jungian definition of the unconscious

[INTP]

Everything which i know, but which i am not at moment thinking.
Everything which i was once conscious, but have now forgotten.
Everything perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind.
Everything which involuntary and without paying attention to it, i feel, think, remember, want and do.
All future things that are taking shape in me and will some time come to consciousness.
All this is the content of unconscious.
-Jung

 

[Mole]

Everything which i know, but which i am not at moment thinking.
Everything which i was once conscious, but have now forgotten.
Everything perceived by my senses, but not noted by my conscious mind.
Everything which involuntary and without paying attention to it, i feel, think, remember, want and do.
All future things that are taking shape in me and will some time come to consciousness.
All this is the content of unconscious.
-Jung

What is interesting is that the Jungian definition of the unconscious is a metaphor - there is no literal Jungian unconscious.

Unfortunately the literal minded think the unconscious exists, in the same way they might believe the Bible or the Koran is literally true, or that God or Allah literally exists.

This is compounded by the physical fact that our conscious mind is not aware of what most of our body, including our brain, is doing.

 

[nanook]

hm i see your point, victor, but isn't the literal meaning of unconscious precisely that of the unawareness, that you mention? in order to perceive the unconscious as mythological entity, it seems, one has to be less than literal, and twist the word unconscious into something like U-ber conscious, like "it begins with U, all the same to me". and isn't it possible, that both such an aware-uber and unaware-subconscious exist, making up the unconcious together? if MOST of our physiology doesn't appear to know, what the rest of it is doing, that doesn't seem to disprove, that there couldn't possibly be some vague sense of direction, that is pulling things together, philosophical love, eros maybe.

 

[INTP]

What is interesting is that the Jungian definition of the unconscious is a metaphor - there is no literal Jungian unconscious.

Unfortunately the literal minded think the unconscious exists, in the same way they might believe the Bible or the Koran is literally true, or that God or Allah literally exists.

This is compounded by the physical fact that our conscious mind is not aware of what most of our body, including our brain, is doing.

i dont really get your point. what do you mean with the "there is no literal jungian unconscious" and how do you see it only as an metaphor? same way jung(and i and most of the people) believe that unconscious literally exists, in the same way priest believes that god exists.
also the quote goes well with the todays definitions of the unconscious, only exception is the all future things taking place thing, which isnt usually mentioned in todays psychology, even tho psychology has proven that happening too. the first part"..which i know.." is called subliminal process today, second part "..have now forgotten.." is called implicit memory when it affects you, one could argue that everything that has happened has affected you, third part "..perceived by my senses.." is nowadays called subliminal perception, fourth part "..involuntary and without paying attention.." is the effect of strong implicit memories. do note that jung was probably the first one giving definition to the unconscious that fits the current definitions, even tho the names for differentiated(in the field of psychology, not in human mind) aspects of the unconscious has changed.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I have seen Jung typed as ISTP, INTP, INFP, and even INFJ! Which one is he?

 

[Cellmold]

I have seen Jung typed as ISTP, INTP, INFP, and even INFJ! Which one is he?

All of them? He once said, rather interestingly, that type is not static. Although that would of course be using his psychological types, not MBTI or Temperaments. However im not sure whether he meant that from the point of view of a person's perspective, as in their view of themselves would change over time, or whether the actual psychology would change.

At about 8:57:

Of course the type is nothing static....it changes with the course of life.

 

[INTP]

All of them? He once said, rather interestingly, that type is not static. Although that would of course be using his psychological types, not MBTI or Temperaments. However im not sure whether he meant that from the point of view of a person's perspective, as in their view of themselves would change over time, or whether the actual psychology would change.

At about 8:57:

todays psychology says that personality is reasonably stable over time(the stability thing is even in the definition of the word 'personality') and only has slight variations to it over the course of time. this small variation that we may see on big 5 tests etc can be explained by development of functions inside of your psychological type. if the whole type changed, there would be more instability on big 5 tests over time, as MBTI and big 5 correlate with each other so well.

ps. raptor is just trolling

 

[Cellmold]

todays psychology says that personality is reasonably stable over time(the stability thing is even in the definition of the word 'personality') and only has slight variations to it over the course of time. this small variation that we may see on big 5 tests etc can be explained by development of functions inside of your psychological type. if the whole type changed, there would be more instability on big 5 tests over time, as MBTI and big 5 correlate with each other so well.

Well I suppose like anything psychology will have moved on with time. Although I imagine some groundworks still play a strong part in some ways, not necessarily Jung though.

ps. raptor is just trolling

Is that because he is bringing up a far too often discussed and debated topic that he knows everyone is sick of? Or is it something else ive missed? Im not good at subtle trolling.

 

[Mal12345]

What is interesting is that the Jungian definition of the unconscious is a metaphor - there is no literal Jungian unconscious.

Unfortunately the literal minded think the unconscious exists, in the same way they might believe the Bible or the Koran is literally true, or that God or Allah literally exists.

This is compounded by the physical fact that our conscious mind is not aware of what most of our body, including our brain, is doing.

Very good. Now tell me, what is a percept? Is it a thing out there, or a thing in the mind? Or both? If it exists in the mind, is it a mental copy of the thing out there? Or is a percept the only thing there is?

 

[Mole]

hm i see your point, victor, but isn't the literal meaning of unconscious precisely that of the unawareness, that you mention? in order to perceive the unconscious as mythological entity, it seems, one has to be less than literal, and twist the word unconscious into something like U-ber conscious, like "it begins with U, all the same to me". and isn't it possible, that both such an aware-uber and unaware-subconscious exist, making up the unconcious together? if MOST of our physiology doesn't appear to know, what the rest of it is doing, that doesn't seem to disprove, that there couldn't possibly be some vague sense of direction, that is pulling things together, philosophical love, eros maybe.

Certainly Nanook, our DNA survives and reproduces and has produced the miracle of consciousness which we both share now.

And I have been fascinated by Sigmund Freud's idea of the unconscious but I have come to see that rather than there being an unconscious, there are only various types of consciousness.

So I start by distinquishing between the cognitive conscious and the creative conscious.

And further, by turning off some cognitive faculties, such as analysis and disbelief, we can turn on creative faculties such as the appreciation of beauty and the suspension of disbelief.

This theory of consciousness is called, "Trance Theory", by Dennis Wier.

 

[Mole]

Very good. Now tell me, what is a percept? Is it a thing out there, or a thing in the mind? Or both? If it exists in the mind, is it a mental copy of the thing out there? Or is a percept the only thing there is?

Well, we perceive by making distinctions. And the more distinctions, the more we see.

So the corollory is we don't see objects we see the difference between objects. So there is no mental copy of the thing out there. Rather we are exquisitelty attuned to perceive difference, or as we say, we perceive by making distinctions.

So in a philosophic sense, there is nothing there from epistemology, we only infer there is something there from our perception of difference.

For instance, we know we are alive because we perceive the difference in our metabolic rate, and when there is no difference in our metabolic rate, we are flatlining and so dead.

So what's the difference? Only the difference between life and death.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, we perceive by making distinctions. And the more distinctions, the more we see.

So the corollory is we don't see objects we see the difference between objects. So there is no mental copy of the thing out there. Rather we are exquisitelty attuned to perceive difference, or as we say, we perceive by making distinctions.

So in a philosophic sense, there is nothing there from epistemology, we only infer there is something there from our perception of difference.

For instance, we know we are alive because we perceive the difference in our metabolic rate, and when there is no difference in our metabolic rate, we are flatlining and so dead.

So what's the difference? Only the difference between life and death.

How do we perceive differences in the first place?