Carl Jung and the shadow self
by Jon Rappoport
October 29, 2016
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)
In this case, I mean Jung’s own shadow, the one that squirms and crawls and dashes and flies and disappears and reappears in a different form and never remains in one place for very long, because it is preoccupied with dynamic motion—and that is the outcome of Jung, after all his works were done…a man and a mind restlessly piercing the frontiers of life and bringing back ever-changing gifts, an alchemist transmuting his own ideas and insights into upper and lower levels of a vast sprawling city of the future…
Jung, 1928: “…the dream is the theater where the dreamer is at once scene, actor, prompter, stage manager, author, audience, and critic.”
Jung, 1963: ‘‘The shadow is that hidden, repressed, for the most part inferior and guilt-laden personality whose ultimate ramifications reach back into the realm of our animal ancestors and so comprise the whole historical aspect of the unconscious.’’
Jung, 1921: “The dynamic principle of fantasy is play, a characteristic also of the child, and as such it appears inconsistent with the principle of serious work. But without this playing with fantasy no creative work has ever yet come to birth. The debt we owe to the play of imagination is incalculable.”
Jung, 1931: “Here and there it happened in my practice that a patient grew beyond himself because of unknown potentialities, and this became an experience of prime importance to me. I had learned in the meanwhile that the greatest and most important problems of life are all in a certain sense insoluble. They must be so because they express the necessary polarity inherent in every self-regulating system. They can never be solved, but only outgrown.”
On the surface, it appeared that Jung was wrestling with his discoveries, attempting to corral them into an organized system. But underneath, he was launched on a far more adventurous voyage. His critics never realized that his pronouncements were always provisional, and sometimes came around and fastened on to their own tails.
Humans want snapshots. They want to stop time and draw definitive and final conclusions about other humans. They want to deposit dry packets of data in banks of perfection.
Jung was an artist of psychology. He was always painting it, scrubbing out old sections, adding new ones, making ideas collide with one another, confident that polarity was the electric spark that generated new twists and turns in the voyage into the future.
If he played the role of scientist, it was in order to locate hypothetical possibilities that would stir him to paddle into new tunnels and rivers of the secret soul.
And every human has secrets. They propel him into greater achievements, if he will permit it, if he will resist the urge to make a petty confession out of his existence.
The secret has force. The secret has strength. The secret does not bow down. The secret is the kernel of great energy that never dies. The secret is the untranslatable. From the secret comes endless expression, not translation.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.
Outside the Reality Machine 
Amazing. Thank you.
Jung I consider, perverse as an artist. Him and mainly Freud brought us the new form of the plague. And rebranded it to convince us that nature was broke, and therefore we are broke, and needed fixing. Horseshit and complete quackery; now this new religion, with its ‘priesthood of the mind’ know me better than I know myself. Bullshit.
The Shadow:
What a remarkable thing; fearless, magic, imaginative, powerful, eternal, beyond belief. Not limited by the inferiority of five senses.
The soul center and misinterpreted dark side of us?…for an artist it is were all the juice is, it’s the mojo, man, it is the saint or the devil. Which ever you prefer. And we all need a little of both. Balance is the key, I would say. But especially the religious type, who are far too busy suppressing it, or searching it out for its destruction, until it jump out one day and eats the children.
History…hell it encompasses the whole human consciousness. The conscious space it inhabits is beyond belief, beyond any comprehension on this side of the grey plain of existence. It is curious, and is the inquirer, the future is what it longs for after the dullness of mediocrity cages it in. After the enthralled life, the medicated existence, the absurd reality that only good is worthy. And that, that is the purpose of this nonsense we go through here on Planet Wal-Mart.
The shadow is patient beyond belief, and will wait lifetimes to gain a thing. And it knows it is immortal.
What I notice is when it is suppressed, there, danger lies for me.
What most won’t acknowledge inside of themselves is the tortured and the torturer; a great magician and an apprentice.
You say secrets, I care to say mystery. And your right, life can become petty confession.
Michael Burns, so…you know yourself. Quite an impressive statement. Really? Is there any chance -maybe slight- that you only have a dim perception of who you think you are, and this deludes you into thinking that you know yourself? could it be that perhaps, your contempt for the “priesthood of the mind” obeys to deep, ingrained motives that these “priesthood” is pointing at, and that your conscious does not want to admit? or cannot admit? Could it be that your past or ongoing conditioning -we have all been or are still being conditioned- hinders your ability to see -and admit- things clearly as these really are?
