Many people want to say gender is something fundamental to reality. Something informed by biology or some religious/ spiritual design. Many people want to say it's purely conventional, a performance that has been enforced through structures of power and control.
I think locking gender into any one thing limits the freedom of such words. I believe gender is going through the same process of annihilation that the word art went through. We all have this notion that there is something called art, but we can’t localize that word because of the avant garde’s process of pushing the boundaries of definitions until words like art encompass anything and everything, and therefore loses any substantial meaning it once had. Yes, art is dead, but it is also through its nonexistence that anything can arise to be called art. 

I believe it is natural for us humans to gravitate towards understanding what is considered outside of our own subjective experience. It is afterall, what is outside of us that poses the biggest existential threat. We can fight the outer world, forcing it into submission of our will, or we can submit to our environment finding some ultimate connection through our expanding sense of self that absorbs the various signifiers and signs into our constructed identity. When a man is born he is assigned the word male. The word Female will immediately enter a world of othered existence in his psyche. The experience man first has with Womaness will likely be his mother, who carried and sustained the first stages of his life. Woman becomes associated as a life sustaining force for him, and since he cannot identify with woman as a baby, the archetype of life becomes objectified in relation to his subjecthood. Therefore, he will spend a lot of his life longing for something he believes sustains his existence. The manner in which people create relationships between self and the opposite gender varies. For some it is through a hetrosexual relationship, for others a transition of their cultural signifiers, and for some people like me it is more of an internal and spiritual process. Now, obviously women have their own subjecthood, and as subjects they possess the absolute freedom to change and fluctuate their own sense of self that they construct from outside signs and signifiers. This creates an unfortunate tension where men become patriarchal as a means of keeping a life sustaining energy fixed into a stable concept that they can reliably circle back to and extract from. This is why I believe  there is such aggression and hostility towards feminism from many men. It is the destabilizing of a platform men built that affirms their own existence.   

Outlined by the Madhyamaka Buddhist is a way of seeing in which all phenomena are empty and baseless. There is no ground floor to the concepts of Man and Woman. The chain of association and causality of thoughts is infinite and recursive. This is to say that I don’t believe anyone is a man or woman. They are ideals that have absorbed a collective meaning, and the reality is that most people have a combination of both masculine and feminine associated characteristics. The concept of man gets othered from woman which creates an othered archetype in their subconscious, the same thing happens to man. I have spent a good chunk of my adolescence, like many other men, projecting my inner feminine outward onto individuals carrying the signifiers of that inner image of womaness. Obviously this flatness the subjecthood of the other person by putting them in comparison to the ideal, and therefore limits their freedom. I believe to truly love someone, through agape and not eros, is to recognize their independence, autonomy, and freedom that allows for an endless feedback loop between imagination and understanding. This is not to say that romantic companionship or sexual exploration is not a worthy pursuit, but that it should be pursued with the awareness that it is ultimately a performance that both parties enter with the recognition that neither are wholly fixed to such roles or concepts. That being said, when the ideal has no object to fix itself to there is an unquenchable longing for it. Without a hetero-relationship I could transition by expressing myself with the signifiers of womaness, but there is the undeniable feeling that this too would fall short of closing the gap for me. It remains true that I experienced most life as a man, it remains true that I still associate biological processes such as childbirth and menstruation with the feminine archetype. I will never know what it feels like to be capable of carrying a child, so even If I don’t call that biological process woman, there would still be something othered from my sense of self that some people have access to. 

For me, there will forever be this longing for this empty word, “woman”. I am aware that Shakti has no fixed point, for she is a creative dynamic force. In Hinduism Shakti can incarnate as a motherly figure, and she can also incarnate as a fearsome warrior. She has no fixed form and therefore is everywhere and simultaneously nowhere at the same time. But it is in that longing where I realized it’s the hole in me, my shakti, that allows for me to endlessly create. I long for the divine feminine, my shakti, but come to realize time and time again that it cannot be found for I see the ultimate emptiness of it. However, it is in my process to find her through creation and a search for meaning, where I end up creating more and more works of art. They don’t fill the hole, but they do change me from the inside. I am overcome with both a dreadful and beautiful feeling. I get the sense I will never find what I'm looking for, but I also now understand that this is the very engine that allows for her to express herself through me. If i were to lock a concept or thing onto her, I would be limiting her personal freedom and potentially, so instead im always orbiting around her as a reference point. Never quite one with her, never quite free from her, never knowing where she is. I exist in that tension between, where she can manifest as anything, but is never bound to being one thing either. It is a perpetual state of  chasing and becoming that never ceases to end. A wheel that I can’t get off, because I’m in love with the ever unfolding nature of its movement.

