Isn't this guy's work implicitly atheist...

Read.

>The human creature is a being of both personal and collective layers

Wrong. Empirically there is no distinction between collective and personal processes. Its a mere abstraction. There is only ever individual cognition.

Read Answer to Job.

>what is reflexivity
You need to be deeply stupid and ignorant of the evolutionary process to think people are aren't defined by commonality.

The personal is that which you have acquired from lived experience. The collective is that which you have inherited from a very long period of evolutionary history. There obviously is a distinction between nature and nurture, even though they both interact. This is not simply a discussion of cognitive processes, which are merely certain functions of the human nervous system.

"Commonality" is merely an abstraction, arbitrarily drawing a parrelel between a certain set of individual activities.

No human genetically inherits stories you retard. They have to be told them by another individual.

You should refrain from labeling everything you do not understand as an "abstraction" as it makes you seem very ignorant.

Oh sorry are you proposing "Commonality" can ever be spoken about independent of its origination and end in individual activity?

Narratives are a very natural expression of the mind, and unfortunately for you, there are certain patterns which seem to be collective as they occur in separate cultures which have nothing to do with each other. This happens over and over again. This is a very interesting observation which no conclusions has to be made from, but it is true nonetheless. You are clearly an individual who has read very little of the world's literature, and you are oblivious of comparative studies of this kind. Read more, and stop being retarded.

not who you're responding to but there's no proof that "narratives" are biologically embedded instead of being socially transmitted
you're implying that there exists such a thing as "separate cultures", but even "isolated" sub-Saharan african tribes had contact with outside forces throughout their history

So you don't believe in evolution?

Is this the power of reddit?

In the field of comparative mythology there are numerous instances of similar patterns. Almost all elaborate cultures have myths concerning heroes, creation, and rebirth, only to mention three. It would be quite a stretch to posit that all continents of the world socially influenced each other thousands of years ago. This is simply not true. Norse mythological narratives can be compared with the religious stories of India.

Or, now this may be crazy, there's sociological reasons that inform how stories end up developeing at certain material stages of developement in a socieities economy that lead to certain figures like heroes creation and rebirth having a clear tendency of parrelel determination.
For every comparison you can make between Norse mythology and Hindu mythology however there's a big fucking Elephantman with no such parrelel due to the individual nature of each mythology that has to be traced materially to understand.

What you miss here is that Jungianism and "Comparitive Mythology" is an ass backwards discourse, it aims towards producing a system of discussing the abstracted overlapping sets as a thing in of itself rather than seeing it as simply a means towards which we can better understand the invidual phenomena in their own intrinsic identity for which there is nothing else.

>Isn't this guy's work implicitly atheist?
He's describing his subject matter from a naturalist, scientistic angle.

Frankly this is the standard for religious (read: Christian) studies these days: not to assume the truthfulness of revelation and the supernatural as a religion person would do.

As for Jung's religious views, they evolved over time, his quote:: "I know. I don't need to believe. I know." is infamously controversial.

Did he go full Gnostic, or was he being the detached naturalist who sees a the belief in the supernatural as a seemingly universal fact of humanity, which you can know?
youtube.com/watch?v=VJD9smeA-HA

These stories obviously have their individual flavor to them, but not being able to recognize their collective status is something which I am completely unable to fathom. There is nothing individual about the essence of these stories as they repeatedly reproduce themselves as a collective imagery of the human experience. The individual details are not as important as the patterns which they are in.

>Frankly this is the standard for religious (read: Christian) studies these days

Only in so far as religious studies are conducted independent of Philosophy. I mean I studied philosophy and we dealt with the most explicitly religious figures and took no interest in any such aspects.

You still sound like you studied what man thinks, not what God thinks.

Nonsense, the individual details are EVERYTHING. And this is exactly why I detest this Jungian backwards approach to interpretation. When you exclude what is contingent to each narrative in its own infinite individual particularly then you are incapable of truly reading or coming close to the Thing, its just a misinformed game of overlapping shadows.

Nah, Jung surprisingly believed that the archetypes had a basis in something outside of humanity. I can't find it now but someone posted a very good pic before that has Jung's letter to someone saying this belief.

I would go as far to say that its what his entire intellectual project relies on. Otherwise he's just another Freudian

It just seems rather pagan than Christian. I really haven't read Peterson and won't for awhile until all these memes die down but it seems like a rather shaky foundation to set your Christian beliefs on.

Can anyone tell me if Peterson is Catholic or Protestant?

The individual details are not as important when they only are there to form the particular collective narrative. I think they are very interesting indeed, but when it comes to the comparison of patterns, one has to dispense with some of them. The individual details can impossibly be everything as they would not form a coherent narrative without the archetypal patterns which they try to express. This is of course not true for all literature as some are personal, and others collective. I am currently speaking about the collective expressions of the human race.

Protestant, duh. His foundation is the Bible, not Jungian psychoanalysis.

