Carl Jung's 'Collective Unconscious'

[LuisDantas]

I could never make much sense of Jung's ideas, to be honest. In some senses he is worse than Freud himself. He is certainly more credulous.

Nor do I get the point of Freud's ideas about the unconscious, either.

The concept of the Akashic Records seems actually far less of a mystification to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think a lot of Jung's ideas were obviously far-fetched, but at least hinted at interesting psychological notions that still exist today. The collective unconscious, for example, could be viewed not as a "psychic field" per se, but as a means of understanding that all feelings or reactions to external stimuli could be viewed as originating from fundamentally the same place. To put it another way, when we are afraid of something that "something" is kind of a mask that we put on the part of our brain that instructs us in the things we should be afraid of. The person who is afraid of spiders and the person who is afraid of buttons are afraid of very different things, but may have a very similar experience when encountering the chosen object of that fear because the fundamental idea behind the fear is still the same. It's similar to Joseph Campbell's theory on collective mythology, who drew on Jung as his original inspiration for the idea that all stories are fundamentally the same story, but told in different ways and with different dressings.

In that sense, I find a lot of Jung's work interesting, but not exactly rational for the most part.

 

[Leonardo]

Elman, eta published a book called Rethinking Innateness a while back and it describes how what many might believe is innate, inclusive of language acquisition of human beings, isn't so. He uses artificial neural networks (ANN) that learn to acquire the rules of grammar and these ANNS also have, strangely enough, similar problems that children have in learning grammar. Subtly they hint that neurological systems learn their environment through the sensory system which constrains the neurological systems to conceptual frameworks that vary by species, inclusive of an emotional complex. In effect the sensory system is the genetic preprogramming of sensitizing to an external environment that pre-process information that neural networks can more easily digest. E.g. the retina decomposes light into primary colors, also senses motion, and edges. This information is feed to the visual cortex where massive networks of neurons process it. The olfactory senses are another example where evolution genetically figures out how to recognize genders, nutritious food, dangerous substances, sense fear and anger, and all this information is pre-coded for neural networks to learn and use.

Elman’s, eta work is interesting and may suggest that the real subconscious is actually the sensory system that is wired to brains in such a way as to effect an accelerated learning curve for survival. This makes sense when one realizes that brains are really an evolution from basic nervous systems.

 

[Desert Snake]

Elman, eta published a book called Rethinking Innateness a while back and it describes how what many might believe is innate, inclusive of language acquisition of human beings, isn't so. He uses artificial neural networks (ANN) that learn to acquire the rules of grammar and these ANNS also have, strangely enough, similar problems that children have in learning grammar. Subtly they hint that neurological systems learn their environment through the sensory system which constrains the neurological systems to conceptual frameworks that vary by species, inclusive of an emotional complex. In effect the sensory system is the genetic preprogramming of sensitizing to an external environment that pre-process information that neural networks can more easily digest. E.g. the retina decomposes light into primary colors, also senses motion, and edges. This information is feed to the visual cortex where massive networks of neurons process it. The olfactory senses are another example where evolution genetically figures out how to recognize genders, nutritious food, dangerous substances, sense fear and anger, and all this information is pre-coded for neural networks to learn and use.

Elman’s, eta work is interesting and may suggest that the real subconscious is actually the sensory system that is wired to brains in such a way as to effect an accelerated learning curve for survival. This makes sense when one realizes that brains are really an evolution from basic nervous systems.

Yes, it's quite interesting what science has learned about the topics you've presented.
cheers

 

[PolyHedral]

A collective unconscious isn't a bad idea. Since matter and energy have continued since the beginning I believe that all of that matter could still have the data or evidence of its transformations. Also if I can invoke QM for a moment it could be that we are in a sort of entanglement with everything else in A universal wave function which essentially connects everything. I agree with the idea of Jung that there is a sort of base awareness otherwise being aware that we are aware(self reflection) is problematic.