Don’t take it personal, man. I have asked myself the same questions over and over. “Only good” is worthy for most. “Evil” may be good for some. But, what is good, and what is evil? Perhaps the answer to this question provides the key to unlock what is suppressed in the individual-subjective and collective conscious…if there is ever such a thing as an unshakable and definite answer… Maybe, there are many answers. Maybe, there are none for us to delve into.
Perhaps, everything -even our own attempt to understand ourselves and to uncover truth- is nothing more than horseshit.
Carlos the Poseur. You somehow know that nothing is true, good, or evil, without any argument for such a remarkable conclusion, except “Perhaps.” Perhaps today it is permissible to torture prisoners. Perhaps tomorrow children can be permitted to make adult decisions. Perhaps in the near future you can be kicked out of your own home to make room for refugees. Let’s just see which way the wind is blowing. You could not stand up in that wind if the protective walls of truth, good, and evil were toppled.
Sure, consciousness is a subjective phenomenon. Exactly why we need protection against someone who thinks that “perhaps” is the only word stopping him from mugging you. Life, liberty, and property are self-evident good things. No discussion is possible. If they are merely subjective terms of worth, then all you possessions, your comfortable house, your livelihood, are up for grabs. You want that?
Greg, the omniscient. The term “Perhaps” is an adverb used to express uncertainty or possibility. It allows for a varied set of options to chose from. And I like this word because it denotes and exposes my own limited understanding or flat incomprehension of anything -or anyone- that poses itself as absolute. Its use prevents me from being too assertive, and leaves no room for arrogance when expressing my own personal opinion on any subject that requires and allows for more than one interpretation.
Perhaps -here I go again- I wasn’t clear enough in my first comment. If so, let me re-state this: I DO believe in absolutes such as the ones you mention: truth, life, evil, liberty et cetera. I reason that if we can conceive them is because they already exist, even if it is only in our minds and thoughts. And maybe I am wrong in my reasoning about this. But at the same time, I acknowledge that we live in a world where the idea, the definition and the worth of these absolutes has been distorted as a consequence of all the propaganda and conditioning we are continually being exposed, and also as a direct consequence of all the greed and evil that permeate many individuals.
There is good, there is truth, and there is evil, of course, and I never stated the contrary as you suggest. They stand on their own, they transcend, but often times, we have twisted their meaning to satisfy our greed. And yes, most of the time, it is easy to distinguish among them. Not necessarily because we have learned a fixed definition to each, but because these are somehow ingrained in our inner self, in our soul.
I honestly find your comment off track. I see no relationship between my first comment and what you are telling -or accusing me of. The only explanation that comes to my mind is that I didn’t explain myself better and this confused you about what I was saying. If that’s the case, I apologize for that. But that’s why I also wrote in the end that “Maybe, there are many answers. Maybe, there are none for us to delve into. Perhaps, everything -even our own attempt to understand ourselves and to uncover truth- is nothing more than horseshit.” (Using the same expression that the other commenter used too). However, you leave me with the impression that you are the one who knows the absolute and definite answer to these questions.
Carlos: Yes, my comment was definitely off track. When the track is pure intellectual speculation, well, that track leads nowhere. When the search for meaning is posed as a quest for explanation, it is a game, like a five-year-old boy who says “Why” to everything you say. There is no conclusive answer in such a game, but those who play it are afraid to opt out because they enjoy being a part of the exclusive philosopher’s club.
When it comes to truth, life, and liberty, it isn’t a question of whether they exist, or whether we believe in them. I use “believe” here in the sense of intellectual acknowledgement, as in answering the question of their existence. The same holds true for ourselves – we are not puzzles to solve. We define ourselves, we create ourselves, for better or for worse. There is no answer to “Who am I really?” except in the creative response.
Truth, life, and liberty are ideals to embrace, since without them there is no meaningful existence. Goodness is found in the embrace of these ideals, while evil is found in the rejection.
Your original comment, sprinkled with “perhaps” and “maybe,” steered right into uncertainty, as if maybe that would lead somewhere. We need exactly the opposite, to wake up every morning and be certain, to get to work in pursuing in our own way these ideals, rather than questioning them, or inventing sophistries to explain our inactivity.
I can’t possibly know if you fit this description or not; for all I know, you do these things. Your comment, however, ended in uncertainty. Your answer to me upheld this position as superior to someone who “knows the absolute and definite answers to these questions.” Yes, I admit to knowing absolutes, because I choose to live them, not because I can successfully answer an unlimited series of questions about them. I teach children music, because I find the best way to teach is not to explain, but to demonstrate, and get them beyond finding answers to embracing creative action.