I wish Peterson, his fanboys and his haters stuck to their countless threads and left Jung alone for one damn second.

>Nonsense, the individual details are EVERYTHING
Explain mirror neurons.

Jung was highly critical of theories which are essential to the Freudian orthodoxy. The libido, dream interpretation, the unconscious, and the cause of neurosis are some of them. It would be impossible for Jung to be "just another Freudian".

Except there are no collective expressions of the human race. Every story that was ever told was created at some point by an individual or adapted by individuals.
Every story that was ever told is nothing but a string of individual details experienced at an individual point in time.
If a story has ever had a profound effect it was only when individual minds sat experienced them individually in ALL their individual details.

You assert some importance to what is shared in these narratives but you don't offer any basis for this. Its a totally illegitimate hermeneutic axiom.

It is when all his criticisms of them rests on this horseshit

Humans are good at finding patterns, even where they don't exist

>Except there are no collective expressions of the human race.
Why are you speaking a language?

>Explain mirror neurons.

I'm not the least bit interested in your pseudo mystic straw grasping of science you don't understand

>Protestant, duh.

ok dropped

Try harder, every word that was ever spoken was spoken by an individual. Again stop reading things backwards

only-my-prospective-exists, the post

Only-individual-perspectives-exist
is more accurate (and true)

Oh and the Thing of course

So you can't. Not only you don't know a single thing about neuroscience, you think I care about Jung.

According to you, the word was spoken but nobody could understand it because people cannot do things together. No, you read things backwards.

Most of human activity is not produced by conscious deliberation. And I must say, it is very difficult to have a discussion with somebody with the mindset and knowledge of a person who lived during the Enlightenment. It is time for you to dispense with the erroneous theory of tabula rasa.

The importance of patterns in narratives are currently only of intellectual interest for me. It is curious.

>the word was spoken but nobody could understand it because people cannot do things together

Indeed of course, thats the state we all begin at as babies.Try say Pass the ketchup to junior and wait for him to access the collective realm of language and hand it to you.
The acquisition of language is an individual process that each individual has to have individually conferred from other individuals.

I'm not talking about consciousness or subconsciousness at all. I'm speaking about the realm of the collective as a non-object

all the real meaningful human activity is definitely consciously mediated (besides low level stuff e.g. breathing, blinking, etc) but our perception is fluid, we can look at things differently, paradigm shifts happen, etc
when someone isn't being sufficiently self-reflective on their own thinking it doesn't mean they're unconscious, they're conscious but just not critical

>thats the state we all begin at as babies.
And the baby learns without formal teaching, in fact they pick up words simply by hearing them, and imitating their fellow human beings in what they do and what they say. Learning a language begins in-utero.

>Try say Pass the ketchup to junior and wait for him to access the collective realm of language and hand it to you.
An adult speaks to Junior through baby talk, something that happens without the parent learning about pedagogy or baby talk.

How is it even possible that you use a language, again?

I do not see where you think you're disagreeing with my post here. Yes I agree with all that, we learn as individuals from other individuals at individual moments. Language can be totally accounted for in this fashion without ever needing a reference to collectives.

What should I read by Jung if I'm interested in how his depth psychology relates to gnosticism and the occult?

I just checked out Man & His Symbols but only the first article is by Jung.

All conscious mediation is supported by underlying unconscious processes. There would not be consciousness without these processes to sustain it. Something might seem to be a conscious product to you, but before it reached you it was definitely out of your field of awareness. There are many neuroscientific, cognitive, and psychological studies and experiments which validate this. Although, I fully agree with you that we as humans have a great capability to change our own perception of the world and ourselves. There is no question about it.

You should read "Psychology and Alchemy", "Alchemical Studies", and "Mysterium Coniunctionis".

No one teaches people baby talk, yet it can be spoken. No one teaches the baby to interpret baby talk, and yet the baby can understand it.

Your fantasies about the inexistence of collective human behavior and denial of the role of mirror neurons in cognitive development and operation, let alone linguistic acquisition and formation, means you have some serious problems with pretty much everything written on neuroscience, language, behavior, community, inter-subjectivity and more since, say, Locke.

No, it's not just about Jung, your Cartesian approach to the philosophy of mind cannot explain how you could ever manage to speak a language. Go back to the 17th century, and take your mysticism and dogmas with you.

I could not have put it better myself. I understand how frustrating it must be for you to have a "discussion" with somebody blindly identifying with arbitrary whims originating from outdated philosophical positions.

>No one teaches people baby talk

EXCEPT THEY DO DIPSHIT
They may not realize it but when a person says a word and a baby hears it, the baby over time comes to associate that word with the context in which it was said and through pattern recognition comes to an accurate understanding of it.
Obviously yeah there is likely something in our DNA that causes babies to do that but that still doesn't lead to any reference to a collective because its simply the individual expression of our individual DNA that came about through two individuals fucking etcetera to the first individual proto-life molecules.

