Collective Unconscious

for those of you who haven't heard of this: Collective unconscious - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For everyone else, first of all, I find it strange that an INTJ (Jung) came up with something like this, though upon thinking about this further, at the time psychology would have been much farther ahead than neurology, so theory was about all he would have to work with.

I think the collective unconscious could be attributed to instincts, a sort of genetic command code. But, then if this were the case Jung's idea that the c.u. is the same in all humans couldn't be completely accurate providing the subtle differences in our DNA. I don't think this is what He had in mind anyway, but a unconscious psychic link. Still, my genetic hypothesis seems to be a more reasonable explanation of Jung's observations.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject of the C.U. (hear your thoughts... there's a joke there. XD)

It does sound like instinct, but I don't understand what stored there, how it changes (if it even changes at all), and who can access it. I mean would it change depending on where you are (almost like internet censorship) or who is around you (I would ask a mechanic about cleaning up grease, not an artist), or characteristics of the you yourself?

Under Jung's original principles, I think of it more as tying into other sorts of mysticism. Are you aware of the anthropic principle?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uGo7BhgtKE"]YouTube - The Anthropic Principle as explained by Itsuki Koizumi[/ame]

K what freakin type was Carl Jung really? I have heard INTJ INFJ INTP and INFP and all of these people SWEAR that they know for a fact that he is one of these.

Originally Posted by thehigher

K what freakin type was Carl Jung really? I have heard INTJ INFJ INTP and INFP and all of these people SWEAR that they know for a fact that he is one of these.

LOL, I heard INFJ!

Originally Posted by 3pnt1415926535897932384

Under Jung's original principles, I think of it more as tying into other sorts of mysticism. Are you aware of the anthropic principle?

YouTube - The Anthropic Principle as explained by Itsuki Koizumi

If something must be true for us to exist, it is true because we exist. Isn't that just logic if there are no mistakes in perception?

Side note: I think Darwin would like to have a word with Jung.

Originally Posted by thehigher

K what freakin type was Carl Jung really? I have heard INTJ INFJ INTP and INFP and all of these people SWEAR that they know for a fact that he is one of these.

That is probably because they want him to be their type.
Confirmation_bias - people look at data in ways that confirms their beliefs
Bandwagon effect - people believe things because "everybody" does
Expectation bias - people believe data more easily if it confirms their beliefs, and reject it if it doesn't
Availability cascade - repeat something long enough and it becomes true

Personally, I just think all the kids want to be on the same team as that one really good guy.

Originally Posted by very bored

If something must be true for us to exist, it is true because we exist. Isn't that just logic if there are no mistakes in perception?

Side note: I think Darwin would like to have a word with Jung.



That is probably because they want him to be their type.
Confirmation_bias - people look at data in ways that confirms their beliefs
Bandwagon effect - people believe things because "everybody" does
Expectation bias - people believe data more easily if it confirms their beliefs, and reject it if it doesn't
Availability cascade - repeat something long enough and it becomes true

Personally, I just think all the kids want to be on the same team as that one really good guy.

Right but...what the hell is the right answer?

I'm skeptical about collective unconsciousness. I don't know the exact statistic but people encounter so much new images every day because of our information society. Of course, Jung lived in a different time. He was interested and was looking into his unconsciousness and came to the conclusion that he had this information that he could not have known? Well, he read a lot of books, he was very much interested in the meaning of images and stories, such as mythology. I think this collective unconsciousness was merely his own unconsciousness and his very well developed imagination.

Archetypes do make a lot of sense, the world is seen through the scope of the human psyche and there certainly is a collective interpretation or collective objectivity of the world.

All the people in the world understand what a house or home is, and we all understand what the sun is. Different cultures have different stories of what the sun stands for or what it means but the the stories do have a common denominator, because people see the same sun and see the same aspects of the sun. Interpretations can vary but for all of mankind, it is not difficult to imagine and understand that the sun is very valuable to us, we are dependent on it. Also, it gives light in the darkness, the human body needs this light in order to live on. The value of the sun and the light in the darkness lie at the core of the archetype sun.

People know what a hero is: the will of someone to self sacrifice. People gain this knowledge because they have the skill to imagine what it would be like to self-sacrifice.

People are build the same - the psyche: the totality of all psychic processes, conscious well as unconscious; not the soul or the personality - and therefore have a collective way of viewing the world. The mind makes connections and uses imagination to understand the world around it. My conclusion is that there is no collective unconsciousness involved in this process.

I once watched a "documentary" on dragons. It was neat becuase they presented dragons in a scientific way, like a what-if thing. Of course it was a sort of joke, but it brought up one good point. Dragons appear in almost every culture even though they mostly developed independently. Asian, Native American and European. Even the Inuits who live in an icy region where there are no reptiles have stories of dragons. This points towards a Collective Unconscious, no?