The one fundamental quality of Jung that really resonates with me is he is not a reductionist thinker . He always kept his ideas open ended and he didn’t feel on egoistic need to formulate absolute truths . This makes his brilliant work non threatening and he was responsible in his practice for example when he ceased using hypnosis when he saw that it could be damaging or limiting to the patient . This responsibility is dead today as big pharma pedals drugs and so many ignorant profit driven therapists conduct therapy in a very unethical way.
@@mikekane2492 having read the original works of the psychoanalytic tradition (Freud, Jung, Reich) and the philosopher who pioneered a lot of their visions (Nietzsche) is is clear to me that psychology divorced of philosophy is very dangerous. philosophy that embraces struggle as part of life--and madness as a source of Wisdom (Foucault)....
yes true, being limited can cause stagnation or a lack of empowerment to grow further to ultimately feel more liberated, thus more satisfied with human life and being human regarding hypnosis; leaving the body has its limitations, since divine wisdom received is very healing, in ways that a few ah ha moments from hypnosis can ever provide
Yes. He says "right" a lot. But I thoroughly enjoy hearing a knowledgeable person speak about Jung. He is able to explain in a way that it is not too difficult for people to understand. Even those who are not as familiar with the subject.
Yeah, I noticed that too but it's interesting to know how we all probably have these linguistic habits we never notice until we see ourselves. My dad often pointed these out to me. No one is beyond learning.
perhaps it is a hidden archetype where he feels he is wrong and needs constant validation from the audience by repeating the word like a mantra? it detracts from the content
His lectures are very down to earth and I find him very candid. I wish I would have had a professor like him when I was studying psychology. He's very down-to-earth in his presentations.
@@Helpwood The idea that he keeps saying "right" repeatedly, that's really been over exaggerated. It's been documented numerous times that for every 50 times he says "right," he does say "not right" once.
Again, I think Kevin does a beautiful job of explaining this information which is not easy to do. He is soft-spoken, and yet very direct when he needs to be. I could listen to his lectures and/or presentations all day.
Never heard of this man but he communicates (to me anyway) very well, and his personal experience thrown in here and there during his talk was just enough to keep it real and not just some opinionated textbook Jung jive.
I loved that honest moment when he paused to drink some water. It was such a human moment. I mean, in a hall full of hundreds of students, dead silence, watching you do something as simple as take a swig of water for the throat. I loved the glimpse at your jitters, believe me, I don’t think anyone would be able to nail a nonchalant drink of water. But at the same time, seeing some nerves is a good thing for me, it’s a sincere sign that you care about delivering the material efficiently. Also reminds the crowd that you are human, makes you easier to relate to. Respect is bestowed just from the cadence of your delivery. And that drink of water. Good on you mate.
Studying Jung, Freud, Adler and the early analysts are a must in learning how the Unconscious works...Jung took Freud’s Unconscious Remnants to new levels of understanding...
I wouldn't criticize the man for saying "right" repeatedly. Many people say um, or right when presenting. It's an adapter that is used especially when the information you're presenting is quite complicated but you are trying to relate the information in a way that makes sense for people. Excellent presentation.
Saying Like a lot is concered unprofessional speech and people are incuraged to become aware of the pattern of speech. Why can't Right be the same. Its OK to say it a few times during the speech but overuse it showing a tick of unconfidants. Right is not a carrier word and its distracts from his message.
@@RolferShannon Yes, but are you saying, like that when he says like, that it like, interferes with like, the point he's trying to make? Because, maybe he's like, nervous or like, unsure of himself, like maybe he didn't like, go over the information enough like, before he like, presented it.
I really enjoyed this lecture and learned a ton. I’m impressed by how thoroughly he covered so much material in such a short time. Not an easy task. We all have our unconscious verbal crutches when speaking to large audiences, so, for those critics, might I suggest getting over your projections.
you all probably dont give a shit but does someone know of a way to get back into an instagram account..? I was stupid lost my login password. I appreciate any assistance you can give me!
@Finn Forest Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
Dr Kevin Lu This just showed up on my feed. What a talk! I feel so privileged to have been able to shared as a student of this topic in this class. Thank you so much for putting this online. Thanks again!!!
I took a public speaking course years ago that challenged me and the other students to recognize things like “um” and “uh” and repeating “comfort words” because they can be distracting to the listener without you noticing. Never has that lesson rung more true until I listened to this lecture. By reading the comment section I can tell I’m not alone, riiight?
Damn I was so into what he’s saying that it didn’t even register that he was saying right too much until I saw all the comments. Loved the presentation, thank you!
NLP would refer to this subliminal technique as an Anchor. When this is understood, you will never hear the mainstream news the same way. To me, it became clear why the tv schedule is called programming.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart U ung thats how I say it but thats my jersey accent. Kinda like in Brooklyn how they say "let's do dis and we'll do dat" 😄
Complex vs. Archetype. Thank you, now I understand the important difference: Personal issues vs. Collective issues. Both having Consciousness as separate components.
As he speaks the word right following every analysis there is a person in front of him nodding their head yes, which in my opinion is somewhat of a validation of his studies. I get unconscious verbal repetition, however he is discussing the very habit he himself has instilled. Bright gentleman
Some of the comments are really distracting and say more about the commentator than the orator. The need to be a judge, to decide value. Another option is to just listen and keep one’s (useless) critique to oneself. Loving this lecture. So grateful I stumbled upon it. Give thanks.
Yes!!!, this is a great lecture. Im so happy I found this video. This pyschology speaks volumes too me, but I believe if more people knew about this they would no doubt find some resonance in it too. This is the type of stuff that should be popping up on peoples social media feeds instead of the propaganda and stuff that just contributes to self destruction.
I've found Jung's archetypes relevant ever since I read Chetwynd's ' Dictionary of Dreams'. 1972, all based on Jung's archetypes and symbols. It's still a reference book for me. I also read other works of Jung's and deepened my understanding on myths. I don't think the myth-making has ever stopped. We're making new myths to this day, mostly of the Armageddon variety. And myths can come true. Or try to.
Landed here from Clarissa Estes' book, Women Who Run with the Wolves. Loving learning about Jungian archetypes and how writers can use them in their work. Fantastic class!
