You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Jungian "Shadow"
So what is the how? Clearly it doesn't require quotations, just a how, and if you studied it for so long and have not said how, why did you omit?
How or why is my logic circular, but not his?
Still no answer, will come back tomorrow, or will ask you directly under another comment you make, and that includes the How to, and the why and how my logic is circular, and not his, as you say you've studied ONE man for 25 years and you're not a creep!
You offer no explanation as to why consciousness creates shadow.
I didn't say consciousness but consciousness obviouslly refers to content in awareness. So lets go with that.
Becoming conscious of your shadow, creates more content. Content creates the shadow. Is there special content that doesn't create a shadow?
The ego is not defined here though so before we being, let's define it with the jungian definition of the ego:
So when you say:
What you know about yourself, including things that you have somehow gathered from the unconscious, casts a shadow yet again, of things that you don't know or you don't want to know (two vastly different scenarios based on the premise of can, or ability, and want, desire). But, clearly consciousness is the ego, from their definition of the ego, as it being the "central complex" and from the definition of jungian consciousness:
Consciousness. The function or activity which maintains the relation of psychic contents to the ego; distinguished conceptually from the psyche, which encompasses both consciousness and the unconscious.
And therefore consciousness is ego and not just that, consciousness is the aggregate of psychic contents which in turn make up ones identity or the ego. So to add content to the conscious casts a shadow, as there is no distinction between what casts a shadow and what does not in consciousness.
"Is there special content that doesn't create a shadow?"
Knowledge of the shadow does not create shadow; it lessens it. This is the only critical feedback I have at this point for your responses.
So still no how to get that knowledge, mystical. 25 years of studying one man and his baseless assertions does that doesn't it? No explanation as to why my logic is circular either, it is implied no?