Matter's only memory is its configuration. If or when that configuration is destroyed, there is no way to recover it. There is no evident shared awareness, as awareness is a far more complicated process than can be transmitted via entanglement.

 

[idav]

Matter's only memory is its configuration. If or when that configuration is destroyed, there is no way to recover it. There is no evident shared awareness, as awareness is a far more complicated process than can be transmitted via entanglement.

Memory is any data that can give a clue as to what transpired. We are able to trace back because we find evidence and this residual evidence that is everywhere counts as memory if you manage to get a hold of the data. Our own memory is pretty much a recollecting of certain stored patterns, evidence left in the brain.

 

[Desert Snake]

In that sense, I find a lot of Jung's work interesting, but not exactly rational for the most part.

Agreed, especially for the "archetypes" theory, which basically falls flat in any real study of mythology. It almost seems like it is a laymans explanation of collective mythology, without the data of how mythologies actually ARE related, through migrations etc. The same mistakes are made with languages, too speculative IMO, and not enough logic.

 

[Student of X]

Agreed, especially for the "archetypes" theory, which basically falls flat in any real study of mythology. It almost seems like it is a laymans explanation of collective mythology, without the data of how mythologies actually ARE related, through migrations etc. The same mistakes are made with languages, too speculative IMO, and not enough logic.

It looks like you are missing some pieces of the puzzle. Well, that's to be expected when people focus too strongly on logic and rationality. All things in moderation! The archetype of the trickster and the archetype of mana won't fit in a rigid "logical" framework, and so rigid thinkers just aren't going to get it. Naturally they will find the fault to be outside themselves.

"Carl Jung, who was deeply interested in parapsychological events, (Jung 1983) describes the collective unconscious, which serves as man’s repository for all history’s archetypes (symbols of universal meaning). He comments in ‘Psychology and the Occult’ (1977) that ‘anyone who has the least knowledge of the parapsychological material which already exists and has been thoroughly verified will know that so-called telepathic phenomena are undeniable facts’. He describes how synchronicity occurred in his own life and served to guide him to his discoveries, very much like those Nobel Prize winning physicists noted in Koestler’s book ‘The Roots of Coincidence’, who believed they had been guided to answer scientific problems via synchronistic events, even while attempting to discern the phenomena ‘scientifically’."

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/MarkBeddow1.11.04.pdf

 

[Desert Snake]

It looks like you are missing some pieces of the puzzle. Well, that's to be expected when people focus too strongly on logic and rationality. The archetype of the trickster and the archetype of mana won't fit in a rigid "logical" framework, and so rigid thinkers just aren't going to get it.


100% wrong. That's not my perspective at all. lol

"Carl Jung, who was deeply interested in parapsychological events, (Jung 1983) describes the collective unconscious, which serves as man’s repository for all history’s archetypes (symbols of universal meaning). He comments in ‘Psychology and the Occult’ (1977) that ‘anyone who has the least knowledge of the parapsychological material which already exists and has been thoroughly verified will know that so-called telepathic phenomena are undeniable facts’. He describes how synchronicity occurred in his own life and served to guide him to his discoveries, very much like those Nobel Prize winning physicists noted in Koestler’s book ‘The Roots of Coincidence’, who believed they had been guided to answer scientific problems via synchronistic events, even while attempting to discern the phenomena ‘scientifically’."

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/MarkBeddow1.11.04.pdf

I was critisisizing the theory presented in the OP, the one about the archetypes etc.

 

[Student of X]

Then, parapsychological effects have a place in your conception of the collective unconscious? Because it doesn't look like they do.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then, parapsychological effects have a place in your conception of the collective unconscious? Because it doesn't look like they do.

Totally different subject from the theory presented in the OP, and your question is too openended and vague to validate an answer that would make sense

 

[Student of X]

Totally different subject from the theory presented in the OP, and your question is too openended and vague to validate an answer that would make sense

No, it isn't a totally different subject.

