NOTE TO COMMENTERS: 1. I apologise for the quality of the audio and editing of this video. I’m learning as I go and am continuing to try to improve the quality of my videos. I’m a solely production team who is passionate about challenging cult behaviours and coercive control. Watch my video titled “Losing My Daughter to a Destructive Cult” if you’d like to understand why this topic is so important to me. 2. As I say in this video, I have a great amount of respect for Jung and his research; however, his construct of archetypes as being universal symbols that provide a well of physic energy that is the foundation of all creativity is flawed. Check out my video “All About Me” if you want to check my credentials and background in understanding this topic. 3. Jungian psychoanalysis is NOT supported by mainstream psychology. His theories align more with mysticism, to which his interpretations of allegory in myths are sometimes spot on; however, asserting that archetypes are universal is inaccurate and can be better explained through other frameworks, such as the Pierce’s which I mention in the video. I am working on a video that better explains the paradigm of the mind that I personally follow - subscribe to be notified of when this comes out. (Not going to rush this, as I want to make it as high quality as possible.) 4. Peterson uses Jungian archetypes to support his viewpoints. Moreover, he changes the narratives of myths to align with his personal interpretation of Jungian psychology. In my opinion, his biggest blunder in this department is claiming that the Ancient Egyptian goddess, Isis, was “Queen of the Underworld” when in actual fact she was known as “Lady of the Heavens”. It is clear to me, that Peterson is deliberately changing the narratives of ancient myths to suit misogynistic values. I discuss this in a short titled “Peterson’s Biggest Mythological Blunder”. 5. While I appreciate many aspects of Jungian research, and believe we need to keep the “baby”, I also believe we need to “throw out the bath water”. The reason being that several cult leaders rely upon Jungian psychoanalysis to prop up their coercive control tactics. I have experienced this first hand and it not nice. Spreading awareness of how this can manifest is an important aspect of raising awareness of high demand groups. 6. I am happy to engage with alternative perspectives and explain where I’m coming from in more detail. 7. Offensive comments will be deleted.
Even though I followed a STEM degree, I find Jung's model of the mind accurate. May I ask what model do you find more representative? And what book would you recommend to get a simpler approach to comprehending it? Murray Stein's "Jung's Map of the soul" is a good example, pretty straightforward.
@@matiasprzee As I say in the video, Pierce’s model of symbolism interpretation is much more robust. Jung’s model of creativity is too limiting. The mind does not think up creative things from a well of archetypes. I’ll explain the model I follow in my next video.
@@recoverfromcoercivecontrol Thank you. I think I understand better now, when I was in high school, a professor said the world is divided by 2 theories: Realism and Pluralism. While Jung's approach is fundamentally Realist looking for universalities, semiotic's approach (Pierce, Saussure) is Pluralist and Subjectivist.
Ok, so I'm a layman, and I haven't read Jung or Paterson or any other person. However, I strongly believe the universality of myths and symbols. Simply because we are all human. And humans experience same turning points in their lives, no matter the culture, geography or time. What I mean by that is as a human; you born, you grow up; your hormones will change, your body will change, you will get old; feel joint pain, feel headache, you're going to see the sun and moon and stars... No matter where you are and your culture; you'll have 2 eyes, 2 hands, 10 fingers... There's a universality of being a human thus it's only logical that people, throughout the eons came up with similar narratives about growing up, getting wise, facing death, being courageous or being coward. Human experience is universal thus our myths and symbols are universal. That doesn't mean everything down to smallest detail is the same, no. However the fundamental background that forces humans to tell stories are shared among cultures.
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment. I agree, there are fundamental universalities to being human, and these do play out in myths, just not how Jung pieced it all together. As for Peterson, he literally changes the narratives of myths to suit himself - his classic blunder is saying that Isis is the “Queen of the Underworld” when in actual fact she was the “Lady of the Heavens”. It’s a bit like saying Superman is an evil guy just to bolster negative connotations of all men. Life, death, birth, murder, love, hate, laughter, comedy - all these types of motives play out in myths, however, the “symbolic” representation and significance of each of these themes is not universal. To assume this diminishes the stories true meanings.
He is a human, he isnt perfect but he is a great human that have helped many who where lost to find their way. If you can "debunk" his intellectual capacity, why dont you try to create something yourself? maybe you could find the right words to motivate people instead of kicking on a celebrity? Do you lack what it takes to lead and inspire? are you caught in a negative spiral? I belive you can do better!
