Except therein lies the fail at logic:
An individual's shadow is an unconscious region of the psyche formed by the conscious contents of the ego.
Becoming conscious only creates more shadow.
So we are stuck looking behind the contents to the unseen which there is no method to get to, the logic follows this sequence who/what/where/when/why/how
We went through the whole part almost, but have never reached a how. Instead it's circular logic all around: Seek the shadow you cannot see but which upon seeing creates more shadow to seek. Contents create the shadow, Seeing the shadow creates Contents, creating more shadow.
Seeing the why: to work on parts of yourself, and no how.
there's no logic fails, just a misunderstanding in words. in Jung speech, some conscious contents may create unconscious links and contents. making those link conscious doesn't necessarily create more unconscious contents.
about the "how" making those link conscious, the answer is obviously the
psychoanalysis work on ourselves.
that's a theory, of course
So in the end there is a logic fail: one builds an identity on the premise of having uncovered the unconscious (without any clear methodology to get to that unconscious), and that identity in turn isn't much different than the previous one in casting a shadow of things that cannot be seen, leading to a feedback loop of ever less shadow cast but constantly there regardless of how many trips to the unconscious we take (obviously impossible, but theoretically it could happen..) and bring back whatever we assume to not be casting a shadow.
yes. where is the fallacy in this process?
You are not saying that Achilles never reaches the turtle, are you? ^^
If "Becoming conscious only creates more shadow" were true, Jung would have been the creepiest man in history. I assure you, from studying his work for 25 years, he was not. In fact, he was one of the most balanced and insightful people in history. Sadly, you have missed the point catastrophically.
"Who/what/where/when/why/how" is the logic of journalism, not of Jung. Jung spent his entire professional life teaching us the "how." The circular logic is yours, not his.
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?
http://www.triviumeducation.com/