I have to say, I tried reading Jung a few years ago, and although he appeared interesting, I wasn't in a state to appreciate the interesting insight he had of the schizophrenic, as I confess, I was so dumbed down in intellect by the medical profession, posing as experts in their field, but none the less, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, in which to pedal the products of their lucrative business. Being rid of the toxicity that once flowed through my veins, as a result of determined tenacity of self improvement, without any intervention from councillors, therapists, psychiatrists, or indeed the man driving the taxi around London who always appears an expertise in all subjects, I now fully understand the sense of how I am, and the traits in others around me with copious amounts of laughter along the way of life that is paved before me.
If you didnt need intervention then life didnt give a relitively big enough hit to break you, be it biological or social hits. No human rises above any other, its the opposite, most humans are knocked down so that the very few fortunate enough to miss the hit, stand out, and get the idea it was something special they did. That applies to einstine or anybody else.
wow, thanks Kevin, from the bottom of my heart. I have literally processed hundreds if not thousands of hours of psychology and philosophy discourses from various RUclips disseminations. At 35 minutes you describe how hard it is to be always your true self. I have tried to do that most of my life and derided and not respected people that act and play the game with many masks / archetypes. Of course I had some limited but now after you simply describing how tough it is to be always being your true self hit me like a concrete truck how bloody exhausting it is. Trying every second to force it, live it and breath it, so damn exhausting. Life will get easier now and I know my relationships will get better as others won't see me as such a hard arse who doesn't loosen up till after a few drinks
IFS (Internal Family Systems) developed by Richard Schwartz seems to me to be the next step in exploring personified archetypes. In his latest book, No Bad Parts, he demonstrates how the "shadow's" (Jungian terminology) function is always meant to protect the traumatized "parts" that through trauma have "exiles." We all have parts and the "myself" we identify as our real self are actually the very functional parts-- Jungian "masks, rather than the enduring Self with qualities like Compassion, creativity, calm, curiosity, etc. and we become "Self-led" As Dr. Lu stated, Jung talked to/heard there "parts." In IFS language, the protectors of the "burdened child" earn the trust of the protectors who believe that it is safe for them to allow the therapist and/or self-therapist to free those traumatized exiles, which leads to integration, etc. I've given you a thumbnail sketch of IFS to the best of my ability. If this intrigues you, I suggest you check out IFS Institute, where you can view various videos or go to RUclips, and watch one or two of the many talks and interviews that Richard Schwartz has given. Among the best is The Weekend University interview--which is what led me to subscribe to The Weekend University. :) Thank you for providing these lectures and interviews. -
Probably none. Peterson is a banal pseudo-intellectual that completely dismisses the feminine archetype in favor of his strong, heterosexual male ideal. He offers nothing to anyone outside of the Proud Boy LARP world.
He doesn’t seem to miss the feminine to me…maybe you should check out more of his work. I’m not sure how you could have missed his discussion on both the feminine and masculine, how unfortunate.
Brilliant explanation, I've tried to understand what the archetypes are, many times in the past but was never able to understand it fully. This video did exactly just that.
I’m trying to recover from a narcissist mother…. Complete neglect, mental and physical abuse and trauma. I can’t quite figure where I went mentally when I was being deprived of food, unprotected, terrified and feeling unworthy…where did the pain go? I can’t call it exactly…some ppl can imagine (dissociate to a safe place) I can’t recall this to heal it there
All the people complaining about him saying "right" too much are like a bunch of little kids. This is an amazing lecture, not hard to listen to. Try dropping a comment that's useful or significant, no one cares how annoyed you are. Y'all's comments and level of maturity are way more annoying than anything else. This video is deep af, and all y'all got to say is "Duurrp he sure says Right a lot!" Seriously this is Jungian psychology, grow tf up. Try comprehending the subject matter, maybe grow into a person with something useful to say.
We are stardust, Million year old stardust We are golden, Caught in the devil's bargain And we've got to get ourselves Back to the garden - Joni Mitchell
@@TheNobleLoyalist Roberta Joan "Joni" Mitchell is a Canadian singer-songwriter and painter. Drawing from folk, pop, rock, classical, and jazz, Mitchell's songs often reflect on social and philosophical ideals as well as her feelings about romance, womanhood, disillusionment and joy. - DuckDuckGo.
I find myself thinking, maybe this will be the last time he says "righhhtt?". Wrong. It clearly shows me how unaccepting I can be of trivial things in others. Oh me and my shadow
I am reminded about the movie A.I. Artificial Intelligence. It was directed by Spielberg and it had the best special effects I had ever seen. I still remember some key images. It has taken me many years to understand the movie’s meaning. I recommend it as one of the best of its time. I find it quite Jungian.
I believe that he uses “right” at the end of almost every sentence so that his statement resonates with the audience further. Almost subconsciously attempting to maximize engagement by the listener; however, this becomes counterintuitive as it starts to become distracting. Overall great lecture.
Dr. Lu, please be 'conscious' of the number of times you say 'right'. I know its unconscious 'right now' but it would be wonderful if it could be brought into conscious awareness and hopefully transformed - not into its opposite - 'wrong' , but into a dignified silence.
I like that the speaker does NOT ridicule, belittle, disrepect or otherwise try to discredit those who maintain traditional religious, Biblical, Islamist, Hindu, etc. beliefs.
Hey Dr. Lu, I was listening, RIGHT ... and I was thinking, RIGHT, about what you were saying, RIGHT ... and as you went on, RIGHT, I was, I was ... RIGHT, feeling a sort of trauma, RIGHT, because, RIGHT, you, uh, keep saying, RIGHT, RIGHT?
Wait, so: -archetypes are beyond personal, from the collective unconscious, rooted in eons of repetition and direct experience...... but it is outdated somehow and they are working to update it?
Interesting to see that even psychology students do not notice the cognitive dissonance they are displaying from this type of indoctrination ( the progressive narrative ).
This is outstanding. Difficult concepts presented in a way that I can wrap my psyche around. Incredibly helpful and informative for my journey. Thank you.
Here's a criticism: Jung's collective unconscious as Dr. Lu defined it is something that is "derived through aeons of repetition of human cultural imagery and experiences." Most cultures and societies throughout time have acknowledged masculine and feminine. This is what Jung discovered and passed on in his anima/animus ideas. Notice how nervous Dr. Lu gets expressing this idea at 41:45. Isn't "normativity" just what "aeons of human repetition" has handed down to us? How could it have changed so suddenly in the last 60 years? Hmm . . . For Dr. Lu and others like him to be consistent in their thinking they have to reject Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, but by that point there really isn't anything left of Jung's theory. It seems to me that they're trying to appropriate his thinking for some reason. Archetype is derived from arkhe-tupos meaning "primitive model" therefore you can't derive an archetype from the last 60 years of human history. Does anyone else see the contradiction?