NOTE TO COMMENTERS:
1. I apologise for the quality of the audio and editing of this video. I’m learning as I go and am continuing to try to improve the quality of my videos. I’m a solely production team who is passionate about challenging cult behaviours and coercive control. Watch my video titled “Losing My Daughter to a Destructive Cult” if you’d like to understand why this topic is so important to me.
2. As I say in this video, I have a great amount of respect for Jung and his research; however, his construct of archetypes as being universal symbols that provide a well of physic energy that is the foundation of all creativity is flawed. Check out my video “All About Me” if you want to check my credentials and background in understanding this topic.
3. Jungian psychoanalysis is NOT supported by mainstream psychology. His theories align more with mysticism, to which his interpretations of allegory in myths are sometimes spot on; however, asserting that archetypes are universal is inaccurate and can be better explained through other frameworks, such as the Pierce’s which I mention in the video. I am working on a video that better explains the paradigm of the mind that I personally follow - subscribe to be notified of when this comes out. (Not going to rush this, as I want to make it as high quality as possible.)
4. Peterson uses Jungian archetypes to support his viewpoints. Moreover, he changes the narratives of myths to align with his personal interpretation of Jungian psychology. In my opinion, his biggest blunder in this department is claiming that the Ancient Egyptian goddess, Isis, was “Queen of the Underworld” when in actual fact she was known as “Lady of the Heavens”. It is clear to me, that Peterson is deliberately changing the narratives of ancient myths to suit misogynistic values. I discuss this in a short titled “Peterson’s Biggest Mythological Blunder”.
5. While I appreciate many aspects of Jungian research, and believe we need to keep the “baby”, I also believe we need to “throw out the bath water”. The reason being that several cult leaders rely upon Jungian psychoanalysis to prop up their coercive control tactics. I have experienced this first hand and it not nice. Spreading awareness of how this can manifest is an important aspect of raising awareness of high demand groups.
6. I am happy to engage with alternative perspectives and explain where I’m coming from in more detail.
7. Offensive comments will be deleted.
Even though I followed a STEM degree, I find Jung's model of the mind accurate. May I ask what model do you find more representative? And what book would you recommend to get a simpler approach to comprehending it? Murray Stein's "Jung's Map of the soul" is a good example, pretty straightforward.
@@matiasprzee As I say in the video, Pierce’s model of symbolism interpretation is much more robust. Jung’s model of creativity is too limiting. The mind does not think up creative things from a well of archetypes. I’ll explain the model I follow in my next video.
@@recoverfromcoercivecontrol Thank you. I think I understand better now, when I was in high school, a professor said the world is divided by 2 theories: Realism and Pluralism. While Jung's approach is fundamentally Realist looking for universalities, semiotic's approach (Pierce, Saussure) is Pluralist and Subjectivist.
I might have watched your video if the audio wasn't trash
Thanks for the feedback. I’m new to editing, will improve with practice.
Ok, so I'm a layman, and I haven't read Jung or Paterson or any other person. However, I strongly believe the universality of myths and symbols. Simply because we are all human. And humans experience same turning points in their lives, no matter the culture, geography or time. What I mean by that is as a human; you born, you grow up; your hormones will change, your body will change, you will get old; feel joint pain, feel headache, you're going to see the sun and moon and stars... No matter where you are and your culture; you'll have 2 eyes, 2 hands, 10 fingers... There's a universality of being a human thus it's only logical that people, throughout the eons came up with similar narratives about growing up, getting wise, facing death, being courageous or being coward.
Human experience is universal thus our myths and symbols are universal. That doesn't mean everything down to smallest detail is the same, no. However the fundamental background that forces humans to tell stories are shared among cultures.
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment.
I agree, there are fundamental universalities to being human, and these do play out in myths, just not how Jung pieced it all together. As for Peterson, he literally changes the narratives of myths to suit himself - his classic blunder is saying that Isis is the “Queen of the Underworld” when in actual fact she was the “Lady of the Heavens”. It’s a bit like saying Superman is an evil guy just to bolster negative connotations of all men.
Life, death, birth, murder, love, hate, laughter, comedy - all these types of motives play out in myths, however, the “symbolic” representation and significance of each of these themes is not universal. To assume this diminishes the stories true meanings.
He is a human, he isnt perfect but he is a great human that have helped many who where lost to find their way.
If you can "debunk" his intellectual capacity, why dont you try to create something yourself? maybe you could find the right words to motivate people instead of kicking on a celebrity?
Do you lack what it takes to lead and inspire? are you caught in a negative spiral? I belive you can do better!
@@jonny1943 thanks for the encouragement. I have such a video in the pipeline.