Can anyone inteested in Jung help me with understanding the Anima archetype?
I'm basically toying with the idea that the anima archetype can be projected onto more abstract things like self-determination within a nation. It makes sense on a symbolic scale as all the oedipal themes are there in different national myths across the world, I just want to make sure I'm on the right track.
Other urls found in this thread:
Personal take, Jung believes in an animus mundi kinda like a Hegelian veltgeist and thus proceeds Neoplatonically to a series of polytheistic and angel or daimonic emanations which might be localized in time and space -- and one might reason why not upward too to an omnidimensional monad? These entities contain all archetypes but are not exhausted by the archetypes listed by Jung. He is a committed gnostic nondualist supernaturalist mystic. Eliade's shamanism is a good book to read alongside Jung's Liber Novus. The anima is how a male relates to the females in his life. It takes the shapes of new and old archetypes.
>He is a committed gnostic nondualist supernaturalist mystic.
He's literally none of those things
>t. watched one peterson lecture and thinks he can deny the obvious
Man, with the amount of buzzwords you managed to throw in to one paragraph I'm sure you can't be serious.
He believes in supernatural mental causality (cf. synchronicity), the psychoanalytic enterprise is gnostic in nature (the talking cure, the healing truth, knowledge as salvation) and Jung more than most too, gnosticism is always nondual (like advaita) and mystical (requires theoria and praxis) though that of course begs the question of why it is necessary -- because we are wounded, and only Jung, himself wounded by Freud et al, cured himself of his shamanic sickness by auto-initiation and proceeded to cure others (see Red Book).
>The anima is how a male relates to the females in his life
It is much more than that though. A relatively unconscious man will believe that a woman he is projecting his anima onto will make him whole, as it were. This idea of 'wholeness' will make a man do almost anything to attain it.
Am I getting confused with the 'self' archetype?
Fair enough. What I'm reading is Jung's earlier works, what you described are a lot of what he wrote before he died
Hot take incoming
Yes. The anima is also how a man relates to his own femininity, thus seeking its consumnation in an illusory projection is bound to failure.
>Yes.
Yes to my question, or yes to how I was describing the anima projection?
People project what you're saying on to things that aren't other people either. What would you call someone who strives to be a millionaire his whole life, becomes one and realises that it hasn't made him whole?
I was under the impression that that was another manifestation of the anima, or it could be a 'self' projection?
Psued take: In a male, the Anima represents everything that an individual feels is missing from the self. In other words, the Anima is those parts of your identity as a complete autonomous individual that are not manifest in "reality". It is an artifact of the belief that you are incomplete without the company of another. This internal turmoil leads one to project this nebulous lack out on to the real world, and copes by proclaiming the suffering to be caused by some unjust separation and that some outside force is withholding the missing piece of you. In reality, this feeling is self-imposed, and individuation is about accepting that you are simply greater than the sum of those parts of you expressed in "reality". Its about recognizing that you can be complete and true to yourself, but only by letting go of naive materialist clinging to the necessity of consistency.
>individuation is about accepting that you are simply greater than the sum of those parts of you expressed in "reality"
See I'm consciously aware now of a couple times when I've had anima projections, and I recognise why I had them (both times the girl in question had qualities that I sincerely feel I lack in myself).
Despite knowing this I don't know how to go forward. In fact the qualities I believed I lacked I knew I lacked before I had those projections, so I don't know how they are supposed to serve me
You can't project what you do not already hold. Remember that your entire life exists in your own head, so it is folly to think you have ever perceived something that was not you to begin with. Individuation isn't tricking yourself into integrating something, it's about undoing the trick that led you to believe you lacked anything in the first place. You projected things on to a girl, because you believed certain parts of you only exist in females and you (a male) need to find those things elsewhere. You have a male body, but you are more than just your masculine traits. To be a man, or woman, is ultimately just playing a character. You can't be urself without acknowledging that your spirit transcends all categories beyond just (you). You are you, even saying you are (your name) is hopelessly reductive.
