, and it can’t be accessed rationally, or suppressed rationally. Say you have an unconscious proclivity developed at an early age, and your only awareness of it is the emotion and action it promotes in you. Just stopping the action requires endless willpower, but looking squarely at the underlying emotion and consequent action allows the entire issue to dissolve. To be honest, I think think Suzuki is too worried about suffering, I would rather embrace the suffering and in the fullness of time see it dissipate, rather than skirting around it and trying to find the thin line between attending to it and not being caught by it. Far too much work IMO. 
 

The language of the unconscious for me comes through my experience of awareness by necessity, of awareness taking place out of necessity.  The necessity can be the necessity for breath, it can be the necessity for support for the structure of the spine, or it can be a necessity arising from somewhere outside the boundaries of my senses.  

 

Underlying emotion and consequent action is the work of a lifetime, to square with the free placement of attention out of necessity experienced in the movement of breath, yet the understanding is out of the free placement of attention and not the other way around.

I see that it's possible to realize activity solely by virtue of the free placement of attention, with regard to inhalation and exhalation.  If I can practice that, and then touch on that during the day, maybe I can come to an understanding through grace of underlying emotion and action.  

My only shot, I think.

 

 

 

Edited February 24 by Mark Foote

[Bindi]

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

Ime integration of the shadow ends in ignition into star form; which is without separation again, wuji, the cycle restarts.

 

I see something cyclical, a small part of the highest knowledge is gained and cycled back into the standard mental plane, and this is repeated many times over time, in subtle energy terms the highest knowledge at the crown in the central channel is cycled back into the lesser channels beside it over time, primarily into the mental channel, so the system as I see it is ultimately practical and is aimed at evolution of consciousness here and now, in that I can comprehend higher knowledge by bringing it into the conscious sphere. 
 

In this sense it becomes the time for the mental side to shine, whereas before the emotional side was the priority. 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I see something cyclical, a small part of the highest knowledge is gained and cycled back into the standard mental plane, and this is repeated many times over time, in subtle energy terms the highest knowledge at the crown in the central channel is cycled back into the lesser channels beside it over time, primarily into the mental channel, so the system as I see it is ultimately practical and is aimed at evolution of consciousness here and now, in that I can comprehend higher knowledge by bringing it into the conscious sphere. 
 

In this sense it becomes the time for the mental side to shine, whereas before the emotional side was the priority. 

 

but if one takes higher knowledge that is beyond regular forms of knowledges or reason and attempts to make it become known  as regular knowledge how is that going pan out?  With something like analogies and concepts maybe but how otherwise?  (with the "conscious spere" normally being defined as that of human reason.

[Bindi]

45 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

but if one takes higher knowledge that is beyond regular forms of knowledges or reason and attempts to make it become known  as regular knowledge how is that going pan out?  With something like analogies and concepts maybe but how otherwise?  (with the "conscious spere" normally being defined as that of human reason.

My best bet would be “Clair” knowledge, clairvoyance, clairaudience etc. Things we might be aware of subconsciously but not yet consciously, this seems the most likely path for human evolution to me. My mother had these abilities, on demand for her last few years, and she told me a lot of what she saw (and occasionally heard and very occasionally smelt) but she herself didn’t really have a clue about what her visions meant, she had no ability to place it in the context of this world. Seeing stuff is one thing, but the ability to make sense of what you see is also required for it to be useful information. 
 

At best I have occasionally dreamt useful information about other people’s health, for example a lack of calcium in my mothers body, and a gall bladder issue in a friends body, but my mother could see physical issues in other people and in herself whenever she felt like it. But say she saw someone’s gall bladder as mushy and unwell, she wouldn’t be able to recognise that it was a gall bladder in the first place, you need the basic skills of a good researcher to figure out what it is that you’re seeing, and this is the role of regular thinking, so it’s a joint activity between a higher comprehension and the normal mind to establish a complete picture. 
 

What she saw wasn’t limited to the physical body, in fact what she mostly saw was information about the state of the subtle energy body, which not surprisingly I found fascinating to say the least, especially when I could find similar descriptions in various ‘spiritual’ literature. But I was always aware that she was unable to make sense of any of this information. 
 