Precisely, exactly. Moreover, it goes beyond contradiction. Jung used the terms simply in a symbolic way, he also spoke of how an individual's anima/animus may have an anima or animus of their own, hence why I don't understand who Dr. Lu was trying to protect with his cautiousness. It somehow feels castrating. The idea here is that an individual is larger that they seem, so to state that a woman may not necessarily posses the male archetype but instead an anima is just... shrinkening, so to speak.
I would argue proponents of Jung's concepts do not logically carry his ideas far enough! Masculine and feminine are biological phenomena; facial features are seen as masculine and feminine because of the specific effects testosterone and estrogen have on development. BABIES process faces in this way. This means that it is INEVITABLE for humans to develop a categorical representation for masculine and feminine, and for these representations to be iterated into the genome. In the last 60 years, cultural conceptions of sex differences may change, but it was always change in reference to biology. The mother is an elaborated form of femininity, and the mother is why security and comfort are associated as feminine qualities. Biology has set us up that way. 'Collective unconscious' is most simply explained as our (lack of) awareness of latent biology. I might argue game theory resolves this: archetypes are in a way just inevitable stable patterns which arise from our arbitrary biology. They are 'the lowest common denominator'. As an analogy, the wheel is not invented, but discovered: motion is easiest via a circle, and it is this fact we inevitably stumble upon, or "invent". Men and women in general are anatomically and neurologically different, so these constraints naturally and logically create an essential "model" which constant iterations will develop.
I had this thought at that point as well, it’s a clear inconsistency in the lecture. So, yes eons of psychological evolution shaped the collective unconscious. Now, to insist that these more recent ideas of masculine/feminine dynamics are more indicative of modern life situations, so therefore Jung just got this portion wrong due to “being a product of his time” is incoherent. It’s akin to suggesting that evolution got it wrong. I agree that it does require you to toss out the entire idea of the collective unconscious in order to be logically consistent down this particular intellectual pathway. He gets nervous at another point when detailing Jungs association of masculine and feminine with the respective ideas such as emotions being feminine, and reason being masculine, as if he holds the preconception that reason is more valuable than emotion. Inappropriate value judgement that forces him to say, “Yikes!” as soon as he reads it, it seems to me.
For all the people who are genuinely interested in Jung. The man is not teaching Junguian Theory. He's trying to adapt Jung to Postmodern Theory. This is Not Jung
I thought so , also because he’s calling schizophrenia delusions and hallucinations they are not , these people are just seeing into different dimensions and into the spiritual realms
I used to read a lot of Jung's work when i was a teen into my twenties. I had this silly idea that if we have a psyché... it's best you get to know something about it. I combined it with a study of astrology since it was said Jung got a lot of his insights from isotheric studies and astrology. It's weird, when you really get into it you find that people are lived by those archetypes and at any given moment find themselves in a phase of life and anything they say or do is more or less an expression of those archétypes. Almost as if a person has no direct free will. But i was young and might have drawn the wrong conclusions.
@@less2worryabout Yeah, perhaps a language barrier on my part. I meant to say that maybe we can only influence our free will.. rather than have a 100% free will.
Great talk. Shocked so many viewers/listeners are so fixated on superficial mannerisms instead of engaging with the fascinating (and well-delivered) subject matter.
This speaker did a great job delivering deep theories & ideas. However, he tapped a pet peeve of mine of which I am hyper aware of, because I am also guilty of at times. Some people say, “um,” “ahh,” “like,” or “so” as a filler when they are thinking about what they want to say next. I am only a few minute into this video and I have already noticed an abundance of the word, “Right?” I can’t listen to this wonderful information without getting distracted. Public speaking is the number one fear, and it is extremely difficult and nerve-racking for most people. So, I’m not trying to base on this speaker by any means. I just want to learn how to not be so distracted by silly filler words, and how to avoid it myself, RiGhT?! I know of Toastmasters International (an organization that helps people practice public speaking) but does anyone have any suggestions on the topic of proficiency and public speaking? Thank you!
Though dated July of 2019 (fierce pandemic time) elements of this presentation do not reflect understandings of modern cognitive psychology. In therapy today effective psychologists do not use terms such as “harsh super-ego.” Most leave Oedipus to Sophocles. The statements (injunctions) Dr. Lu begins reciting at 17:44 are all examples of what since the 80’s are called self-talk, a term Jung might sometimes call Self-talk. A collection (constellation) of that self-talk is a mindset, no longer a “complex.” One by one experienced therapists aid their clients (not patients) to restructure, to reframe that self-talk. For forty years now psychologists have been working in this manner. Would a mind like Jung’s, the Wise Old Man that Jung embodied, freeze at 1961? Sing Swiss hymns forever and call that Heaven? Truly, he would evolve. And so has psychology on earth. Dr. Lu’s presentation is an excellent recital of the history of Jung where he left things in 1961. The danger is that some who view it may believe this is the whole of psychology today, as if we were stuck at 1961 forever. Jung would never advocate for such stuckness.
Everyone complaining about him saying right clearly cares much about him as a person and not about the content. No ones perfect we all have our filler words
Thank you Carl Jung! There is no quick fix though! The first sparkle of enlightenment may give us the illusion that we have the answer and feel the surge to share it and express what comes with it. In fact this may indicate strongly the start of a long journey with a lot of trials and errors. Not just Religious people are exposed to feeling inspired. Popularity at an early stage may in fact be a major hurdle in disguise mostly when our thoughts have not been fully integrated or tested. Some movie or music stars may not be happy because what they express does not match with their genuine feelings. Narcissism tends to bypass the awareness of a type of Napoleon syndrome with social consequences. Constant exposure to non scientific Humanities is the necessary accompaniment to the growth of Citizens who constitute Nations.
Juung, Juung, NOT YOUNG. Edit: Excellent synopsis; particularly the God and Hero discussion. It makes much sense; I've been mystified about the relevance of the Entertainment Industry, as it focuses on Superheros and escapism, always allowing for expression of anxieties brought about by cultural fears of which no one speaks.
He is a very good teacher in explaining clearly the concepts but what’s the deal the “alright” “right”? It is really disturbing and I think he really could work on it
In my experience The Anima character is not a representation but a real figure. I have encountered her in dreams many times...very clearly what Jung was referencing.