“Carlos: Yes, my comment was definitely off track. When the track is pure intellectual speculation, well, that track leads nowhere. When the search for meaning is posed as a quest for explanation, it is a game, like a five-year-old boy who says “Why” to everything you say. There is no conclusive answer in such a game, but those who play it are afraid to opt out because they enjoy being a part of the exclusive philosopher’s club”.
……. I agree with you almost completely on this. I hope I have not created -again- the impression that mine is just “pure intellectual speculation”. Although, I admit that I enjoy this intellectual speculation, because, at least in my case, it allows me to exercise my brain, my reasoning skills, it allows for and offers me the opportunity to grow, and I really like to challenge myself on this purely intellectual aspect. This may not be the best approach, but, as far as I am concerned, it currently serves my purposes. So yes, I still think your comment was mostly off track, but in the sense that I don’t see how it relates to my argumentation.
“When it comes to truth, life, and liberty, it isn’t a question of whether they exist, or whether we believe in them. I use “believe” here in the sense of intellectual acknowledgement, as in answering the question of their existence. The same holds true for ourselves – we are not puzzles to solve. We define ourselves, we create ourselves, for better or for worse. There is no answer to “Who am I really?” except in the creative response. “.
……. Once again, I agree with you almost completely on this one. Just let me point your attention to the fact that this is exactly what I meant by, “There is good, there is truth, and there is evil, of course, and I never stated the contrary as you suggest. If I mentioned them it was because you were assuming that I doubted about their existence, which is not the case here. They stand on their own, they transcend”. It’s not just an a matter of intellectual argumentation. Nonetheless, their transcending is one thing, and a person believing that he/she is free, that he/she knows the truth and is living to his full potential while in fact he/she isn’t, is another thing: It affects the way he’s going to conduct his/her life, influencing his path in life, but not only that, influencing the paths of others as well -for good or for bad. But then again, you stated that, “There is no answer to “Who am I really?” Well, it seems to me that you just made echo of my uncertainty when it comes to provide an answer to these existential questions. And at any rate, my original comment had to do with a person who PERHAPS is deluded into thinking he has the answers because he knows it all.
“Truth, life, and liberty are ideals to embrace, since without them there is no meaningful existence. Goodness is found in the embrace of these ideals, while evil is found in the rejection.”
……. My reply to this one is very similar to the one above in that, even though “truth, life and liberty are ideals to embrace” then again, if a person is deluded into believing a parody of truth, that person will no distinguish between what is really the truth and what is not, so therefore, that person will not embrace something he thinks he already posses… He will take it for granted.
“Your original comment, sprinkled with “perhaps” and “maybe,” steered right into uncertainty, as if maybe that would lead somewhere”.
……. I used those two words because -quoting John Allen Paulos- “Uncertainty is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.” Uncertainty leads to questioning, questioning leads to find answers. And since we are beings in continual growing and evolution, we will always be faced with new questions and new answers; it’s a never ending cycle. That is, unless a person is a conformist, and never questions anything because he cannot see the difference between being really free and being an automaton. In that case, that person is stagnant, not really alive, just existing.
“We need exactly the opposite, to wake up every morning and be certain, to get to work in pursuing in our own way these ideals, rather than questioning them, or inventing sophistries to explain our inactivity.”
…… I ask you: How can we “work in pursuing in our own way these ideals” if one does not have a clear comprehension of what these ideals really are? and, doesn’t our own way leave room to questioning them? Or we not free to question anything? These “sophistries” as you seem to delight in calling them, are not necessarily invented nor came up with as if “out of the blue”, rather, they are the result of direct observation, questioning and curiosity.
And yes, my previous comment above ended in uncertainty because that’s how a true seeker of truth feels and has to feel: We have questions, we enquire what we don understand and what we find beyond our own understanding, and sometimes we may come up with answers, but those answers are tailored to what we can manage to grasp according to our little understanding of things. Pretending to know all and everything just because one does what is required to do, is a sign of arrogance, lack of humbleness, delusion.
Look, I wonder if both you and I are talking about the same thing but looking at it from a different angle, as if complementing each other. I really don’t know. But I am glad that you are posting your comments, because that challenges me and makes me to think, and this allows me to learn. And it’s obvious that you have something, if not many things to teach me and to help broaden my overall understanding. Thank you.
