Response to rubycona

[skatche]

rubycona made a post today that I'd like to address. However, since it's not clear how much of the entry is in her words (I think she might be quoting lupabitch's book when she gives her example) and I'd like the right people to read my response; since my response is likely to be rather long, and since I'll get lots of extra attention this way (:P), I decided to

Comments

[skatche]

Wait. Why's this supposed to be a problem, in his eyes?

It isn't. That was my point: rubycona was suggesting that the archetypal overshadowing might have hindered her friend's healing, and I was saying that it might have actually helped.

is this actually a particularly unusual brand of stability and complacency?

You're right - it isn't. What rankles somewhat is that the otherkin community nevertheless tends to regard itself as particularly open to new ideas and as especially spiritual. Now, I don't expect all the otherkin to be mystics - I'd just like them to recognize that in a lot of cases they're really only skimming the surface of the psyche. (That applies less to the offline community than the online, but it's still definitely there.)

I don't feel that there's any use in expecting the whole otherkin community to do much of anything.

You'd be surprised. There's a lot of consensus in the community (or in parts of it) on the idea of a Higher Self that wasn't there before. Memes travel.

Some people like settling; let them

[autopoetic]

Wait. Why's this supposed to be a problem, in his eyes?

It isn't. That was my point: rubycona was suggesting that the archetypal overshadowing might have hindered her friend's healing, and I was saying that it might have actually helped.

I know last time I disagreed with you it turned out that we actually agreed. But I'm gonna try it again, in the hope that I haven't gotten you horribly wrong.... so here we go:

I disagree.

Jung saw archetypal possession (inflation he called it) as very dangerous and not particularly healthy. While it is true that virtually everyone dealing with unconscious content goes through it at some (many) points, he saw it as essential to identify with this unconscious material as little as possible. Identifying with archetypes (archetypal inflation) causes people to a) do stupid stuff (I can attest to that from personal experience), b, be very difficult to communicate with, and c) not confront whatever material they are dealing with in a conscious way

[skatche]

Hmm. Yes, you're right - I seem to be putting words in Jung's mouth. I may be due to reread some of his work.

I still disagree that overshadowing is unhealthy. This again goes into somewhat Laingian territory: it can be unhealthy in this society, simply because we haven't got the institutions (i.e. shamans) to deal with it properly. We medicate rather than assist and integrate. That does not have to be the case, and indeed it generally hasn't been the case in most civilizations (and non-civilized societies) throughout history.

On the other hand, I seem to be in agreement with you insomuch as I think otherkin should recognize better what they're dealing with. "Archetype" and "overshadowing" are just words, of course, but they come with a paradigm attached that could be very useful for all concerned.

[autopoetic]

I haven't read Laing, but he sounds interesting. I wonder though, did he actually test his theory, or is this extrapolation from shamanic societies? If he actually tested it in a modern context, I'll definitely be seeking out his texts.

The difference between our society and earlier ones is, I suspect, important. The relationship between consciousness and the unconscious is in constant motion, and I'm not sure what worked 1000 or 2000 years ago in radically different cultural contexts is easily translatable into our world. We are more autonomous from the unconscious, and also more alienated from it. I don't really know how that would translate into a difference in our experience of archetypal inflation, but it strikes as a relevant variable.

[nemesis_haven]

I agree in theory, however in practice it may be a case of lesser evils.

Not everyone is in a position to integrate much/any of their unconscious, and attempting to do so, even if well-intended, can be just as dangerous as the inflation. As an example, in Memories, dreams, reflections, Jung provides a case in which his patient was not dreaming--when the patient finally had a dream (of coming across a baby in a room full of feces, i think), Jung realized that attempting therapy with this person would absolutely destroy them (If you'd like a page #, I can find it once I'm at home).

Applied to the example given in the thread, the 'archetypal possession' or 'inflation' may have been a protective factor, one that was/could be dealt with when the individual was prepared to do so.

[autopoetic]

The difference between your example and archetypal inflation is that in the case of an inflated person, unconscious material is already emerging into consciousness. In inflation, one is deeply gripped by the unconscious, as if posessed. The only options therefore, are to integrate and so make truly conscious those materials (and therefore have some hope of dealing with them in a healthy way) or to go on being posessed.

In the case of the analysand you mentioned, their conscious mind was not already gripped by that unconscious material. Certainly, one should not go recklessly mucking about in the unconscious, dragging up material willy-nilly. However for someone already in the grips of an inflation, that choice has already been made for them. There is a big difference.