Evolution hasn’t stopped in human beings, it remains in process, and increased sensory information is the most likely direction it will go in, and that increased sensory information needs to be processed appropriately. 

[Bindi]

14 hours ago, snowymountains said:

What is fun is that in Jungian dreamwork one may actually meet their shadow.

 

After integrating the shadow we're no longer triggered by the personalities of others.

In some cases people will admit as much, saying what parts of their current or past self this or that reminded them, but they're typically unaware that it's the lack of integration with these parts that's the root cause of their irritation.

So shadow work helps us understand why others are triggered as well (though it remains their responsibility to do shadow work on themselves).

 

Other forms of therapy may not call it shadow btw, may have its components under different names but most forms of long term therapy do shadow work, even if it's not called explicitly as such.

I wouldn't draw too many parallels between the shadow self and kundalini tbh

parallels between the shadow self and kundalini:

 

“What is especially interesting is the idea that the shadow contains not just destructive aspects of the personality, but also potent, creative, and powerful capabilities.”

What is kundalini if not potent, creative and powerful, albeit forgotten in most people? 

 

“For the sake of our personal development, we must, therefore, become more aware of our shadow and open our mind to the possibility that maybe we are not so friendly, righteous, and moral as we think. We must consider that perhaps there are unconscious aspects of ourselves driving our behavior “behind the scenes”. We must look down into our depths and realize that our conscious ego is not always in control, but is often overtaken by the power of our shadow.”

 

What is this unconscious aspect of ourself? It’s named the shadow self here, but it may have a different name in different cultures, surely Jung isn’t the only one to have ever noticed an unconscious aspect within ourselves. What is the nature of kundalini? IME her nature isn’t kind but selfish. On her own she has the moral compass of a two year old, in partnership with shiva she may be directed more appropriately. What if it’s a catch 22, I want to be a nice kind person, so I can’t acknowledge the selfish 2 year old (kundalini) energy within, so it gets locked away and forgotten, unnourished and unable to complete her part of the circuit which would ultimately lead to her maturing? BTW and perhaps irrelevantly this was never my problem, I’ve never cultivated kindness as an end in itself. 
 

Whether the shadow self is kundalini or not, it is the right place to be looking, and whatever the shadow self is it needs to be accepted exactly as it is, not strangled by our moral codes. 

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, Bindi said:

parallels between the shadow self and kundalini:

 

“What is especially interesting is the idea that the shadow contains not just destructive aspects of the personality, but also potent, creative, and powerful capabilities.”

What is kundalini if not potent, creative and powerful, albeit forgotten in most people? 

 

“For the sake of our personal development, we must, therefore, become more aware of our shadow and open our mind to the possibility that maybe we are not so friendly, righteous, and moral as we think. We must consider that perhaps there are unconscious aspects of ourselves driving our behavior “behind the scenes”. We must look down into our depths and realize that our conscious ego is not always in control, but is often overtaken by the power of our shadow.”

 

What is this unconscious aspect of ourself? It’s named the shadow self here, but it may have a different name in different cultures, surely Jung isn’t the only one to have ever noticed an unconscious aspect within ourselves. What is the nature of kundalini? IME her nature isn’t kind but selfish. On her own she has the moral compass of a two year old, in partnership with shiva she may be directed more appropriately. What if it’s a catch 22, I want to be a nice kind person, so I can’t acknowledge the selfish 2 year old (kundalini) energy within, so it gets locked away and forgotten, unnourished and unable to complete her part of the circuit which would ultimately lead to her maturing? BTW and perhaps irrelevantly this was never my problem, I’ve never cultivated kindness as an end in itself. 
 

Whether the shadow self is kundalini or not, it is the right place to be looking, and whatever the shadow self is it needs to be accepted exactly as it is, not strangled by our moral codes. 

