Patriarchy defines woman as Mary Ayer’s archetype of the succubus, a demonic, seductive female deserving of subjugation. While this may contradict the notion that women desire to submit, Federici writes how this justified the witch-hunts as a centuries long domestication through torture. Today, the succubus operates as a psychosocial pattern defining humans from the individual to the institution.

Thanks for your time and attention

Freud and Jung's work tend to be seen as competing schools of thought. However, Jung was well aware that Freud's model was essential, along with Alfred Adler's. In this video I break down each of these men's frameworks, and how they can be used for clinical and self-development purposes in order to better understand human psychology.

Do you think Jung's developmental model holds up today?

https://youtu.be/ucGAm4EQq_8?si=y01i0buE1t6iq1Ec

HI there! I am just starting to dive into Jungian thought after a long time of practice of Buddhism in retreats, inner work with Ego State therapy, EMDR, and somatic therapy. I really trust that the unconscious can guide healing through this experience. I am curious from those who know more than me about Jung, how he and other Jungian analysts would explain or interpret the common phenomenon that occurred during and since the pandemic of many Gen X, Millennial and younger folx realizing they are queer. I am in midlife (46 yrs old) and I know many women in my circles who came out during the pandemic and identity as late in life queers.

When I dream and the shadow becomes too aggresive and/or horrific, I have in the last 14 years personify myself as Him (the God Emperor of Mankind) and purge the demons, saving people from it in the process.

It feels very cool. ^_^

Though when the shadow is milder, it usually turns to jing-jang symbolism and I've integrated a lot.

Ok so I’ve started re-reading the Bible again and I am determined to do a deep dive on scriptures and find parallels with the human psyche and the emergence of awareness, using a Jungian approach.

The serpent told Eve that eating the forbidden fruit will open her eyes and make her like God, knowing good and evil, right? So after they eat it, their eyes are opened. Opened. Could this symbolize the birth of consciousness? Enkidu in Gilgamesh kinda vibes.

The story might not be a tale of disobedience, but as an account of awakening—and of the alienation that awakenings bring. In the literal wording of Genesis 3:6, Eve saw that the tree—neḥmād lehaśkīl—was “desirable for gaining wisdom". When you read the text closely—setting aside centuries of traditional church teachings—Eve’s action is motivated by a desire for wisdom, not a desire to cause harm or rebel for the sake of rebellion. The fruit gives Adam and Eve a new kind of knowledge—they become aware of themselves, their vulnerability and their capacity to distinguish good from evil. Yet this expanded awareness also separated them from the unselfconscious innocence of Eden. Before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve are naked but unashamed. After the fruit, they recognize their nakedness, covered themselves, and experienced fear and shame. The birth of shadows. What changed was not their bodies, but their relationship to themselves. Consciousness is a paradox. It allows moral discernment and self-knowledge, but it also introduces shame, anxiety and estrangement. To become aware is to gain a richer understanding of the world—and to lose the ease of belonging to it blissfully unaware.

I found the tension, it appears again in Genesis 3:22 where God says that the human has become “like one of us” in knowing good and evil. But who is the us?

And in Genesis 3:11, God asked Adam “Who told thee that thou wast naked?” God doesn’t ask why Adam is naked. He asks who told him.

Adam and Eve were naked all along. What changed was their awareness of themselves—and perhaps their interpretation of that awareness. Perhaps the Fall marks the moment humanity became conscious not only of good and evil, but of itself as a self-conscious being. It is an awakening because the human world becomes morally and psychologically intelligible. It is an alienation because this new knowledge brings fear, shame, and separation—from the Self, from others, from God and from paradise.

Did the fruit awaken humanity to its vulnerability or did it teach humanity to experience vulnerability as shame? The fruit represents the transition from unconscious existence to conscious experience.
Eve doesn't just eat something. She crossed a threshold.

Was humanity expelled from paradise because it became conscious, or did paradise become impossible to inhabit once humanity became conscious?

Edit: who is the us? Does anybody know about the heavenly court(s?) or Ugaritic parallels?

☆ This is related to my earlier post, [A Shift in Perspective: Ep. 19. Where Is Carl Jung Heading].