'She' is a real figure in the same sense that the 'average height' is a real figure. It describes observations and is factually derived; therefore it is real and exists and is true. It is not, however, material or tangible, only its constituents ex. brain matter.
Woah!!!! His theory doesn't have any element of falsification, it cannot be proven wrong on theoretical basics, it is pseudoscience so hold your horses
Very good until 43:20. It's clear postmodernism has saturated the lecturers mind to the point where he discredits Jung's ideas for one of his colleagues'.
The proposal that Individuation can happen outside of Heteronormitivity is utter nonsense as it is quite clearly in direct opposition to not only biological facts but thousands of years worth of accumulated wisdom within the collective unconscious.
except in the movie the mask with Jim Carrey when he put on the mask he actually was behaving like the part of the persona that would normally be hidden by a mask instead when he put on the mask he was flamboyantly exposing the things that most people hide
I really appreciate the clarity and how you, the speaker, organized the presentation. Even being familiar with Jungian theories, it is quite enjoyable to hear how you desribe/explain in ways to contribute to my own understandings. Since it is obvious that the speaker is a thinker who brings more clarity to the world of knowledge, please lose the confirmative punctuations with the word "right?" at the end of sentences or phrases. It did not lessen the quality of the contents, but it is really distracting. I just had to actively disregard the unneccesary distraction, which means that, for some audience like myslef, it is rather burdensome. In spite of that, I was willing to bear the burden and listened to your lecture all the way to the end. And thank you for the presentation.
I disagree with what is said about the biological aspect of anima and animus. Contemporary life is an adverse effect of abandoning mature interpretations of masculine/feminine, male/female. I do not think the exception disproves the rule.
Anybody ever wonder if the reason why we sleep is because all this psychic building up of the persona and the shadow and etc is tiring, not just to the body but primarily to the mind. Perhaps that's why when you don't sleep for days, one of the most evident faculties effected is the mind. When you go to sleep every night your mind builds up this mental house of cards, and upon awakening it is that house that faces the world. But the real world is hectic and windy, and those cards get more unstable...until you go back to sleep to straighten up the deck.
many archetypal/christ-like images in harry potter! Harry escapes death twice, ordinary boy with faults, a modest student, yet also 'the chosen one,' hunted down by voldermort, sort of abandoned by his negligent auntie and uncle, cruel childhood living under the stairs, (robbed of what should have been a loving and peaceful upbringing) snape tips off lily and james that someone is coming to kill harry because of the prophecy, harry being protected by his mother's love time and time again, even after she dies, his closeness and recurrent re-connections and sights of his parents, and then many other archetypal characters such as dumbledoor, maybe harry projecting his 'self' personified archatype onto him as a mentor. And then dumbledoor's line which resonates strongly with what you said at one point in the lecture about the 'unrealness' of archetypes yet very realness of them; harry: 'is this all happening inside my head professor?' Dumbledoor: 'of-course it's happening inside your head harry, but why should that mean it is any less real?' then many other sidekick characters... food for thought- can definitely be developed. Loved this lecture!
Really enjoying this lecture. Definitely a few of Jung's written concepts that I would define a bit differently based on my own reading of the text. But a really good lecture. I enjoyed the brain gymnastics... I learned several interesting things.
51:23 hit me like a truck. As someone who has left fundamentalism Christianity, I have become consumed by Jung and other psychologists work almost to the point where I am worshipping them.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The one fundamental quality of Jung that really resonates with me is he is not a reductionist thinker . He always kept his ideas open ended and he didn’t feel on egoistic need to formulate absolute truths . This makes his brilliant work non threatening and he was responsible in his practice for example when he ceased using hypnosis when he saw that it could be damaging or limiting to the patient . This responsibility is dead today as big pharma pedals drugs and so many ignorant profit driven therapists conduct therapy in a very unethical way.
“Open ended”!! Yes!!
@@mikekane2492 having read the original works of the psychoanalytic tradition (Freud, Jung, Reich) and the philosopher who pioneered a lot of their visions (Nietzsche) is is clear to me that psychology divorced of philosophy is very dangerous. philosophy that embraces struggle as part of life--and madness as a source of Wisdom (Foucault)....
to all his admirers , I recommend you read his autobiography : ' Memories , Dreams , Reflections" ....
yes true, being limited can cause stagnation or a lack of empowerment to grow further to ultimately feel more liberated, thus more satisfied with human life and being human
regarding hypnosis; leaving the body has its limitations, since divine wisdom received is very healing, in ways that a few ah ha moments from hypnosis can ever provide
Jung was on another level.
Yes. He says "right" a lot. But I thoroughly enjoy hearing a knowledgeable person speak about Jung. He is able to explain in a way that it is not too difficult for people to understand. Even those who are not as familiar with the subject.
And he keeps licking his fingers when turning the pages…yuck!
I couldn't stand it!
Yeah, I noticed that too but it's interesting to know how we all probably have these linguistic habits we never notice until we see ourselves. My dad often pointed these out to me. No one is beyond learning.
Right right right is all we ar mostly LEFT with 😻
perhaps it is a hidden archetype where he feels he is wrong and needs constant validation from the audience by repeating the word like a mantra? it detracts from the content
His lectures are very down to earth and I find him very candid. I wish I would have had a professor like him when I was studying psychology. He's very down-to-earth in his presentations.
🙌
Right
@@Helpwood
😀🙂😆
@@Helpwood
The idea that he keeps saying "right" repeatedly, that's really been over exaggerated. It's been documented numerous times that for every 50 times he says "right," he does say "not right" once.
@@lamontprospect9974 in
Again, I think Kevin does a beautiful job of explaining this information which is not easy to do. He is soft-spoken, and yet very direct when he needs to be. I could listen to his lectures and/or presentations all day.
Not me. I can't endure the 'rights'
Definitely 🙌
Never heard of this man but he communicates (to me anyway) very well, and his personal experience thrown in here and there during his talk was just enough to keep it real and not just some opinionated textbook Jung jive.
@@chris432t6
Too many people get hung up on how he's saying what he's saying instead of what he's saying. They can't see the forest through the trees.
@@caseyspaos448 Might want to see a doctor.
I loved that honest moment when he paused to drink some water. It was such a human moment. I mean, in a hall full of hundreds of students, dead silence, watching you do something as simple as take a swig of water for the throat. I loved the glimpse at your jitters, believe me, I don’t think anyone would be able to nail a nonchalant drink of water.