 

I'd say chi, prana, kundalini, etc. are not particular beings with human like motives, they are forms of energy in beings who often have or do have particular motives...(which could be for goodness or its opposite). What can go right can also go wrong or be empowered with energy depending on its usage.  Many thousands of years of recorded history and tens of thousands of major events in recent history bear that out.  An analogy with electricity can be made that if not used or wired correctly the circuits it is being used in will hopefully trip, but they can also burn up if their breaker does not trip. Anyway Kundalini Yoga is traditionally meant as an advanced  practice for advanced students who are directed by a true Guru/master who has already walked the path and (and knows the benefits and potential pitfalls) of all the circuits,  as in other important yoga's that have safely prepared for it, otherwise one is likely to find out what its like playing with fire or a loaded gun so to speak.

Edited February 24 by old3bob

[Apech]

There's quite a lot in Ancient Egypt about the shade or shadow as one of the aspects of a being.  Unfortunately as usual with the Egyptian stuff they mention it a lot without explaining what it is.  However it is clearly the part of us that relates to the dark rather than the light.

 

I don't usually like Jungian stuff but on this occasion he is clearly on to something and I would say that for myself, facing into one's dark side is one of the first things that happens - and it is quite scary.  There is a risk of over identifying with it because it seems powerful in a way - but you have to realise that its power is just part of the general mirage of power itself (if that makes sense).

 

Becoming unified or whole - a whole being - is an enormous task - until then we are made of parts.

 

 

[blue eyed snake]

 

Igor Maykov, 1966 

Edited February 24 by blue eyed snake

[snowymountains]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

There is a risk of over identifying with it

 

The bigger risk is not being familiar with it, it is then that our shadow will rule us from our unconscious. Without integration, "the brighter the light, the darker the shadow" always applies.

 

The goal is of course for the other parts to integrate the shadow, not for the shadow to integrate the other parts.

Integration is a process too, doesn't happen overnight.

 

The Anima/Animus are also concepts by Jung which are onto something big, typically work on these is right after work on the shadow. Within the context of dreamwork in specific, the associated dreams typically occur after meeting the shadow (and may re-occur in later times when there's a change in the Anima).

[Apech]

24 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

The bigger risk is not being familiar with it, it is then that our shadow will rule us from our unconscious. Without integration, "the brighter the light, the darker the shadow" always applies.

 

The goal is of course for the other parts to integrate the shadow, not for the shadow to integrate the other parts.

Integration is a process too, doesn't happen overnight.

 

The Anima/Animus are also concepts by Jung which are onto something big, typically work on these is right after work on the shadow. Within the context of dreamwork in specific, the associated dreams typically occur after meeting the shadow (and may re-occur in later times when there's a change in the Anima).

Not being familiar or straightforward denial which probably the usual choice for  many.

[snowymountains]

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

Not being familiar or straightforward denial which probably the usual choice for  many.

 

Indeed this is true, as it is true that the shadow is still there, without them being consciously aware and it rules from the unconscious.

Which in turn is a source of havoc in many ways but I'll keep it short and not expand.

[old3bob]

our shadow self stays in the shadows because it can not exist before the light of truth,  all of this misplaced holding it up as some kind of special thing is projected and nuts to me.  I've seen it wince, hide and pull away from the truth of the True Self...Btw, two opposites can not be in the same place at the same time, ....also so called "integration" is the not about some kind of 50/50 deal made with our shadow self, it is its final end with no more places left for it to creep around in the unconscious or sub-conscious in trying get its way. (from behind the scenes)

Edited February 24 by old3bob

[Apech]

5 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Indeed this is true, as it is true that the shadow is still there, without them being consciously aware and it rules from the unconscious.

Which in turn is a source of havoc in many ways but I'll keep it short and not expand.

Please expand a little.

[snowymountains]

24 minutes ago, Apech said:

Please expand a little.

 

Most people do not have bad conscious intentions, they have "bad" automatic reactions they're not even conscious of ( which in a Jungian framework belong to the shadow ). Which is why they sometimes deny doing something, they often do not genuinely remember doing it, or genuinely remember something they did differently to how it occurred.

 

To give some examples:

This ranges from shouting ( many people are not consciously aware they shout ), to downright abusive behavior e.g. some abusers say to their victims "it's your fault" exactly because they don't want to confront their own behavior/they do not want to see their shadow.

It also extends to milder examples, like people switching partners to have a younger partner because the older ones reminds them that they age too.