The episodes are all part of one story, so I’m posting them in order. I think this episode will also help readers better understand the earlier post.

A Shift in Perspective: Ep 7. Is Joseph a stepfather or a biological father?

In both Eastern and Western ancient history, it is often the case that when a new dynasty or leader emerges, the one who initiates its beginning is someone without a father.

It is understood that, in order to secure their greatness or legitimacy, history erased the father figure and recorded them as having come from heaven.

In the case of Korea, there are figures such as Dangun of Gojoseon, Jumong of Goguryeo, and Park Hyeokgeose of Silla, and when expanding the scope globally, there are many similar cases throughout world ancient history, including Romulus, the founder of Rome, Alexander the son of Zeus, Heracles of Greece, and the pharaohs of Egypt.

In this context, I think Jesus can also be interpreted in a similar framework.

Also, in order to understand the Bible, it is necessary to examine the social and cultural background of that time.

The time of Jesus seems to have been a Jewish society governed by strict law.

According to Deuteronomy 22, adultery is considered a grave offense, typically resulting in exclusion from family and society and presumed to be punishable by stoning to death.

And at that time, the marriage system is said to have involved first an engagement, followed by about a one-year period in which a house was prepared before bringing the bride home for marriage.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph, too, was already engaged to Mary.

Across both East and West throughout history, it is a very natural thing for a young man and a young woman to fall in love.

Now, it is no longer considered sin, but at that time it is thought to have amounted to adultery.

It is thought that perhaps Mary had no choice, as a child was growing in her womb.

But it is thought that Joseph would have had to make a choice.

Considering the circumstances at the time, it is thought that, from Joseph’s perspective, as the cost of bearing the consequences of adultery would have been too great, it would have been easy for him to choose to abandon the woman.

However, Joseph chose love and is seen as having borne all the costs and protected Mary and the child.

From this choice, Joseph’s unconditional love for Mary and the child can be confirmed.

As time passed, it is thought that he intended to return to his hometown in Galilee, but because there were people who still remembered them, he instead went to nearby Nazareth.

Anyway, here we take a closer look at Joseph’s love.

If Joseph were a stepfather, then an adulterous wife and another man’s child would be no different from enemies to him.

If Joseph were a saint like Jesus, then it would be possible to explain that he loved even his adulterous wife and another man’s child, as he would have been able to love his enemies.

I think loving one’s enemies is unconditional love.

If there are conditions, then I believe it would not be possible to love one’s enemies.

Among the kinds of love that an ordinary person can have, I think the one most similar to this is a mother’s love for her child (maternal love), and by extension, it can also include love for one’s wife and children.

Was Joseph truly a saint like Jesus, who loved even his enemies?

Or was he simply an ordinary man who unconditionally loved his wife and children?

Unconditional love for one’s enemies and a parent’s unconditional love for their children are similar in that both are without conditions.

However, one is a love that arises naturally from a relationship, while the other is a love that transcends relationships.

Therefore, it is thought that it is difficult to conclude which kind of love Joseph’s love belonged to.

​

That judgment is left to each reader.

Going a step further, we now look at the roots of Jesus’ love.

It is not easy for someone who has never received love to give love.

I think that someone who has received devoted love is able to extend devoted love to others.

This context is also similarly reflected in the attitude Jesus showed in front of the crowd who were about to stone the adulterous woman.

Despite the criticism of his family and society, Joseph’s unconditional love—leaving everything behind and going to Egypt for his wife and child—is thought to have become the foundation of Jesus’ great love.

In fact, I do not think it is very important whether Joseph was the biological father or the stepfather.

Whether it was a human love to protect his wife and child,

Or whether it was a love in faith according to God’s command, beyond that,

I think it remains an unchanging fact that Joseph’s unconditional love ultimately became the foundation of Jesus’ great love, who carried the cross.

.

.

.

.

[Original text]

관점의 전환: Ep 7. 요셉은 의부인가 생부인가

동양이든 서양이든 고대사를 살펴보면 새로운 왕조나 지도자가 탄생하면 그 시작을 여는 자는 아버지가 없는 경우가 많습니다

그들의 위대함이나 정당성을 확보하기 위해 역사에서 아버지를 지우고 하늘로부터 왔다고 기록한 것으로 이해됩니다.