Yes to anima being more than external relations (it is also internal). Yes, also to men unconsciously projecting anima onto women and becoming disappointed by either not getting it or getting it.
>pursuit of money
I think this is more of a lack inherent to all desire. One has more than just an anima. One also has an animus. The ego strives to be an ideal male and win an ideal female, you could call that the ego ideal. But even this ego ideal is ultimately empty of anything that can fulfill, except if one purifies and transmutes desire into its sublime stasis.
Balancing anima and animus is important. And striving for the ego ideal. And ultimately transcending lack by achieving individuation. Become all you can be. Cultivate the qualities you seek in a partner and be respectful to all women in your life as manifestations of the divine feminine. Like attracts like. Good vibes for good vibes.
Basically, the reason I ask, is because I'm trying to make a thesis on nationalism having heavy archetypal undertones. In the past year I've been reading more and more Jung and the more I research archetypes - particularly the anima archetype - the more I see how similar it is to many, many nationalist movements.
Almost all nationalist movements are based on myths that centre around 'quest romance' narratives. 'Quest romance' narratives have heavy oedipal themes. The ideal of sovereignty is akin to anima projections, because it fools the unconscious individual into believing he will be whole once his nation achieves sovereignty.
There's also the element of an 'outgroup' intrinsic to all nationalisms (like what Spain is to Catalonia, America to the British etc.), which is basically the villain in the 'quest romance' narrative that prevents the protagonist from becoming 'whole' i.e. (marrying the bride that is held captive by the enemy, lady liberty, the end-goal of liberalism and republicanism).
Make sense?
He sure is committed
Makes sense to me! Hero's Journey is more Campbell tho
Explain please, so that I am not filling ambiguous patterns with my own psyche in an elaborate and fruitless rorschach test.
I relate this concept to his ideas of cognitive functions. The blindspot we aspire to fill. The kind of thing we like in a woman but can't produce ourselves.
For example, a more intellectual guy who like his books and his pointless abstractions would feel complete with a promiscuous and sexual woman. That could be related to the whole "porn is a sin" shtick we find here and elsewhere.
But maybe I am projecting.
Ive only really started getting into aion but heres my takefor what its worth
The anima archetype (as all archetypes) are 'alive" in itself, The anima is nothing but the minority of the female part within a male inherited from the mother (which is biological in a sense as well like all archetypes) Jung himself stated that the rising rate of divorces was in big part due to the manifestation of the anima and I suspect the mainstream acceptance of transvestism as well.
The problem with your "theory" is that the archetipes cant be utilized like the way you are stating since they are autonomous and if there is to be an imbalance in a person of one archetype it would be the definition opf being mentally ill (although as to the case with diffrent archetypes are respective this is especially true with the anima)
Theres a big diffrence between archetypes and archetypal ideas user, if you are really set on exploring what you just stated start...here then go to jung
I wouldn't say anima possession is mental illness, it simply comes up in childish infatuations with the other sex that fizzle out when you realise the individual behind your idealisations is nothing like what you hoped for. The idealisations you are imbuing is your anima, it is a compensatory function for your inner femininity
Yes I realise that, but that's why I think it works. Archetypes are in-born in human beings i.e. the collective unconscious, and these archetypes manifest themselves in images, symbols and people that surround a person, but they have common themes amd elements which can help identify a common archetype is at work.
This idea of universality works and unconscious possession works really well for what I'm studying, because it explains it so neatly. Okay anima-possession maybe strictly about one's relation to other people, but I really do think in the case of nationalism there is some unconscious possession going on here
>I wouldn't say anima possession is mental illness, it simply comes up in childish infatuations with the other sex that fizzle out when you realise the individual behind your idealisations is nothing like what you hoped for. The idealisations you are imbuing is your anima, it is a compensatory function for your inner femininity
baseless speculation at best.