Hello again, Carlos:
I was thinking more about absolutes and intellect, certainty and questioning this morning, as I was out shoveling the snow off my driveway. I should be more careful to define my terms. What is an absolute? It is more than an idea that is unquestioned. It is not merely a dogmatic belief. It is an ideal that is beyond the reach of argument. “Life is good” is an absolute. Many intellects have dispensed with this ideal, to replace it with something better. Malthus, Lenin, Sanger, all believed that “my ideal society” trumped life, and so it was permissible to exterminate it. Absolutes are by nature unassailable, unless they are replaced with another absolute. All morals are like that. You can’t just argue that they are wrong, or superfluous. No, your argument has to assert a better, higher absolute.
So it is not so much that absolutes are unquestionable, as they are unavoidable. And there is no process of intellect that will help us to choose the best absolutes to uphold. They are by nature self-evident. We have often seen cults choosing to believe in a leader absolutely, and anyone who questions the authority of that leader is punished. That is not an absolute, because it is not self-evident that one person deserves such authority. And, you don’t need to assert a higher authority as a replacement. Nature has the last word, so when he dies the authority dies too. Absolutes are eternal. Authority of all kinds is temporary, as history has proven. It is self-evident.
The existence of a creator of the universe is an absolute. To say that the universe always existed is illogical, as is any unending series of events. Science agrees, and tries to deal with the problem with something that existed before time and brought everything into being. We can argue over whether the creator is a personal one or an impersonal condition, but anyone who seriously considers the problem cannot avoid the issue. Unless, of course, they argue against the law of cause and effect – and assert that something came out of nothing. But even then, they are saying that a transcendent “nothing” created the universe. In all three cases, you cannot demonstrate or prove the existence of your creator.
I’m guessing that you would say that this is a great opportunity to embrace uncertainty, to just be an agnostic. That’s your choice. No lives are at stake, and no injustice is committed. But a pattern is set, so that whenever confronted with an absolute, it is easier to say, “I don’t know.” But there are plenty of people who claim to know, and they will end up making the choice that will sooner or later affect you. If you say, “I don’t know when life begins, or ends” then someone else, the Supreme Court, the Church, or some other authority, will decide. This kind of uncertainty is just another word for passivity. It reminds me of a piano student of mine, when I ask him what he would like to play first at his lesson, his answer is always, “I don’t know.” Of course he doesn’t know, because he simply doesn’t want to choose. He doesn’t know what to want. In other words, he’s just passive. That’s exactly why I am so against embracing uncertainty. Like the choice of what to play first, the choice of absolutes in unavoidable, so you might as well start deciding.
Hey Carlos, I agree that our comments overlap, maybe as much as 80% in agreement. But the other 20% where we disagree is found in your overall direction and conclusion.
Take for instance your assertion that humbleness (humility) is a virtue. The way that you use the word is not its original meaning, but its postmodern usage, to mean accepting uncertainty and being open to all points of view. Originally, humility meant knowing when to keep quiet and how to behave. It had nothing to do with the inner life, but had everything to do with the way we deal with others. This linguistic sleight-of-hand (not of your invention) goes hand-in-glove with the meme that embracing absolutes is being a know-it-all, and rejecting absolutes is the sign of a curious, diligent learner. This is one of the few absolutes that are allowed today, that no absolutes are permissible. When stated formally, it is easy to see the error in logic, the self-contradiction contained in that subliminally expressed meme.
The “we’re saying the same thing from two different angles” meme is a common one too, where significant differences are made into matters of semantics It appears to be a gracious gesture, but when someone trots that old horse out of the stable, it’s just a way to cut off further inquiry. It’s a way of saying, “Look, there’s nothing of interest here. We’re just two people bickering, that’s all.” Which to me is an anti-intellectual stance that shows a lack of curiosity and depth.
I am very inconsistent by my own admission. Curiosity and intellectual pursuits are not always called for. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin…” I’m sure you are familiar with that quote. A favorite essay by the author of that quote, R.W. Emerson, is “The American Scholar.” His observation that the true scholar can be described as “man thinking” – rather than a mere thinker, says it all. We are more than thinkers, Everything we are is not just a product of thinking. Thus, the need for absolutes, if we are to be men (people) of action, that is, real men, rather than going through each day untangling every new argument, never confronting error with certainty, entertaining every little linguistic anomaly that we come across. There is curiosity, there is wonder, but then there is the need to stand firm, to be a source of strength, and to recognize those things that make us strong. Inconsistent, yet not just a matter of semantics. Man thinking. Now I’ve used up my morning thinking time, and it’s time to go do something productive.