Exactly are these architects universal patterns or symbols that young believe

existed deep within the realm he called the collective, unconscious, symbolic
building blocks of the human psyche symbols symbols, greatly shaped our own view of
the world, which, by extension influences us and our emotions, and perhaps even our
personalities add psychiatrist, Edward Edinger put it just a product of personal
experience. It has a pre-personal or trans personal dimension, which is manifested
in universal patterns in images, such as are found in all of the world religions
and mythology so now a bit more on what this collective unconscious is and how it
fits into young's psychological architecture in general young believe the psyche
was comprised of three distinct parts, or personal, conscious or personal
unconscious, active unconscious, so as you might be able to infer the conscious
mind that we interface with the world with that personal unconscious, then is the
conscious minds, dark twin it's the realm of our personal mind that we aren't aware
of, but exerts a lot of control over our behaviors and our view of the world that
personal unconscious is also the realm of our shadow. Another of Young's most
famous philosophical riffs. I actually did a whole video on the shadow check it out
here for more on that, but in a nutshell, you can think of this realm of the
personal unconscious, as a domain of repressed or forgotten, memories, feelings,
and experiences that are unique to us as individuals and this is also the realm of
another hugely rich topic complexes, but I'm not even going to broach that topic in
this video, so that then leaves this mysterious realm Young called the collective
unconscious. It's really difficult to talk about because it's the furthest removed
from our own conscious mind, but the basic idea is that this is the shared
collective ground of the hole of the human psyche. Not just your psyche, but the
entire psyche of humanity and this is the place where archetypes emanate from are
archetypes live. This is where universal patterns and symbols that are shared
across all of humanity reside, but they do reach beyond this round they bubble up
into our personal unconscious, which thenInfluences our conscious minds, so we do
feel like this collective unconscious is influencing the influence of the
archetypes within it, but it typically only comes to us in esoteric ways via dreams
via altered states via intense introspective work so really, we can only speak
about this realm of the collective, unconscious theoretically, we can only learn
about it through working backwards. Inductively is "archetypes are by definition
factors and motives that arrange the psychic elements into certain images,
characterizes archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from
the effects they produce, so what exactly are these archetypes? What are some
specific examples? There were a few that young regularly didn't use about but I do
want to drive home the point that this is not an exact science. I've seen people
asking questions like is ex an archetype or is it not how many archetypes are
there? I don't think these are answerable questions, because as we just established
from young himself, we can only know about these things indirectly, so with that
what are a few of the key archetypes that young often discuss the first is the
persona. This is the mask our personality where is, this is the surface level of
our conscious mind that we interact with the world through the word persona
actually comes from the Latin word for mask it acts as a sort of psychic membrane
between the world and are deeper cells are true are cells, Zona for the larger part
of our conscious psyche, that we often talk about the ego these parts of our mind.