From the OP: "Is the Collective Unconscious something like 'Brahman'?? Is it situated inside or outside the brain, I know it's just a theory and possibly not even widely accepted, but it sounds interesting!"

That opens the door for a consideration of parapsychological effects, and Jung himself opens the door for it. People aren't familiar enough with the body of parapsychological evidence to realize its legitimacy and importance, and they aren't aware of how important it was to Jung so they struggle in vain to assemble a jigsaw puzzle without all the pieces and then they blame their failure to understand on a perceived lack of logic and rationality.

 

[Leonardo]

"Carl Jung, who was deeply interested in parapsychological events, (Jung 1983) describes the collective unconscious, which serves as man’s repository for all history’s archetypes (symbols of universal meaning). He comments in ‘Psychology and the Occult’ (1977) that ‘anyone who has the least knowledge of the parapsychological material which already exists and has been thoroughly verified will know that so-called telepathic phenomena are undeniable facts’. He describes how synchronicity occurred in his own life and served to guide him to his discoveries, very much like those Nobel Prize winning physicists noted in Koestler’s book ‘The Roots of Coincidence’, who believed they had been guided to answer scientific problems via synchronistic events, even while attempting to discern the phenomena ‘scientifically’."

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/MarkBeddow1.11.04.pdf

Well I believe the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is a better explanation than any paranormal one:

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Student of X]

Well I believe the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is a better explanation than any paranormal one:

Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well I don't.

Mutants and Mystics: Science Fiction, Superhero Comics, and the Paranormal

 

[PolyHedral]

Memory is any data that can give a clue as to what transpired. We are able to trace back because we find evidence and this residual evidence that is everywhere counts as memory if you manage to get a hold of the data. Our own memory is pretty much a recollecting of certain stored patterns, evidence left in the brain.

Yes. But that doesn't contradict what I said. Information is stored in matter only as a configuration - fundamental particles have no memory, and so awareness cannot arise from that.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it isn't a totally different subject.

From the OP: "Is the Collective Unconscious something like 'Brahman'?? Is it situated inside or outside the brain, I know it's just a theory and possibly not even widely accepted, but it sounds interesting!"

That opens the door for a consideration of parapsychological effects, and Jung himself opens the door for it. People aren't familiar enough with the body of parapsychological evidence to realize its legitimacy and importance, and they aren't aware of how important it was to Jung so they struggle in vain to assemble a jigsaw puzzle without all the pieces and then they blame their failure to understand on a perceived lack of logic and rationality.

This really has nothing to do with my critique of the "archetypes" theory, so I don't know what you're going on about

 

[Student of X]

This really has nothing to do with my critique of the "archetypes" theory, so I don't know what you're going on about

Sure it does. You think that migration is where its at. Nope, our ability to enter transpersonal states of consciousness and receive non-local information from the collective unconscious (which informs a mythology) is more important of a consideration than migration.

 

[PolyHedral]

Sure it does. You think that migration is where its at. Nope, our ability to enter transpersonal states of consciousness and receive non-local information from the collective unconscious (which informs a mythology) is more important of a consideration than migration.

Unlike migrations, none of that has physical evidence behind it. Please remember that the evidence is the only basis for theory.

 

[Student of X]

Unlike migrations, none of that has physical evidence behind it. Please remember that the evidence is the only basis for theory.

Um, your dogmatic assertions about a lack of evidence mean nothing to me. I know better than to fall for pseudo-skeptic dogma. Please remember that.

"anyone who has the least knowledge of the parapsychological material which already exists and has been thoroughly verified will know that so-called telepathic phenomena are undeniable facts" -Carl Jung

 

[Leonardo]

"anyone who has the least knowledge of the parapsychological material which already exists and has been thoroughly verified will know that so-called telepathic phenomena are undeniable facts" -Carl Jung

LOL...Seriously, psychology has always been a tough business and differentiating yourself to gain the competitive advantage hints at agendas or motives for such outlandish claims of Carl Jung.

H L Menken (b. 1880) said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."