But at the same time, seeing some nerves is a good thing for me, it’s a sincere sign that you care about delivering the material efficiently. Also reminds the crowd that you are human, makes you easier to relate to. Respect is bestowed just from the cadence of your delivery. And that drink of water. Good on you mate.
Studying Jung, Freud, Adler and the early analysts are a must in learning how the Unconscious works...Jung took Freud’s Unconscious Remnants to new levels of understanding...
I wouldn't criticize the man for saying "right" repeatedly. Many people say um, or right when presenting. It's an adapter that is used especially when the information you're presenting is quite complicated but you are trying to relate the information in a way that makes sense for people. Excellent presentation.
🙌
Saying Like a lot is concered unprofessional speech and people are incuraged to become aware of the pattern of speech. Why can't Right be the same. Its OK to say it a few times during the speech but overuse it showing a tick of unconfidants. Right is not a carrier word and its distracts from his message.
@@RolferShannon
Yes, but are you saying, like that when he says like, that it like, interferes with like, the point he's trying to make? Because, maybe he's like, nervous or like, unsure of himself, like maybe he didn't like, go over the information enough like, before he like, presented it.
Definitely interesting content, but I struggled with the presented saying "right?" so much TBH
I really enjoyed this lecture and learned a ton. I’m impressed by how thoroughly he covered so much material in such a short time. Not an easy task. We all have our unconscious verbal crutches when speaking to large audiences, so, for those critics, might I suggest getting over your projections.
I don’t know many ppl who would have spoke any better than he did. Ppl can’t help but find something to complain about
Abc
you all probably dont give a shit but does someone know of a way to get back into an instagram account..?
I was stupid lost my login password. I appreciate any assistance you can give me!
@Zahir Edward instablaster :)
@Finn Forest Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now.
Takes quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
Dr Kevin Lu
This just showed up on my feed. What a talk! I feel so privileged to have been able to shared as a student of this topic in this class. Thank you so much for putting this online.
Thanks again!!!
Right?
I took a public speaking course years ago that challenged me and the other students to recognize things like “um” and “uh” and repeating “comfort words” because they can be distracting to the listener without you noticing. Never has that lesson rung more true until I listened to this lecture. By reading the comment section I can tell I’m not alone, riiight?
It depends on what your focal point is drawn to as an individual - others here were not as distracted as yourself: myself included.
This lecturer is brilliant, love the way he speaks
10 minutes in and I just wish he didn't say "right?" every 5 seconds...
Terrible lecturer. He makes all the stylistic errors of the amateur.
Right
Damn I was so into what he’s saying that it didn’t even register that he was saying right too much until I saw all the comments. Loved the presentation, thank you!
Totally agreed 🙌
NLP would refer to this subliminal technique as an Anchor. When this is understood, you will never hear the mainstream news the same way. To me, it became clear why the tv schedule is called programming.
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart U ung thats how I say it but thats my jersey accent. Kinda like in Brooklyn how they say "let's do dis and we'll do dat" 😄
@@iloveyoufromthedepthofmyheart still pedantic as ever I see😋 I hope my cat is doing well 😄 we had a bond and you always spoiled his brother anyway.
@@BobBarkerHeretictoScientism Genius…
Complex vs. Archetype.
Thank you, now I understand the important difference: Personal issues vs. Collective issues. Both having Consciousness as separate components.
As he speaks the word right following every analysis there is a person in front of him nodding their head yes, which in my opinion is somewhat of a validation of his studies. I get unconscious verbal repetition, however he is discussing the very habit he himself has instilled. Bright gentleman
right?
(head nod)
Some of the comments are really distracting and say more about the commentator than the orator. The need to be a judge, to decide value. Another option is to just listen and keep one’s (useless) critique to oneself. Loving this lecture. So grateful I stumbled upon it. Give thanks.
Yes!!!, this is a great lecture. Im so happy I found this video. This pyschology speaks volumes too me, but I believe if more people knew about this they would no doubt find some resonance in it too. This is the type of stuff that should be popping up on peoples social media feeds instead of the propaganda and stuff that just contributes to self destruction.
Awesome lecture. You put to words what I have been bouncing around in my head without being able to articulate it like you did. Thanks
I've found Jung's archetypes relevant ever since I read Chetwynd's ' Dictionary of Dreams'. 1972, all based on Jung's archetypes and symbols. It's still a reference book for me. I also read other works of Jung's and deepened my understanding on myths. I don't think the myth-making has ever stopped. We're making new myths to this day, mostly of the Armageddon variety. And myths can come true. Or try to.
is the book worth it's money
Great lecture. Try to watch out for repetitively saying "right." (Mine is "um.")
Landed here from Clarissa Estes' book, Women Who Run with the Wolves. Loving learning about Jungian archetypes and how writers can use them in their work. Fantastic class!
Right....right....right.....right ............!
I have to say, I tried reading Jung a few years ago, and although he appeared interesting, I wasn't in a state to appreciate the interesting insight he had of the schizophrenic, as I confess, I was so dumbed down in intellect by the medical profession, posing as experts in their field, but none the less, representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, in which to pedal the products of their lucrative business. Being rid of the toxicity that once flowed through my veins, as a result of determined tenacity of self improvement, without any intervention from councillors, therapists, psychiatrists, or indeed the man driving the taxi around London who always appears an expertise in all subjects, I now fully understand the sense of how I am, and the traits in others around me with copious amounts of laughter along the way of life that is paved before me.
If you didnt need intervention then life didnt give a relitively big enough hit to break you, be it biological or social hits. No human rises above any other, its the opposite, most humans are knocked down so that the very few fortunate enough to miss the hit, stand out, and get the idea it was something special they did. That applies to einstine or anybody else.
wow, thanks Kevin, from the bottom of my heart. I have literally processed hundreds if not thousands of hours of psychology and philosophy discourses from various RUclips disseminations. At 35 minutes you describe how hard it is to be always your true self. I have tried to do that most of my life and derided and not respected people that act and play the game with many masks / archetypes. Of course I had some limited but now after you simply describing how tough it is to be always being your true self hit me like a concrete truck how bloody exhausting it is. Trying every second to force it, live it and breath it, so damn exhausting.