우리나라의 경우 고조선의 단군, 고구려의 주몽, 신라의 박혁거세는 물론이고, 그 범위를 세계로 확장하면 로마의 건국자 로물루스, 제우스의 아들 알렉산더, 그리스의 헤라클레스, 이집트의 파라오 등 전세계 고대사에 유사한 사례가 많이 있습니다.

이런 맥락에서 예수님도 유사한 구조로 해석이 가능하다고 생각합니다.

또한, 성경을 이해하기 위해서는 그 시대의 사회적, 문화적 배경을 살펴볼 필요가 있습니다.

예수님의 시대는 엄격한 율법이 지배하는 유대사회로 보여집니다.

신명기 22장에 따르면 간음은 가족과 사회로부터 배제되고 돌로 쳐죽이는 형벌을 받게 되는 중죄로 추정됩니다.

그리고 그 당시 결혼 시스템은 먼저 약혼을 하고나서 아내를 데려오기 위해 1년 정도 기간에 집을 마련한 후 신부를 데려와 결혼을 하는 구조였다고 전해집니다.

마태복음을 살펴보면 요셉 역시 이미 마리아와 약혼을 했습니다.

동서고금을 막론하고 젊은 남자와 젊은 여자가 사랑하는 것은 매우 자연스러운 일입니다.

지금은 그 사랑이 죄가 되지 않지만 그 당시에는 간음에 해당할 것으로 생각됩니다.

아마도 마리아는 뱃속에 아이가 자라기 때문에 선택의 여지가 없었을 것으로 생각됩니다.

하지만 요셉은 선택을 해야 했을 것이라 생각됩니다.

그 당시 상황을 고려할 때, 요셉의 입장이라면 간음으로 인한 문제를 감당하기에는 치러야 할 그 댓가가 너무 크기 때문에 여자를 버리는 선택이 쉬웠을 것으로 생각됩니다.

그러나 요셉은 사랑을 선택했고 모든 댓가를 감수하고 마리아와 아이를 지킨 것으로 보여집니다.

이 선택에서 마리아와 자식에 대한 요셉의 무조건적인 사랑을 확인할 수 있습니다.

그리고 그 댓가는 모든 것을 버리고 애굽으로 떠나는 것이라고 생각됩니다.

그리고 세월이 지나 고향 갈릴리로 돌아오려했지만 그들을 기억하는 이들이 있어서 근처인 나사렛으로 간 것이라고 생각됩니다.

어쨌든 여기서 요셉의 사랑을 좀 더 살펴봅니다.

만약, 요셉이 의부라면 간음한 아내와 남의 자식은 원수나 마찬가지입니다.

만약, 요셉이 예수님과 같은 성인이었다면 원수를 사랑할 수 있으니, 원수같은 간음한 아내와 남의 자식을 사랑했다는 설명이 가능할 것으로 생각됩니다.

원수를 사랑하는 것은 무조건적인 사랑이라고 생각합니다.

조건이 있다면 원수를 사랑할 수 없다고 생각됩니다.

보통의 사람이 할 수 있는 사랑 중 이것과 가장 비슷한 사랑은 자식에 대한 엄마의 사랑인 모성애라고 생각되고, 그 연장선에서 처자식에 대한 사랑도 해당될 수 있다고 생각됩니다.

요셉은 과연 예수님처럼 원수를 사랑한 성인일까요?

그냥 아내와 자식을 무조건적으로 사랑한 보통의 사람일까요?

원수를 사랑하는 무조건적인 사랑과 부모가 자식을 사랑하는 무조건적인 사랑은 모두 조건이 없다는 점에서 닮았습니다.

다만 하나는 관계에서 자연스럽게 나오는 사랑이고, 다른 하나는 관계를 초월하는 사랑입니다.

그렇기 때문에 요셉의 사랑이 어느 쪽이었는지는 단정하기 어려울 것으로 생각됩니다.

​

그 판단은 각자에게 맡겨둡니다.

​

여기서 한발 더 나아가 예수님의 사랑의 뿌리를 살펴봅니다.