Do not equal bad it's just what's on the surface they're totally necessary for
engaging with an existing in the world however, young did believe it if we wanted
to Mormon, sure what he called him more individuated psyche. We did need to
recognize the surface level elements of our Psyche and move beyond them, see them
for what they are, and go deeper, which brings us to our second already mentioned
the shadow you can think of the shadow as our personas, dark twin. The shadow
represents all of the opposite qualities of that surface level of our conscious
mind, the darker repressed aspects of our psyche that were often either not aware
of, or refused to acknowledge so given that the shadow is the realm of hidden fears
anxieties all of the things we don't want to be calm, but really more accurately
it's like I said the twin, the unknown twin, the dark twin of our persona so this
means there's also a hidden treasure in the realm of the shadow. This means there's
also hidden.Potential in the realm of the shadow so in bringing awareness to the
dark realm in bringing invited to the shadow so this week we integrate, we heal we
become more hold. This is the point of shadow work again I have a whole video on
this, including ways that you can actually do shadow work specific techniques for
doing shadow work, so moving on the next court archetype, that young often talked
about is the animal/the animus the anima is the female element of the male Psyche
and vice a versa young believe that this anima animus archetype represents the
unconscious, psychological tendencies that we project onto others, not limited to
buy particularly members of the opposite sex, so integrating the anima animus
coming to know it within ourselves. This is another court part of Young's method of
young individuation. This is about more than just having a more conscious
relationship with the opposite sex through the outside world. This is about gaining
deep insight into the nature of your own mind, and into the nature of psyche in
general young actually with as far as to say that, if you're a male, your soul is
female, and if your female, your soul is male "humankind is masculine and feminine
not just a man or woman he say of your soul what sex it is, but if you pay
attention, you will see that the most masculine man has a feminine soul and the
most feminine woman has a masculine soul and now that we're on this level of the
soul we can get into the final archetype that young regularly discussed the self
and it's important to put a capital S on self here because he's really talking
about seeing your mind in the context of the whole, seeing your mind as a microcosm
of the macrocosm of psyche that exists within this collective unconscious that
we've been talking about the self, is the most fundamental, yet complex of all of
the archetypes that make up the psyche because it is all aspects of psyche
integrated. It's the unification of the conscious and the unconscious. Imagine of
mine is the source of our creativity are intuition and our spiritual experiences,
and this dovetails into what young believe the .20 well lived wife was integrate
everything to individuate meeting ring, all conscious and unconscious elements of
our psyche together this young, believe this, how we reach a state of real self
realization to recognize embrace all aspects of our psyche, whether we consider
them to be good or bad, beautiful or ugly so young was about unification, not
purification as young puts it filling the conscious mind with ideal conception, is
a characteristic of western theosophy, but not the.Patient with the shadow, and the
world of darkness, one does not become enlightened by imagining things of white,
but by making the darkness conscious so apart from these for mainstays again, the
persona the shadow of the animal/animus, and the S self there are many more
archetypes, and you'll see them at played you'll see them distributed throughout
the midst of the world, and even in your own dreams if you pay close enough
attention, just a rattle, some of them off, which is the wise old man archetype the
trickster the mother, the savior, the devil, the dying God, and many more, but it
doesn't stop there either. There are also narrative archetypes you'll find
throughout the myths of the world things like the flood myth. The myth of
Armageddon paradise, the underworld creation, the heroes journey, and I'm sure most
of you know that when I say this, I don't say this pejoratively, or in a way that
nullifies its importance or demoted to on true when I say this, I mean truer than
true in a sort of Joseph Cambell, incense in that these net speak to something so
large, so true about the nature of reality that they can only be spoken of through
story through symbol so now that we've arranged are concepts, if contextualize
ourselves a bed, we can get to what I think is the most fun most important part of
this exploration, which is diving in to some huge Lee, brain, melting, throbbing
questions, that the existence of a collective, unconscious and archetypes imply, so
why not start with the epistemological question of all epistemological questions
where does knowledge come from? If a collective, unconscious realm exists is
knowledge something we are accessing from the inside out are we really doing
something more a kin to remembering or discovering rather than going out there and
collecting knowledge going out into the world and collecting knowledge, it sounds
far-fetched, hard to swallow because of the way that we've been conditioned to
think about the world but some of history's greatest minds did think this way that
knowledge was remembered, or discovered rather than acquired out there in the world
with Socrates and Plato, probably being the most famous examples of this thinking,
what was called innate knowledge. This is a whole rabbit hole onto itself, but I