It even extends to way milder examples, like retaining muscular tension before sleep, which is not bad in a moral sense, but often is e.g. an unconscious fear.

 

The above can also be seen under entirely terminology, it's in analytical/depth/Jungian psychology that they're grouped under the "shadow".

When I say "bad" automatic reactions above it means calibrated to a past era which is no longer relevant, i.e. childhood, hence the quotes in "bad", they're not making a conscious decision that's seen by themselves or society as morally bad.

Often they really do not know what they're doing, as they do not know what's in their amygdala.

 

Of course there exist people too that consciously make decisions they recognize as morally reprehensive, but these are a different topic, in a sense, these do have awareness of their shadow but the shadow is in control.

 

It's a long discussion so I'll leave it at this

[Jenn]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

our shadow self stays in the shadows because it can not exist before the light of truth,  all of this misplaced holding it up as some kind of special thing is projected and nuts to me.  I've seen it wince, hide and pull away from the truth of the True Self...Btw, two opposites can not be in the same place at the same time, ....also so called "integration" is the not about some kind of 50/50 deal made with our shadow self, it is its final end with no more places left for it to creep around in the unconscious or sub-conscious in trying get its way. (from behind the scenes)

 

I think of it more like the shadow arises from our True Self because we suppress aspects of ourselves that for one reason or another (often simply just conditioning) we bury away and repress.  And from that suppression, its opposite is created, the acquired mind and that is where we live most of our lives, safely away from all we are suppressing.  Yet still completely at the mercy of our shadow self by way of automatic responses.  One became two.

 

Integrating the shadow self back doesn't hold opposites in one place or destroy the shadow; it removes the force that created those opposites in the first place.  We were never meant to be a shadow and a truth, we were meant to be whole ourselves.  Two becomes one, and that one is the True Self.

[Mark Foote]

20 hours ago, Jenn said:

That has been my experience as well, unless you deal with the root of the problem, using willpower to overcome emotions is like a house of cards, great when there is no wind, but crumbles when the storm brews and you need it most.  Like building up confidence after a difficult childhood by improving yourself, taking healthy risks, self-compassion, etc.  It's good and healthy, you can rise out of your childhood and be strong and confident going forward, as long as life doesn't throw you more than you can bear and you find yourself right back to being insecure.  Almost like you never stopped being insecure, you just found a way to not be affected it while times are good enough that you could persist.

 

Digging through the tangled mess of emotions, desires, and social programming, at some point, you start finding roots, once you deal with one, poof, you are free from its influence.  Instantly^{(Ignoring all the months / years it took you to get to that point hehe)}
 

 

Shunryu Suzuki described the true practice of seated meditation as "just sitting", meaning that "doing something" in the act of sitting has ceased.  What I find is that I have to constantly relearn the way my body and mind sit.  I think that's because as the two coordinate to relinquish "doing" in sitting, I develop more feeling for my body and for my senses, and that changes the path to "just sitting" for the next time around.

I believe, as Gautama the Buddha said, that the cessation of "doing something" in speech, body, or mind is a contact of freedom.  

I don't think the integration of childhood memories, pre-speech memories, and inured emotional responses can take place apart from that cessation of "doing something" in the body and mind and that contact of freedom.  

I practice more now, as I see that thought directed to the cessation I experience in "just sitting" (if not the actual experience of cessation) helps to make a sense of timing in my life, a sense of timing that seems related to a whole beyond what I can know. 

(apologies for the extensive editing after posting--what matters in the post is so much clearer after I hit "save"!   )
 

Edited February 24 by Mark Foote

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, Jenn said:

 

I think of it more like the shadow arises from our True Self because we suppress aspects of ourselves that for one reason or another (often simply just conditioning) we bury away and repress.  And from that suppression, its opposite is created, the acquired mind and that is where we live most of our lives, safely away from all we are suppressing.  Yet still completely at the mercy of our shadow self by way of automatic responses.  One became two.

 

Integrating the shadow self back doesn't hold opposites in one place or destroy the shadow; it removes the force that created those opposites in the first place.  We were never meant to be a shadow and a truth, we were meant to be whole ourselves.  Two becomes one, and that one is the True Self.