Question for all Jungian therapists out there: Are you using any metaphoric card decks within therapy and if so please could you recommend any? I feel that I really need one, which may include some archetypal scenes or images without texts and more abstract.

We don't have to believe we're being watched for the possibility of being watched to change our relationship with the world. Sometimes, nothing changes except our awareness of ourselves. We're laughing, talking, walking somewhere familiar. Then we become conscious of how we might appear to someone else. Nothing around us has changed, but something in the experience has. We're no longer entirely within the moment. We're also looking at ourselves from the outside.

We have always imagined how others see us. We learn to anticipate reactions, adjust our behavior, and understand ourselves through the people around us. But now, our actions can be recorded, preserved, and encountered by people who were never there. A moment can outlive its context. A version of ourselves can remain long after we've changed. The observer becomes less a person than a possibility. We don't have to believe anyone is watching. We understand that what happens can be documented, separated from the moment, and interpreted by someone whose perspective we cannot control. We can be seen without being understood.

But the strangeness goes beyond recording. We can turn the outside perspective on ourselves even when nobody else is present. We examine our reactions, question our motives, and wonder what our behavior says about us. We become both the person living the experience and the person observing it. Some of this is necessary. Self-awareness allows us to recognize our mistakes, understand our motives, and change. Without it, we would struggle to learn from experience. But there is a difference between reflecting on an experience and monitoring ourselves while we're living it.

Reflection can deepen our understanding of what we're experiencing. It can also turn our attention toward how we appear, what we're doing, and what the moment might say about us. The distinction isn't always clear. The same awareness that helps us understand ourselves can introduce distance between us and what we're living. I wonder what happens when we're accustomed to doing both at once, when we experience something while also considering how it looks, how it might be remembered, or what it reveals about the person we are. The experience becomes something we're living and something we're evaluating.

Perhaps something is lost in that distance. Not the experience itself, but the ability to let it happen without immediately turning it into a story about ourselves. There are moments when we forget to observe ourselves. We become absorbed in a conversation, laugh without considering how we look, or find ourselves somewhere beautiful without thinking about what the experience says about us. For a while, we're simply there. We can reflect on these moments afterward, try to understand why they mattered, and carry their meaning with us. But their value doesn't depend on our ability to explain them while they're happening.

Perhaps this is what interests me about the unobserved self. Not a hidden version of ourselves that nobody can see, but the possibility of experiencing life without continually turning ourselves into objects of our own attention. And yet, how would we recognize such a state without observing it? The moment we begin examining our experience, we introduce the very distance we're trying to understand. We can't simply abandon reflection. It's one of the ways we make sense of our lives. But understanding an experience and being present within it are not the same thing.

Can we understand ourselves without making ourselves into objects to be understood? I keep returning to this question because I don't know how to answer it without stepping outside the experience again. We look at ourselves to understand who we are, but neither perspective, from within or from without, seems capable of telling us everything. Perhaps we need both, though I don't know how they fit together.

The unobserved self may not be a self that nobody can see, or one that never looks inward. It may be the part of our experience that doesn't have to become an object of examination in order to matter. I don't know if we can fully escape the impulse to observe ourselves. Nor do I know whether recognizing the moments when we stop observing ourselves preserves them or changes them. Perhaps some experiences can only be understood afterward. Perhaps some lose something when we try to understand them too soon.

I don’t try to lucid dream but last night I had a semi lucid moment in my dream.

In my reading of Jung, though far from complete, I never encountered him writing of lucidity in dreams.

Has anyone read of this from Jung or his students? Or have any thoughts on the subject?

Thanks

Jung begins with the ego, that is, the “I,” and moves toward the Self.

Ep. 14–Ep. 18 are individual stories, but they all begin with Jung’s concept of the ego and explore the process of deconstructing the “I.”

Ep. 14. What am I?

→ I cannot be defined by my name, occupation, or role.

Ep. 15. Where is the boundary of me?

→ The boundary becomes blurred, extending from the body and microorganisms to the Earth and the universe.

Ep. 16. How do I perceive?

→ I deconstruct the senses, thoughts, habits, and the automatic system.

Ep. 17. How do I live?

→ I deconstruct desire, suffering, automatic reactions, and choice.

Ep. 18. Do I exist, or do I change?

→ I deconstruct Descartes’ fixed notion of the “I” once again.

Ep. 19. Then, how does Jung see this “I”?

→ Jung expands the “I,” while I, a salaried worker, deconstruct the “I.”

To briefly summarize the episode roadmap:

Starting with Jung → shaking the “I” → shaking its boundaries → shaking the way I perceive → shaking the way I live → shaking existence itself → returning to Jung.