Life will get easier now and I know my relationships will get better as others won't see me as such a hard arse who doesn't loosen up till after a few drinks
This lecture was so simple to comprehend and fully understand in a way that resonated with parts of my soul that I was not aware existed. Applause 👏🏻
IFS (Internal Family Systems) developed by Richard Schwartz seems to me to be the next step in exploring personified archetypes. In his latest book, No Bad Parts, he demonstrates how the "shadow's" (Jungian terminology) function is always meant to protect the traumatized "parts" that through trauma have "exiles." We all have parts and the "myself" we identify as our real self are actually the very functional parts-- Jungian "masks, rather than the enduring Self with qualities like Compassion, creativity, calm, curiosity, etc. and we become "Self-led" As Dr. Lu stated, Jung talked to/heard there "parts." In IFS language, the protectors of the "burdened child" earn the trust of the protectors who believe that it is safe for them to allow the therapist and/or self-therapist to free those traumatized exiles, which leads to integration, etc. I've given you a thumbnail sketch of IFS to the best of my ability. If this intrigues you, I suggest you check out IFS Institute, where you can view various videos or go to RUclips, and watch one or two of the many talks and interviews that Richard Schwartz has given. Among the best is The Weekend University interview--which is what led me to subscribe to The Weekend University. :) Thank you for providing these lectures and interviews.
-
Right right right.
18:55 University of Toronto is his alma mater. I wonder how much Jordan Peterson influenced his interest in Jung.
Probably none. Peterson is a banal pseudo-intellectual that completely dismisses the feminine archetype in favor of his strong, heterosexual male ideal. He offers nothing to anyone outside of the Proud Boy LARP world.
There are people able to learn something from him. There are people capable of learning something from all people, actually.
Who are the Proud Boys? Are they a lgbtq 🏳️🌈 group?
He doesn’t seem to miss the feminine to me…maybe you should check out more of his work. I’m not sure how you could have missed his discussion on both the feminine and masculine, how unfortunate.
And so what if he offers most value to lgbtq communities? They are not “no one”.
Brilliant explanation, I've tried to understand what the archetypes are, many times in the past but was never able to understand it fully. This video did exactly just that.
I’m trying to recover from a narcissist mother…. Complete neglect, mental and physical abuse and trauma. I can’t quite figure where I went mentally when I was being deprived of food, unprotected, terrified and feeling unworthy…where did the pain go? I can’t call it exactly…some ppl can imagine (dissociate to a safe place) I can’t recall this to heal it there
Once you notice him saying "Right..." it becomes a torture
All the people complaining about him saying "right" too much are like a bunch of little kids. This is an amazing lecture, not hard to listen to. Try dropping a comment that's useful or significant, no one cares how annoyed you are. Y'all's comments and level of maturity are way more annoying than anything else. This video is deep af, and all y'all got to say is "Duurrp he sure says Right a lot!" Seriously this is Jungian psychology, grow tf up. Try comprehending the subject matter, maybe grow into a person with something useful to say.
Unexpectedly very good presenter, I enjoyed his lecture a lot
Very good, strait to the point, clear and organised, I would like to see other ones from the same lecturer.
Dr. Lu's lecture is an very lucid and attractive presentation of these ideas. I applaud his presentation.
You mean Dr Right?
Right!
This adds further understanding to holy texts like the bible, because we know that all of it cannot be treated as historical, yet it is so valuable!
We are stardust,
Million year old stardust
We are golden,
Caught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden
- Joni Mitchell
Sweet. Who is Joni Mitchell?
@@TheNobleLoyalist jung brings them all out.
@@TheNobleLoyalist Roberta Joan "Joni" Mitchell is a Canadian singer-songwriter and painter. Drawing from folk, pop, rock, classical, and jazz, Mitchell's songs often reflect on social and philosophical ideals as well as her feelings about romance, womanhood, disillusionment and joy. - DuckDuckGo.
@@TheNobleLoyalist Amazing singer-songwriter. Also a pretty good painter. See: Cactus Flower, Ladies Of The Canyon and The Blue Album for starters.
I find myself thinking, maybe this will be the last time he says "righhhtt?". Wrong. It clearly shows me how unaccepting I can be of trivial things in others. Oh me and my shadow
Right- the shadow speaks the shadow that wants to manipulate versus demonstrate.
I am reminded about the movie A.I. Artificial Intelligence. It was directed by Spielberg and it had the best special effects I had ever seen. I still remember some key images. It has taken me many years to understand the movie’s meaning. I recommend it as one of the best of its time. I find it quite Jungian.
I believe that he uses “right” at the end of almost every sentence so that his statement resonates with the audience further. Almost subconsciously attempting to maximize engagement by the listener; however, this becomes counterintuitive as it starts to become distracting. Overall great lecture.
Thank you very much for sharing this remarkeble work. It was synthetic and easy to follow. Thanks so much to share with us your knowledge.
Dr. Lu, please be 'conscious' of the number of times you say 'right'. I know its unconscious 'right now' but it would be wonderful if it could be brought into conscious awareness and hopefully transformed - not into its opposite - 'wrong' , but into a dignified silence.
I can't listen to this man say "right?" at the end of almost every sentence!! It is like Chinese water torture on my mind.
Hard to listen. Too much "alright".
1:30, 14:30, 17:50, 20:20,, 21:40, 24:30!, 28:30, 30:15!, 35:20!, 37:00!, 40:30,45:30,
JUNG and Elijah Muhammad understood us at some extremely deep levels 🙏🏿
Looking up Elijah Muhammad now. Blessed Be ~THC
Right.
This man is a Dr. Right.....
jajajajaj so annoying!
🤣🤣🤣 you're right about that
I like that the speaker does NOT ridicule, belittle, disrepect or otherwise try to discredit those who maintain traditional religious, Biblical, Islamist, Hindu, etc. beliefs.
Hey Dr. Lu, I was listening, RIGHT ... and I was thinking, RIGHT, about what you were saying, RIGHT ... and as you went on, RIGHT, I was, I was ... RIGHT, feeling a sort of trauma, RIGHT, because, RIGHT, you, uh, keep saying, RIGHT, RIGHT?
I loved the fact that he made a parallel between religion and escapism. Brilliant.
Wait, so: -archetypes are beyond personal, from the collective unconscious, rooted in eons of repetition and direct experience...... but it is outdated somehow and they are working to update it?
Yeah, and Social evolution is not a perfectly linear progress.!
Exactly, everything needs to match the current dominant ideology
And don’t forget the thousands of years of rooting between man and woman who apparently no longer exist.
Interesting to see that even psychology students do not notice the cognitive dissonance they are displaying from this type of indoctrination ( the progressive narrative ).
This is outstanding. Difficult concepts presented in a way that I can wrap my psyche around. Incredibly helpful and informative for my journey. Thank you.