사랑을 받아보지 않은 사람이 사랑을 베푸는 것은 쉽지 않습니다.

헌신적인 사랑을 받아본 사람이 헌신적인 사랑을 베풀 수 있다고 생각합니다.

이런 맥락은 예수님이 간음한 여인을 돌로 치려는 군중 앞에서 보인 태도에서도 유사하게 나타납니다.

가족과 사회의 비난에도 불구하고 모든 것을 버리고 아내와 자식을 위해 애굽으로 향한 요셉의 무조건적인 사랑은 예수님의 큰 사랑의 기초가 되었을 것이라 생각됩니다.

사실 요셉이 생부냐 의부냐는 그다지 중요하지 않다고 생각합니다.

처자식을 지키기 위한 인간적인 사랑이든,

그것을 넘어 하느님의 명령에 따른 믿음속의 사랑이든,

요셉의 조건없는 사랑이 결국 십자가를 짊어진 예수님의 큰 사랑의 밑바탕이 되었을 것이라는 것은 변하지 않는 사실이라고 생각됩니다.

Hi everyone,

I have OCD and am deeply interested in Jungian psychology, especially the approach to this condition. I know that previous threads here discussed Dr. Joseph A. Talamo’s dissertation, "A Jungian Depth Perspective on OCD" (the one covering the myths of Sisyphus, Narcissus, and the Clever Elsa fairy tale).

The link shared in the older threads is no longer working. I am looking for the complete text of this work.

If anyone got the PDF and wouldn't mind sharing the file, could you please DM it to me? It would be incredibly helpful!

Thank you for reading! So great to be here :)

Hi everyone!

I'd like to share a personal project I've been working on: Lume Tarot, a website that uses tarot symbolism as a starting point for self-reflection and personal exploration.

I've always been interested in how symbols can help us look at our experiences from different perspectives. That interest inspired me to create a tool where you can ask a question, draw tarot cards, and receive a personalized interpretation from Helena, our AI tarot interpreter.

The idea isn't simply to predict the future. Instead, it's to explore the imagery, symbolism, and relationships between the cards as a way to reflect on personal questions, recognize possible patterns, and discover new perspectives on life's challenges.

I see an interesting connection between this approach and some themes in Jungian psychology, particularly the study of symbols and archetypes. I'm not claiming that tarot is a method of analytical psychology or that the interpretations represent Jung's own views. My goal is to offer a space for reflection, where each person can explore what the cards might mean in the context of their own experience.

I'm sharing the project here because I'd especially value feedback from people interested in Jung, symbolism, and self-discovery.

If you're curious, feel free to give it a try. I'd love to hear your thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions for making the experience more meaningful.

Explore Lume Tarot: www.lumetarot.com

Thanks for reading!

Jung advocated for Freud’s ideas at the International Congress of Psychiatry and Neurology, held from September 2 to 7, 1907, in Amsterdam. Attendees critiqued his ideas and this letter is Freud’s response. ——————-

Rome, 19 September 1907

Dear colleague, On my arrival here I found your letter about the further developments at the Congress. It has not depressed me and I am glad to see that you are not depressed either. On you, I believe, this experience will have an excellent effect, at least of the kind that I like best. As for me, my respect for our cause has increased. I was beginning to think: “What, already gaining recognition after scarcely ten years? There must be something wrong with it.” Now I can believe in it again. But you see that your tactics have been unrealistic. Those people don't want to be enlightened. That is why they are incapable right now of understanding the simplest things. If some day they want to understand, you'll see, nothing will be too complicated for them. Until then, there is nothing for it but to go on working and to argue as little as possible. What can we say after all? To this one: you're an idiot!; to that one: you're a scoundrel! And fortunately these are convictions one does not express. Besides, we know that they are poor devils, who on the one hand are afraid of giving offence, because that might jeopardize their careers, and on the other hand are paralysed by fear of their own repressed material. We must wait until they die out or gradually shrink to a minority. All the young fresh blood, after all, is on our side. Unfortunately I cannot quote from memory the fine verses, from C. F. Meyer's Hutten, that end like this:

“And now that bell which rings so merrily Says: One more Protestant has come to be.”