Schizos have mostly been shown to be the result of archetypal domination, the archetypes arent some hidden magical power to fullfill your empty desires but the very embodiment of principality and soloing is in strife with what you consider modern contentiousness
Self mutilation (ie transvestiism) was considered a mental illness before it became acceptable
Neither is it "a compensory fuction" because that would undermine its (as with all archetypes) autonomous nature. An archetype cant simply "fizzle out" this has never been observed and it would mean the death of the colective unconscious as well as total loss of the ego if an archetype was to "fizzle out".especially with the anima due to its role in both male and females
To put it bluntly, you are wrong on all fronts and you dont know what you are talking about.
>Okay anima-possession maybe strictly about one's relation to other people, but I really do think in the case of nationalism there is some unconscious possession going on here
Again there is a diffrence between archetypal ideas and archetypes.
Utopia is an archetypal idea used in major political ideoligies as well as family as well as command hierarchy otherwise it would gain no real traction
To say the anima is alone at fault for the current state of things would not be right since the current state of things are built upon the ideas of the past (ie utopia, happiness etc) I could go on explaining but if your going to argue with people when you yourself still need to learn the difference between core concepts there is no real reason to try and help you.
Sorry I'm not explaining myself very well. You said that anima possession is the reason for marriages having high divorce rates and I agree with you. The anima is spinning illusions on to the partner, and these relationships 'fizzle out' (not the archetype) because the individual they have married is not the idealised version they had of them (the anima projection). Both men and women come under this, and it puts a relationship on a deply instinctual, impersonal basis. Those projections will certainly occur again and again if you learn nothing from them. The anima projections themselves are the compensatory function, not the actual archetype itself, which can never be fully integrated because of its very nature.
Am I making myself clearer now?
>To say the anima is alone at fault for the current state of things would not be right
When did I say that? I was talking about a very specific scenario, and I was saying that in certain political ideologies there is an unconscious possession going on
The images of utopia, racial purity or liberty are ideas which appeal to archetypes which explain their traction, as you said. I realise the difference between archetypes and archetypal images.The former is static while the latter takes many forms which is usually contextual.
>maybe I'm projecting
Sounds like it. I fit that description of being quiet and intellectual, but I'm indifferent to promiscuity (although I will give you the fact that the kind of women I like are ones who are more outspoken than me).
Based on what reading I've done on the Anima, it tracks a man's perception of femininity and how he perceives it throughout his life. The ideal goal is to reconcile with the feminine so that you can perceive women and your own femininity not as an "other", but as an equal. Some men fail to reconcile their anima however. Some trans women are probably the best example of this, since they let their idealised notions of femininity consume them while often still be unable to perceive that femininity as merely a part of themselves rather than as a feminine "other".
I didint say that divorce rates are affected by the resurge of the anima, jung did in aion
but i agree with you on the most part, you have to be carefull to differentiate between architipal possesion and archetipal projection since its not the same
Its commonly believe males (for the lack of a less satirized word) "project" their anima unto females but possession is something wholly different
in paraphrazing jung "someone under the domination of the anima might mutilate themselves to seem more like the opposite sex"
Read 7 Sermons of the Dead, he absolutely is.
You arent inborn with the collective unconscious, thats why its called the "collective" uncontious
>Basically, the reason I ask, is because I'm trying to make a thesis on nationalism having heavy archetypal undertones
this is what i meant with the current state of things
>in paraphrazing jung "someone under the domination of the anima might mutilate themselves to seem more like the opposite sex"
user.. he isint going to be able use that
>but i agree with you on the most part, you have to be carefull to differentiate between architipal possesion and archetipal projection since its not the same
>Its commonly believe males (for the lack of a less satirized word) "project" their anima unto females but possession is something wholly different
Okay I understand. I'm glad I got my ideas out now, I've realised how important it is to choose your words carefully when talking about this stuff.
Semantics.
I was already being broad and you made what I said even more general. What I meant is actually more specific I just didn't want to get into it
Good luck with your thesis user.
please help me start my individuation process. I'm tired of living like a child. I'm 30 y/o for gods sake