Here's a criticism:
Jung's collective unconscious as Dr. Lu defined it is something that is "derived through aeons of repetition of human cultural imagery and experiences." Most cultures and societies throughout time have acknowledged masculine and feminine. This is what Jung discovered and passed on in his anima/animus ideas. Notice how nervous Dr. Lu gets expressing this idea at 41:45. Isn't "normativity" just what "aeons of human repetition" has handed down to us? How could it have changed so suddenly in the last 60 years? Hmm . . . For Dr. Lu and others like him to be consistent in their thinking they have to reject Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, but by that point there really isn't anything left of Jung's theory. It seems to me that they're trying to appropriate his thinking for some reason. Archetype is derived from arkhe-tupos meaning "primitive model" therefore you can't derive an archetype from the last 60 years of human history.
Does anyone else see the contradiction?
Precisely, exactly. Moreover, it goes beyond contradiction. Jung used the terms simply in a symbolic way, he also spoke of how an individual's anima/animus may have an anima or animus of their own, hence why I don't understand who Dr. Lu was trying to protect with his cautiousness. It somehow feels castrating. The idea here is that an individual is larger that they seem, so to state that a woman may not necessarily posses the male archetype but instead an anima is just... shrinkening, so to speak.
I would argue proponents of Jung's concepts do not logically carry his ideas far enough!
Masculine and feminine are biological phenomena; facial features are seen as masculine and feminine because of the specific effects testosterone and estrogen have on development. BABIES process faces in this way.
This means that it is INEVITABLE for humans to develop a categorical representation for masculine and feminine, and for these representations to be iterated into the genome. In the last 60 years, cultural conceptions of sex differences may change, but it was always change in reference to biology.
The mother is an elaborated form of femininity, and the mother is why security and comfort are associated as feminine qualities. Biology has set us up that way. 'Collective unconscious' is most simply explained as our (lack of) awareness of latent biology.
I might argue game theory resolves this: archetypes are in a way just inevitable stable patterns which arise from our arbitrary biology. They are 'the lowest common denominator'. As an analogy, the wheel is not invented, but discovered: motion is easiest via a circle, and it is this fact we inevitably stumble upon, or "invent".
Men and women in general are anatomically and neurologically different, so these constraints naturally and logically create an essential "model" which constant iterations will develop.
I had this thought at that point as well, it’s a clear inconsistency in the lecture.
So, yes eons of psychological evolution shaped the collective unconscious. Now, to insist that these more recent ideas of masculine/feminine dynamics are more indicative of modern life situations, so therefore Jung just got this portion wrong due to “being a product of his time” is incoherent. It’s akin to suggesting that evolution got it wrong.
I agree that it does require you to toss out the entire idea of the collective unconscious in order to be logically consistent down this particular intellectual pathway.
He gets nervous at another point when detailing Jungs association of masculine and feminine with the respective ideas such as emotions being feminine, and reason being masculine, as if he holds the preconception that reason is more valuable than emotion. Inappropriate value judgement that forces him to say, “Yikes!” as soon as he reads it, it seems to me.
Right....
For all the people who are genuinely interested in Jung. The man is not teaching Junguian Theory. He's trying to adapt Jung to Postmodern Theory. This is Not Jung
He's subverting Jung
I thought so , also because he’s calling schizophrenia delusions and hallucinations they are not , these people are just seeing into different dimensions and into the spiritual realms
I used to read a lot of Jung's work when i was a teen into my twenties. I had this silly idea that if we have a psyché... it's best you get to know something about it. I combined it with a study of astrology since it was said Jung got a lot of his insights from isotheric studies and astrology.
It's weird, when you really get into it you find that people are lived by those archetypes and at any given moment find themselves in a phase of life and anything they say or do is more or less an expression of those archétypes. Almost as if a person has no direct free will. But i was young and might have drawn the wrong conclusions.
Can you please clarify exactly what direct freewill is? I understand freewill but when used with direct does this mean something else?
@@less2worryabout Yeah, perhaps a language barrier on my part. I meant to say that maybe we can only influence our free will.. rather than have a 100% free will.
It never fails. I'm always shown without a doubt. I'm comment 667.
Take a hit from your bong every time he says "right".
Ran out of weed before the 10 min mark!
Right🙏
Right
Great talk. Shocked so many viewers/listeners are so fixated on superficial mannerisms instead of engaging with the fascinating (and well-delivered) subject matter.
1/the name is YOUNG not JAng and 2/ why does the speaker constantly repeat the word right?
This speaker did a great job delivering deep theories & ideas. However, he tapped a pet peeve of mine of which I am hyper aware of, because I am also guilty of at times.
Some people say, “um,” “ahh,” “like,” or “so” as a filler when they are thinking about what they want to say next.
I am only a few minute into this video and I have already noticed an abundance of the word, “Right?”
I can’t listen to this wonderful information without getting distracted.
Public speaking is the number one fear, and it is extremely difficult and nerve-racking for most people. So, I’m not trying to base on this speaker by any means. I just want to learn how to not be so distracted by silly filler words, and how to avoid it myself, RiGhT?!
I know of Toastmasters International (an organization that helps people practice public speaking) but does anyone have any suggestions on the topic of proficiency and public speaking? Thank you!
Though dated July of 2019 (fierce pandemic time) elements of this presentation do not reflect understandings of modern cognitive psychology. In therapy today effective psychologists do not use terms such as “harsh super-ego.” Most leave Oedipus to Sophocles. The statements (injunctions) Dr. Lu begins reciting at 17:44 are all examples of what since the 80’s are called self-talk, a term Jung might sometimes call Self-talk. A collection (constellation) of that self-talk is a mindset, no longer a “complex.” One by one experienced therapists aid their clients (not patients) to restructure, to reframe that self-talk. For forty years now psychologists have been working in this manner. Would a mind like Jung’s, the Wise Old Man that Jung embodied, freeze at 1961? Sing Swiss hymns forever and call that Heaven? Truly, he would evolve. And so has psychology on earth. Dr. Lu’s presentation is an excellent recital of the history of Jung where he left things in 1961. The danger is that some who view it may believe this is the whole of psychology today, as if we were stuck at 1961 forever. Jung would never advocate for such stuckness.
How many times did he say “right?”
Good topic and nicely speaking but couldn't listen anymore after 30 minutes because the ''RIGHT''
Everyone complaining about him saying right clearly cares much about him as a person and not about the content. No ones perfect we all have our filler words
Right
What is the connection of the religious belief for the topic that you had discussed for
Can’t get past “right?”