 

the force that a shadow self uses when unbound brings an end to that shadow self, thus its not an integration of  shadow with light to end up with something like one gray.  Hinduism has a profound but simple mantra, it is "Om Tat Sat" I suggest to know that in oneself and as oneself.  Or one could follow shrinks that don't really know things other than their intellect and human reason, which are not bad so to speak in their proper place.

Edited February 24 by old3bob

[Nungali]

8 hours ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

Igor Maykov, 1966 

 

 

ARIES. Whence come ye, brethren?

 

SATAN-TYPHON. From the dwelling place of the sun.

 

ARIES. Who are ye, brethren?

 

SATAN-TYPHON. I am the twin brother of the sun.

...

SATAN-TYPHON. I would have speech with my brother the Sun.

 

ARIES. It is well.

 

LEO. It is not well. There is danger herein to my Lord. [He bars the way.

 

ARIES. Speech cannot harm our Lord.

 

LEO. Brother, if thou be indeed our brother, what wilt thou say?

 

SATAN-TYPHON. O Sun, my brother, is it thy will that I have speech with thee? For I have lain with thee nine moons in the womb of our mother; for we have loved as none have loved; for I am closer knit with thee than light and darkness, or that life and death!

 

https://hermetic.com/crowley/the-rites-of-eleusis/sol

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

Not being familiar or straightforward denial which probably the usual choice for  many.

 

Indeed .  There have been two views on this ; many, as you state above

 

Its best to keep it shut up and stored away  .... 'Pandora's Box' , dont peek !   We function okay without opening that box .

 

DO WE  though    ?    (if you unsure, watch some current news , read some history  .....     )

 

Others, mostly unpopular or 'evil'  have taken the approach 'to be educated, forewarned and forearmed is the better approach . Seiner  wrote a bit about these approaches as well , one of the rare few that put both views forward , but he  believed in the latter - to be aware of  our constitution .

[Apech]

I think there may be a fundamental difference in the Egyptian concept of shade and the shadow self - if it is true that the idea is that it is completely destroyed.  In Egyptian thought opposites are resolved and the ‘foe’ is overcome but assimilated rather than destroyed - as in this quote from the ritual of the divine cult:

 

’ and the power of Set hides itself straightway before the eye of Horus which seizes it, brings it, and sets it upon the seat of Horus’

 

in other words the wholistic awareness of Horus assimilates the power of Set.   
 

 

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

I think there may be a fundamental difference in the Egyptian concept of shade and the shadow self - if it is true that the idea is that it is completely destroyed.  In Egyptian thought opposites are resolved and the ‘foe’ is overcome but assimilated rather than destroyed - as in this quote from the ritual of the divine cult:

 

’ and the power of Set hides itself straightway before the eye of Horus which seizes it, brings it, and sets it upon the seat of Horus’

 

in other words the wholistic awareness of Horus assimilates the power of Set.   
 

 

 

Indeed . I have always been fascinated by Seti  ... the 'restorer '  .   it started when I first saw pictures from his tomb ... wow !

 

The ceiling giving us a good view of Egyptian 'astrology' before  the 'modern' Greek influence .

 

 

 

Seti 1

 

 

 

 

'Dendera'.

[Bindi]

11 hours ago, Apech said:

There's quite a lot in Ancient Egypt about the shade or shadow as one of the aspects of a being.  Unfortunately as usual with the Egyptian stuff they mention it a lot without explaining what it is.  However it is clearly the part of us that relates to the dark rather than the light.

 

I don't usually like Jungian stuff but on this occasion he is clearly on to something and I would say that for myself, facing into one's dark side is one of the first things that happens - and it is quite scary.  There is a risk of over identifying with it because it seems powerful in a way

 

 

How can the shadow self whatever it is be integrated if you’re deliberately holding it at arms length?  But perhaps it also depends on the status you give to the shadow self, ranging from it’s just a block to it’s a negative aspect and the polar opposite it’s a powerful consciousness within us related to the Yin aspect that needs to be integrated but remains as a “potent and creative force”.