This time, in Ep. 17, I shake the way I live.

Will I be dragged along by the automatic system that reacts before thought,

or will I take the lead and guide it?

The red pill or the blue pill.

Even not choosing is a choice, and the choice is yours.

If the moderation team determines that this post is not sufficiently related to Jung, or does not meet the community’s standards for any other reason, please feel free to remove it.

I respect the moderation team’s judgment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

A Shift in Perspective: Ep. 17. When Asked Why We Live..

​

​

Just as I was about to start writing,

I suddenly remembered a poem that had been hanging in a frame in a corner of my room when I was a child.

​

Even if life deceives you, do not be sad or angry.

When the days of sorrow pass, days of joy will come.

The present is always sad,

the heart lives in the future, and what has passed becomes something to miss..

​

When I was a child, I didn’t even know who Pushkin was,

but the translated poem was short and somehow seemed cool, so I read it often and memorized it without even realizing it..

It has remained vivid in my mind to this day.

​

This time, let’s take a look at Pushkin’s poem.

​

Perhaps Pushkin’s intention was something like this.

​

The present is always painful.

Since joy and suffering come and go, joy will come in the future, and what has passed becomes a memory.

So, even when things are difficult, do not be sad.

​

But when we look at the same words from a different perspective,

I think both the happiness of the future and the happiness of the past are suffering.

Because the future is beyond my control, and the past cannot be brought back, neither can satisfy me in the way I want.

​

Perhaps it could also be seen as what is commonly called “Huimang Gomon” in Korea.

※ “Huimang Gomon” is a Korean expression referring to a situation in which hope itself becomes a source of suffering.

​

From this perspective,

if we were to summarize this poem that says the present is always sad in a matter-of-fact way, I think it would look like this.

​

① There is no need to suffer because joy and suffering repeat throughout life.

② The mind of the present suffers, the mind of the future suffers, and the mind of the past suffers.

​

When we read the original poem, it seems plausible, but when we summarize it this way, it seems quite illogical.

​

I can understand ① because joy and suffering repeat, but ② raises the question of why, amid that repetition, we fail to see joy and live seeing only suffering..

​

Since it repeats anyway, by changing our perspective,

rather than looking at the painful side of the present,

if we instead look only at the joyful side, the present will always be joyful,

and I think both the past and the future would be joyful as well.

​

But does this negative perspective really apply only to Pushkin?

I think most people are the same.

I, too, had never found this poem strange and had actually sympathized with it until I started writing this piece.

​

Anyway, let’s take another slow look, starting with ①.

Since joy and suffering repeat throughout life, there is no need to suffer.

​

I also agree with what Pushkin says here.

This is because I think there is neither eternal joy nor eternal suffering.

​

So I understand Pushkin as saying that since joy and suffering inevitably repeat throughout life, there is no need to suffer unnecessarily, because joy will come again anyway.

​

I think the widely known saying, “This too shall pass,” carries a similar meaning.

​

I would take this one step further.

If there were a scale that could measure the size or weight of suffering and joy,

I think they would be equal in size or weight as well.

​

Because if we want to obtain joy but fail to obtain it, suffering will increase by that much,

and conversely, if we obtain the joy we wanted, suffering will decrease by that much.

​

Ultimately, I think the weight is determined by how strong our desire for joy is.

​

In this context, I also think Jesus said something like this.

​

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 5:3]

​

Because the less we desire, that is, the poorer in spirit we are, the less we suffer, I think Jesus also spoke of being poor in spirit as the first teaching of the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. [See Ep. 1. The Sermon on the Mount – The Beatitudes]

​

​

But when we look at ②, life is filled entirely with suffering.

​

Why is that?

​

I think the reason is simple.

​

Among the expressions commonly used in Korea, there is one: “A single moment can feel like Yeosamchu.”

It means that a single moment can feel as long as three autumns passing by.

Conversely, enjoyable moments pass by in the blink of an eye.

※ “Yeosamchu” literally means “three autumns,” referring to a moment that feels extremely long, as if three autumns were passing by.

​

In other words..

As I explained in the previous episode, I think our sixth faculty of perception—thought—perceives things differently depending on the conditions. [See Ep. 16. Kant, a Little Break]

​

Even if the amount of time is physically the same, we tend to feel joy as if it were only a moment, while we feel suffering as if it were eternal.

​

Ultimately, in our feelings, joy disappears in an instant, while only suffering remains as if it were eternal.

​

To give another example..

Half of the cup is filled with water.

Viewed from the opposite perspective, half of the cup is empty.