Thank you Carl Jung! There is no quick fix though! The first sparkle of enlightenment may give us the illusion that we have the answer and feel the surge to share it and express what comes with it. In fact this may indicate strongly the start of a long journey with a lot of trials and errors. Not just Religious people are exposed to feeling inspired. Popularity at an early stage may in fact be a major hurdle in disguise mostly when our thoughts have not been fully integrated or tested. Some movie or music stars may not be happy because what they express does not match with their genuine feelings. Narcissism tends to bypass the awareness of a type of Napoleon syndrome with social consequences. Constant exposure to non scientific Humanities is the necessary accompaniment to the growth of Citizens who constitute Nations.
Juung, Juung, NOT YOUNG.
Edit: Excellent synopsis; particularly the God and Hero discussion. It makes much sense; I've been mystified about the relevance of the Entertainment Industry, as it focuses on Superheros and escapism, always allowing for expression of anxieties brought about by cultural fears of which no one speaks.
ruclips.net/video/qYHmRiBPJaY/видео.html
“Right.”
God isn't dead.
Materialism is just the shadow of the spirit.
Truth!!
He is a very good teacher in explaining clearly the concepts but what’s the deal the “alright” “right”? It is really disturbing and I think he really could work on it
Why is that such a bother? People have different structured ways of speaking…and that’s just his…alright? Right!
RIGHT!!!!
In my experience The Anima character is not a representation but a real figure. I have encountered her in dreams many times...very clearly what Jung was referencing.
'She' is a real figure in the same sense that the 'average height' is a real figure. It describes observations and is factually derived; therefore it is real and exists and is true. It is not, however, material or tangible, only its constituents ex. brain matter.
@@我主也 she is not a measurement or a reading... some things can only be understood by experience. However the modern world clearly believes otherwise
This was very helpful. Grateful for this lecture.
Very talented lecturer. It would be more pleasant to listen to if he is able to delete the word "right" during his delivery.
Kinda like people who post the same comment that's been said by almost everybody already.
@@magicunclefergaloreilly6699 Right
Put me off a great lecture.. right...dear god I ended up counting the amount of . Right
Carl Gustav Young... right? ._.
I like the narrow path, not "right" or "left" for that matter
C.G.Jung was an incredible human being...Everything he ever told is true..
Except synchronicity.
@@bobs182 he was right.
Woah!!!! His theory doesn't have any element of falsification, it cannot be proven wrong on theoretical basics, it is pseudoscience so hold your horses
This video is a goldmine thank you
DR. I.E. RIGHT
Very good until 43:20. It's clear postmodernism has saturated the lecturers mind to the point where he discredits Jung's ideas for one of his colleagues'.
The proposal that Individuation can happen outside of Heteronormitivity is utter nonsense as it is quite clearly in direct opposition to not only biological facts but thousands of years worth of accumulated wisdom within the collective unconscious.
except in the movie the mask with Jim Carrey when he put on the mask he actually was behaving like the part of the persona that would normally be hidden by a mask instead when he put on the mask he was flamboyantly exposing the things that most people hide
I will decide wether it is "right" or not.
I really appreciate the clarity and how you, the speaker, organized the presentation. Even being familiar with Jungian theories, it is quite enjoyable to hear how you desribe/explain in ways to contribute to my own understandings. Since it is obvious that the speaker is a thinker who brings more clarity to the world of knowledge, please lose the confirmative punctuations with the word "right?" at the end of sentences or phrases. It did not lessen the quality of the contents, but it is really distracting. I just had to actively disregard the unneccesary distraction, which means that, for some audience like myslef, it is rather burdensome. In spite of that, I was willing to bear the burden and listened to your lecture all the way to the end. And thank you for the presentation.
How noble of you, LOL!
@@TorMax9 dynamite…
Insook Choi Very nicely said!
I get it right!!!!
I disagree with what is said about the biological aspect of anima and animus. Contemporary life is an adverse effect of abandoning mature interpretations of masculine/feminine, male/female. I do not think the exception disproves the rule.
I feel his critique simply misses the point of the masculine/feminine representation
He’s just a PC normie, probably never works physically hard or with his hand, just floats around in idea-land
I totally agree and had to rant about it to my husband. It burns me up to hear such nonsense. Putting that aside, this was a very good lecture.
Anybody ever wonder if the reason why we sleep is because all this psychic building up of the persona and the shadow and etc is tiring, not just to the body but primarily to the mind. Perhaps that's why when you don't sleep for days, one of the most evident faculties effected is the mind. When you go to sleep every night your mind builds up this mental house of cards, and upon awakening it is that house that faces the world. But the real world is hectic and windy, and those cards get more unstable...until you go back to sleep to straighten up the deck.
Loved it. Great content easily effortlessly clearly explained.
🙏🙏🙏👏👏👏
many archetypal/christ-like images in harry potter! Harry escapes death twice, ordinary boy with faults, a modest student, yet also 'the chosen one,' hunted down by voldermort, sort of abandoned by his negligent auntie and uncle, cruel childhood living under the stairs, (robbed of what should have been a loving and peaceful upbringing) snape tips off lily and james that someone is coming to kill harry because of the prophecy, harry being protected by his mother's love time and time again, even after she dies, his closeness and recurrent re-connections and sights of his parents, and then many other archetypal characters such as dumbledoor, maybe harry projecting his 'self' personified archatype onto him as a mentor. And then dumbledoor's line which resonates strongly with what you said at one point in the lecture about the 'unrealness' of archetypes yet very realness of them; harry: 'is this all happening inside my head professor?' Dumbledoor: 'of-course it's happening inside your head harry, but why should that mean it is any less real?' then many other sidekick characters... food for thought- can definitely be developed. Loved this lecture!
Really enjoying this lecture. Definitely a few of Jung's written concepts that I would define a bit differently based on my own reading of the text. But a really good lecture. I enjoyed the brain gymnastics... I learned several interesting things.
This teacher is so dang cool, there's not enough laughter 😂
51:23 hit me like a truck. As someone who has left fundamentalism Christianity, I have become consumed by Jung and other psychologists work almost to the point where I am worshipping them.
Demonic doctrines are getting promoted by the Global elites controlled educational systems
That’s weird
@@shazamgod2240 ik that’s the point
Right,right,right,right,right,right,right,right,right,right,right,right,right,right............
Amazing theory