 

11 hours ago, Apech said:

- but you have to realise that its power is just part of the general mirage of power itself (if that makes sense).

 

 

It sounds like a Buddhist perspective to me, everything is a mirage so this too must be a mirage. What if the shadow self is an aspect of the true self though, then it would be pretty weird to think it was a mirage. Would you deliberately ignore and neutralise a potent creative force? What would you gain from that? 

 

11 hours ago, Apech said:

Becoming unified or whole - a whole being - is an enormous task - until then we are made of parts.

 

 

[old3bob]

the human self is evolving on multiple levels and if folks here mean that needs to made whole then i get that,  on the other hand our Spirit, the Spirit is already whole and wise with no need for shadow work, shrinks or analysis...and knowing that exceeds the benefits of personality work/integration which is and still remains human, with human Beings only being one out of the countless vehicles for Spirit, although a most highly complex one of high potential!

 

How many here think they are just and only a human body and mind?  (which is understandable when we don't remember our true Spirit Self....)

Edited February 25 by old3bob

[Nungali]

17 minutes ago, old3bob said:

the human self is evolving on multiple levels and if folks here mean that needs to made whole then i get that,  on the other hand our Spirit, the Spirit is already whole and wise with no need for shadow work, shrinks or analysis...and knowing that far exceeds benefits of personality integration which is and still remains human, with a human Beings only being only one of countless vehicles for Spirit, although a most highly complex one of high potential!

 

I think that depends on ones 'psychic schemata '   ..... how you view , or what arragement best describes your 'self' and what are the constituent parts and how do they relate .

 

For example many see 'spirit' as a component of the whole and see variance in how it relates to the whole . Can other parts 'stifle' its development (in the self )  or the  expression of it in the self ?

 

Some examples of what I mean :

 

 

 

 

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/overview/index.htm#components

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_soul

 

Then again others see soul and spirit as something different , so it also depends on what you mean by 'spirit' .  Essentially 'spirit' is the 'animating force of the essential nature ' ie.   what keeps a daisy alive and keeps it 'within archetype'  /  form .

 

.

Edited February 25 by Nungali

[Apech]

9 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

How can the shadow self whatever it is be integrated if you’re deliberately holding it at arms length?  But perhaps it also depends on the status you give to the shadow self, ranging from it’s just a block to it’s a negative aspect and the polar opposite it’s a powerful consciousness within us related to the Yin aspect that needs to be integrated but remains as a “potent and creative force”.

 

I don't think it is possible to hold it at arms length - I don't think I implied one should do so did I?  I think that most people deny its existence but that it still operates within them.  But that is provided we take the Yin aspect definition and not the negative block one.  People on here seem to use either.  In my case I was comparing it to the Egyptian 'shade' which is an aspect of a person.  The collection of negative blocks was called either Rerek or Apep (depending on whether it was seen as a kind of host of inimical forces or as one negative being).

 

I think perhaps our ordinary consciousness (ego?) reacts to the presence of the shadow self in a negative way, because the ego is built on defensive positions about ourselves as socially acceptable beings and does not like the idea of a darker side to our nature - something which is unrestrained and carries a certain danger (?).  Our culture reinforces the light versus dark narrative I guess - and this gets mixed with good versus bad.

 

9 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

It sounds like a Buddhist perspective to me, everything is a mirage so this too must be a mirage. What if the shadow self is an aspect of the true self though, then it would be pretty weird to think it was a mirage. Would you deliberately ignore and neutralise a potent creative force? What would you gain from that? 

 

 

 

Nothing - I wasn't saying that.  And I don't know what the Buddhist terminology for these ideas would be - but perhaps it would be something to do with shunyata.  Not sure because I am still trying to understand what Jung meant anyway.  I think the idea is to integrate the dark and the light isn't it?  I see the integrated being as the source of power and not the dark exclusively - it would be as much of a mistake to go completely Yin as it would be to go completely Yang (?) - do you agree?  Perhaps mirage was the wrong word - what I meant was that to go completely Yin would give a feeling of power which is not equal to the Tai Chi integration ...maybe.   I'm not being dogmatic just searching for the right terms.