highly encourage you to look up any knowledge, and what the Greeks called anamnesis
this phenomenon of remembering on covering knowledge that we've been connected to
all along, and I'm not just projecting this onto
young, he clearly also thought this way to an extent "the form of the world into
which a person is born is already in born.Also, in addition to our media
consciousness, there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal and
impersonal nature, which is identical in all individuals. Another question that
really perks up my wonder whiskers, personal weed is are these archetypes more akin
to just fixed on changing structures or do they really want to logically exist on
some level are they being on some level? Do they have some level of agency or free
will and I think there's probably a myriad of opinions on this question and again
this is really a question that cannot be settled, but according to Jung, it seems
like the answer may be somewhere in between "it may even happen that the archetypal
figures which are endowed with a certain autonomy anyway will escape, I'll just
control all together and become completely independent that's producing the
phenomenon of possession. I also want to rip a little bit about encountering these
giant psychic forces that we could call archetypes or going into or gaining some
awareness of this collective unconscious because although earlier, I said that we
could not experience this realm, directly in my own experience. I do think that
it's possible to an extent to gain a brief insight into this far removed realm of
psyche that we can't normally perceive or I can say with certainty it's possible to
feel like you are encountering, archetypes, or beings, too big to call anything
else but again, it usually takes introspective practice altered consciousness,
straight up, full blown mystical experience, and of course, this is where we depart
from theory in psychology into the realm of the mystical into the realm of
mysticism, the realm of shamans esoteric Buddhists Psychonauts, but even with that
said, I do think this is still squarely in the realm of young, because not only was
young interested in all of the above that I just mentioned, he had personal
experiences all you need to do is read a few paragraphs from the Redbook to see
what I'm talking about young directly encountered through sort of semi conscious
dream states what could be called archetypes, and now for what I think is the most
brain melting question of all, if we exist in this giant psychic soup this ocean of
consciousness, how much control do we really have? Does our little ego really have?
Are we in control? Are we in control to some extentOr are we being lived or are
psychic strings being pulled by forces that we don't understand this is an idea
that I've definitely seen young play with probably again, particularly in the
Redbook mostly but other young young adjacent thinkers were certainly open to this
idea certainly rift on this idea openly as well. Take James Hillman for instants
another young and adjacent psychologist and writer openly talk about these ideas as
well. I would definitely recommend Hellmann's book souls code for more on this. I
would generally recommend all of Hillman lectures because they're so good.I would
generally recommend all of Hillman lectures because they're so good. He's such an
engaging speaker. Another thing that comes to mind is that, although we're talking
younger, even here we're talking, psychological or mythopoetic here this idea is
not just western look up the idea of Leela in Hinduism. This idea that we're all
just players and some divine drama and some divine play. Alan Watts has some
fabulous riffs on this that are pretty easy to fine. I'll try to drop some option,
so bringing it all together bottom lining it we really can't understand ourselves
if we don't understand archetypes whether they truly exist or not whether the
collective unconscious is some ontologically, real realm, or archetypes are real or
not in a literal way they absolutely exist within the confines of the human psyche.
You can't escape the influence of these archetypes on culture and on this and
unpopular media as such, they're always going to exert a level of influence over
our own minds, and over the way that we look at the world so if we're able to
recognize these forces and our relationship with these forces, even to a mild
extent, I think there's a massive payoff we get a kind of nasal poo Vedic
psychological fluency modicum of mindfulness over our own behavior, and over the
behavior of humanity at large, and along with that mythopoetic fluency comes a few
more steps I think on what Jan called the path of individuation because now we're
better equipped to recognize when these things bubble up in our own psyches another
thing I really appreciate about this is that it allows us to respect myth take it
seriously and take religious iconography for instance, seriously without having to
take it literally this way of thinking helps us find something more in our
existence well, not succumbing to either end of the metaphysical spectrum,
religious dogma, and literalism, or atheism and nihilism, and I really believe we
need that I believe we need to leave the door open for mystery, and the
unexplainable way of thinking really appeals to me personally, because I have very
little appetite for literalism and dogma yet I absolutely want to keep the mystery
alive I want to live in a larger, more whimsical universe then we can understand
and clearly young thought the same way I could highlight hundreds of quotes
probably to this effect, but here's one we're not for the leaping and twinkling of
the soul, man would write away in his greatest passion, idleness so much love for
watching my friends if I didn't say it already my name.