Depending on the perspective, the water is both there and not there.

​

If you want the water to be there,

it appears as, “I drank most of it, and there’s only half left.”

If you have no attachment to the water,

it appears as, “There’s still half of it left.”

​

The process of perception that makes us see only what we want to see,

in other words, the habit of thinking..

That is, I think the automatic system that operates before thought is the main reason we see only suffering.

.

.

.

.

At this point, let’s bring the title back into the discussion.

Why do we live in this world where only suffering remains?

​

Why do you live? It’s all suffering anyway..

​

In fact, I don't think there is a reason for living itself.

Because existence comes before reason.

I think the question of why we live, when we are already living, is itself a contradiction.

If there is no reason, or if the purpose has been achieved, should we die?

I think the proper question should be not “why,” but “how.”

​

How will you live? It’s painful in the end anyway..

​

Will you live seeing only the suffering that the automatic system shows you?

Or will you choose not to be led by the automatic system?

​

It is not that one is good and the other is bad.

Every choice comes with a price.

If that price had a weight, I think the prices that come with the two choices would also have the same weight.

But, like Yeosamchu, I think the weight we feel would be different.

​

Will you be led by the automatic system, or will you lead it?

There is simply the choice and the result that follows from it.

And that choice,

I think, is the same yet different, and different yet the same.

​

The choice is yours.

.

.

.

.

It seems like I’ve gotten a little too serious.

​

Is there anything special about life?

It’s fine to live knowing who Pushkin was,

and even if you don’t, it makes no difference to how you live.

​

If someone asks me,

“Why do you live?”..

I just live.

​

And if they ask again,

“How do you live?”

I go to work again tomorrow and just live. ^^;;

.

.

.

.

[Original text]

융은 에고, 즉 ‘나’에서 시작하여 셀프를 향해 나아갑니다.

Ep.14 ~ Ep.18은 각각의 이야기이지만, 모두 융의 에고에서 출발하여 ‘나’라는 대상을 해체하는 과정입니다.

Ep 14. 나는 무엇인가?

→ 이름·직업·역할로는 나를 규정할 수 없다

Ep 15. 나의 경계는 어디인가?

→ 몸·미생물·지구·우주까지 경계가 흔들린다

Ep 16. 나는 어떻게 인식하는가?

→ 감각·생각·습관·자동시스템을 해체한다

Ep 17. 나는 어떻게 살아가는가?

→ 욕망·고통·자동반응·선택을 해체한다

Ep 18. 나는 존재하는가, 변하는가?

→ 데카르트의 고정된 ‘나’를 다시 해체한다

Ep 19. 그렇다면 융은 이 ‘나’를 어떻게 보는가?

→ 융은 ‘나’를 확장하는 것으로, 나(월급쟁이)는 ‘나’를 해체하는 것으로 보여집니다.

에피소드 로드맵을 간단히 정리하면:

융에서 시작해서 나를 흔든다 → 경계를 흔든다 → 인식 방식을 흔든다 → 삶의 방식을 흔든다 → 존재 자체를 흔든다 → 다시 융에게 돌아간다.

이번에는 Ep 17.에서 내 삶의 방식을 흔들어 봅니다.

생각 이전에 반응하는 자동시스템에 끌려갈 것인가,

아니면 끌고 갈 것인가.

빨간약 또는 파란약

비선택을 포함해서 선택은 각자의 몫입니다.

모더레이션 팀에서 이 글이 융과 충분히 관련되어 있지 않거나, 다른 어떤 이유로든 커뮤니티의 기준에 부합하지 않는다고 판단하신다면, 삭제하셔도 괜찮습니다.

저는 모더레이션 팀의 판단을 존중합니다.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

관점의 전환: Ep 17. 왜 사느냐고 물으면..

​

​

글을 쓰려다 보니..

갑자기 어린 시절 방 한켠에 걸려있던 액자의 시 한편이 생각납니다.

​

삶이 그대를 속일지라도 슬퍼하거나 노하지 말라.

슬픔의 날이 지나면 기쁨의 날이 오리니

현재는 언제나 슬픈 것

마음은 미래에 있고 지나간 것은 그리워지느니..

​

어린 시절 나는 푸시킨이 누구인지도 몰랐지만

번역된 시가 짧기도 하고 왠지 멋있어 보이기도 해서 자주 보다 보니 자연스럽게 외워졌는데..

현재까지 머릿속에 선명하게 남아있습니다.

​

이번엔 푸시킨의 시를 한번 살펴봅니다.

​

어쩌면 푸시킨의 의도는 이럴지도 모릅니다.

​

언제나 현재는 괴롭다.