When we speak of collectives its only an abstract use of language to help us understand atemporally and singularly what are only ever come down to pariticular instances.

Enough. Now I know that you are trolling. You must be.

>through pattern recognition
Pattern recognition... within what? Did a third individual show up?

>doesn't lead to any reference to a collective because its simply the individual expression of our individual DNA
Your DNA determines the meaning of a word, now?

>When we speak of collectives its only an abstract use of language
No, it is THE use of language. Literally.

>Pattern recognition... within what? Did a third individual show up?

No a second instance of its use obviously.
Baby sees his mother and his father, they say "Can you say Moma", he recognizes an association between Moma and that moment.
Next day mother is alone and asks him again, he narrows the association down to what is different than last time, it being the presence of only the Mother which in turn helps teach him what the mother was referring to (herself).

I reference DNA to indicate why the baby would decide to take up such an activity

>a second instance of its use
So now we have a use of language happening between people, and that determines the meaning, very clearly inter-subjective and community-grounded, as opposed to separate individuals individualing individually in separation.

>I reference DNA to indicate why the baby would decide to take up such an activity
You still came across as a new convert to Jungianism, babbling about a hereditary basis for the baby's quest to find something close to the Great Mother. You mystic, you.

Dude I think you have my point here very mistaken, I'm not a Jungian, this whole thread I've been aiming to criticize Jungianism.
My point here has simply been that all social phenomena are reducible to individual activity.

Holy fuck, you're retarded. Read a fucking scientific paper. Do you understand how fucking stupid you are?

You're the fucking retard if you think anything I've said contradicts anything that can be called science

Yeah, the science of the 17th century, that is.

As opposed to what? Modern day gender studies?

>All conscious mediation is supported by underlying unconscious processes. There would not be consciousness without these processes to sustain it. Something might seem to be a conscious product to you, but before it reached you it was definitely out of your field of awareness. There are many neuroscientific, cognitive, and psychological studies and experiments which validate this.

I don't know what you mean by a "unconscious process" but beyond the physical prerequisites for perception and its maintenance there's no real structure deeper than consciousness in your head e.g. dreams don't have meaning until you consciously interpret them and impute meaning into them. The unconscious is just a creation of your conscious imagination.
Any theory of an "unconscious" is like physical theories of multiple universes, if there's no causal connection between them it's a useless and unprovable hypothesis and if they're connected in some way then they're just one entity.

Consciousness is a "creation" sustained by unconsciousness. The causal connection between these is a very clear one, even though consciousness remains a mystery. We know now for an example that for every conscious act there is an unconscious preparation for it. Even the simple act of moving a finger is unconsciously prepared for execution for about 800 milliseconds before you perform said action. Conscious decisions follow unconscious preparation, not the other way around. One would perhaps like to make consciousness the master of the house, but this is undoubtedly not so.

Exactly and its fundamental to our ability to be conscious in the first place, in order for us to be aware of ourselves making a decision we have to have already been making the decision.
Self consciousness requires cognition.

I'm not your user but the reason you're wrong is painfully simple. ANY social interaction is by definition collective. An individual in isolation is not social nor can they create society alone. Likewise, language does not exist in a truly isolated child. Think friend, DNA is the essence of our species. What makes YOU is a minute fragment of individual elements and millions of years of collective genetics. Genetics are really the easiest refutation of your assertion.

Please learn anything about modern neuroscience before making blind assertions. The subconcious predates conciousness and they are not seperate entities. They are a spectrum of neronal activity that interfaces at all junctions. What you know and are conscious of is a fraction of what your brain is collectively. Evolution doesn't care for our seeking knowledge, the only reason consciousness exists is because certain tasks were made possible by it.

No the point is existence precedes essence. There is no inherent thing called a species there is only our decision to group together all these individual creatures walking around that look similar and act similar and call them man.
DNA did not precede any individual creature, its a product of their own individual activity. The fact a tremendous amount of individual creatures happened to have been surviving and acting in a similar way does not contradict that fact.

This is so fucking painful.

Its painful because you're having to acknowledge what existentialists figured out a century ago

Is this what happens when you read Sartre? Start reading actual science, and stop being retarded. There obviously is something seriously wrong with you. It is just shocking how people can be this fucking retarded. How can you not be a little introspective and see this extremely simple fact for yourself? What a waste.

Absolutely nothing I've said in any way contradicts science. You're mistaking a discipline that is only concerned with recognizing predictable patterns in phenomena with something that can render to us any intrinsic content to the phenomena.

Thats all DNA and species are to science, patterns.

>I haven't read him.

So why are you making claims about what you think he believes?

Your gross oversimplifications and constant vague assertions just betray your ignorance. Educate yourself on the points we've brought up, for your own betterment.

Would it have changed anything if he were Catholic?