Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (1270)	9/1/2006 5:29:14 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1695

Found a great quote that seems to apply to the question on the power of archetypes: (There is) a natural psychological law which says that what has once been will always be in the future. And so it will be, unless consciousness puts an end to the naive concretization of primordial images. I do not know whether it is desirable that consciousness should alter the eternal laws; I only know that occasionally it does alter them, and that this measure is a vital necessity for some people-- which, however, does not always prevent these same people from setting themselves up on the father's throne and making the old rule come true. It is indeed hard to see how one can escape the sovereign power of the primordial images. Actually I do not believe it can be escaped. One can only alter one's attitude and thus save oneself from naively falling into an archetype and being forced to act a part at the expense of one's humanity. Possession by an archetype turns a man into a flat collective figure, a mask behind which he can no longer develop as a human being, but becomes increasingly stunted. One must therefore beware of the danger of falling victim to the dominant of the mana-personality. (from Two Essays- the Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious- Jung)

To: Rambi who wrote (1270)	9/1/2006 6:28:08 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 1695

Here is what I am trying to say. Maybe I haven't said it very clearly. 1. Modern Feminism and its supporters postulate that the role change for women has been a good thing. In response to this I ask(ed) this: "By what measure?". and also "Good for whom?" and theorized unless the role change could be said to be good for both men and society as a whole it wouldn't succeed. I also pointed out that this role change for women has just been a blip on the evolutionary/historical time scale over which gender roles have developed and, therefore, not too much can be made of the benefits of the role change for women until such time as we have more evidence to gauge its effects. As to its effects, I speculated that there were certain psychological gender archetypes that we could not in effect mess with without causing unknown consequences, but admitted I wasn't sure of this and referred to Jung as a possible source. Now that, in a nutshell, is what I am saying. As to your questions: I am defining the gender roles (archetypically) traditionally as practiced in traditional societies. I cannot and won't pick a time where I would stop the woman's movement. All I am saying is we need not to wholeheartedly embrace it until we have more evidence that it works for everyone---and this assumes a certain level of technology. Yes, I am saying that part of the current societal chaos is due to the blending of the traditional gender roles--although I can't prove this. And, Yes, I think that you are right that modern life in general also has contributed. Jung: I am glad you found your Jungian textbook. We need to, if possible, clear this up. Now that you have pulled up some detail for me I, too, recall that a lot of Jung was deep stuff and it is possibly dangerous to latch on to just a phrase or two without understanding the context in which he is using it. I may be guilty of having taken some on his concepts out of context.