(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Do you believe in a collective unconscious?

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

My short answer: yes.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Short answers are good. :)

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

No.

[stampytherhino.livejournal.com]

yesish.

jung's definition is a little too archetype-heavy for my tastes. but parts of it ring true for me.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

[mehinda.livejournal.com]

No

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

No. The 99% wouldn't be nearly as stupid as they are.

[o-lucky-man.livejournal.com]

Yes

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

In short, yes. I think there's a great deal of evidence to support the premise.

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

Yes, for varying values of "collective unconscious".

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

I don't place blind faith in just about anything. Show me evidence by credible scientists and I'll consider it.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

You're versed in psychology. What do you think of Jung?

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

He's interesting. I think archetypes are social constructs which do tend to take on a live of their own. The newest ones have only been touched on, like a couple that Neil Gaiman mentions in "American Gods". See, you really need to read that book. ;)

I want a testable hypothesis on how the collective unconcious works. Bottom line, C.U. is dualistic, there's no reason to accept the premise of the mind/body split.

[timiathan.livejournal.com]

http://noosphere.princeton.edu

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

There's a great article in Skeptical Enquirer debunking that research, I think it was either the last issue or the issue before it.

The statistical model the researchers are using is creating the illusion of something happening. The problem, as I understood it, was that the pseudo-random number generator was the artifact creating statistically significant results.

[demeter42.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

no

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

No.

[bonerici.livejournal.com]

no. what possible physical mechanism is there.

[ridingdinosaurs.livejournal.com]

God?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

The collective unconscious. Jungian term.

[ridingdinosaurs.livejournal.com]

Heehee, are we a product of society or a product of some grand blueprint?

Are we born pure, completely innocent, completely naive? Just shaped by our environment, our experiences? Are these Archetypes so apparent only because society has made them itself? Are they prevelant in animals?

There are no heroes in the animal kingdom. Just balance, harmony, this beautiful/disgusting equilibrium.

As man evolved, and sentient thought arose, the concept of greed arose, and the balance was disturbed. An opposite force had to be created for balance to be restored.

But I'm veering off what we're even talking about, babblebabblebabble.

A collective unconcious would mean that there is something bigger giving us pre-set qualities and characteristics to help shape us.

So ah... God? These are intensely detailed characteristics, created along with sentient thought for the sake of balance, created by nature, which was created by God, if ya dig.

My apologies if I offend with my mildly religious babble, I don't even know who you are.

I also haven't looked in the Jungian thing too much, so a lot of this is still... transparent ideas. But hey, discussion is always a good way to solidify things.

[jdoggiedogg.livejournal.com]

yes, and I think we need collective therepy

[timiathan.livejournal.com]

Would have said 'maybe' a few years ago, but I love the Princeton Noosphere stuff, so I've upgraded it to 'probably.' I don't think that it operates in a necessarily Jungian way -- while I find him interesting, I also find him a bit batty. But I think there's a physical mechanism for this kind of thing that science hasn't catalogued yet. The collective unconscious is the gathered manifestion of Chi or the Tao.

[quiet-flame.livejournal.com]

I think it's very possible

Yes

[mazecraft.livejournal.com]

I like the term non-local consciousness myself. In regards to skeptics, have them read Larry Dossey's Reinventing Medicine, or Michael Talbot's Holographic Universe.

[kittenkissies.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes!

[bloodlikerain.livejournal.com]

i think so