즐거움과 괴로움은 반복되니 미래에는 기쁨이 오고 지나간 것은 추억이 된다.

그러니 힘들어도 슬퍼하지 마라.

​

하지만 같은 말을 다른 관점에서 보면

미래의 행복과 과거의 행복은 모두 괴로움이라고 생각됩니다.

왜냐하면 미래는 내 마음대로 안되고 과거는 되돌릴 수 없어 내가 원하는대로 충족이 안되기 때문입니다.

어쩌면 한국에서 흔히 말하는 ‘희망고문’처럼 볼 수도 있습니다.

​

이런 관점에서

언제나 현재가 슬프다는 이 시를 건조하게 다시 정리한다면 이렇게 된다고 생각합니다.

​

① 삶은 즐거움과 괴로움이 반복되기 때문에 마음이 괴로울 필요는 없다.

② 현재 마음도 괴롭고, 미래의 마음도 괴롭고, 과거의 마음도 괴롭다.

​

원문을 읽을 때는 그럴듯해 보이지만 이렇게 정리해보니 논리적으로 상당히 이상합니다.

​

①번은 즐거움과 괴로움이 반복되니까 이해가 되는데

②번은 그 반복 속에서 왜 즐거움은 보지 못하고 괴로움만 보고 사는가..라는 의문이 생깁니다.

​

어차피 반복되는 것이라면 관점을 바꿔서

현재 괴로운 면을 볼 것이 아니라

반대로 즐거운 면만 본다면 항상 현재가 즐거우니

과거도 미래도 즐거울 것이라고 생각됩니다.

​

그런데 이런 부정적인 관점은 과연 푸시킨만 해당될까요?

대부분의 사람도 마찬가지일 것이라고 생각됩니다.

나 역시 지금 이 글을 쓰기 전까지는 이 시에 공감하며 이상하다고 느낀 적은 없었습니다.

​

어쨌든 다시 ①번부터 천천히 살펴봅니다.

​

삶은 즐거움과 괴로움이 반복되기 때문에 마음이 괴로울 필요는 없다.

​

푸시킨의 이 말에는 나 또한 동의합니다.

영원한 즐거움과 영원한 괴로움은 없다고 생각하기 때문입니다.

​

그래서 푸시킨은 어차피 삶은 즐거움과 괴로움이 반복되기 때문에 어차피 즐거움이 오니까 굳이 괴로워할 필요가 없다고 말한 것으로 이해됩니다.

​

널리 알려진 '이 또한 지나가리라'라는 말도 같은 맥락이라고 생각됩니다.

​

나는 여기에 한 발 더 나아가서

만약, 괴로움과 즐거움의 크기나 무게를 잴 수 있는 저울이 있다면

나는 그 크기나 무게 또한 같을 것이라고 생각합니다.

​

왜냐하면 즐거움을 얻고자 하는데 즐거움을 얻지 못하면 그만큼 괴로움이 더해질 것이고,

반대로 얻고자 했던 즐거움이 충족되면 그만큼 괴로움이 사라질 것이기 때문입니다.

​

결국 그 무게를 결정하는 것은 즐거움을 바라는 마음의 크기라고 생각됩니다.

​

이와 같은 맥락에서 예수님 또한 이렇게 말했다고 생각됩니다.

​

마음이 가난한 자는 복이 있나니 천국은 그들의 것임이요. [마태복음 5장3절]

​

바라는 마음이 적을수록, 즉 마음이 가난할수록 괴로움이 적어지기 때문에

예수님 역시 산상수훈에서 팔복의 첫 번째 가르침으로 가난한 마음을 말씀하셨다고 생각됩니다. [Ep 1. 산상수훈 - 팔복 참고]

​

그런데 ②번을 살펴보면 삶이 온통 괴로움입니다.

​

왜 그럴까요?

​

이유는 간단하다고 생각됩니다.

​

한국에서 흔히 쓰는 말 중에

‘일각이 여삼추’라는 표현이 있습니다.

한순간이 세 번의 가을이 지나가는 것처럼 길게 느껴진다는 의미입니다.

반대로 즐거운 시간은 쏜살같이 지나갑니다.

​

다시 말하면..

앞의 에피소드에서 설명했다시피 우리의 여섯 번째 인식기관인 생각은 조건에 따라 다르게 인식되기 때문이라고 생각됩니다. [Ep 16. 쉬어가는 칸트 참고]

​

물리적으로 같은 시간이라고 하더라도, 우리는 즐거움은 순간처럼 느끼고 괴로움은 영원처럼 느끼는 경향이 있습니다.

​

결국 우리의 느낌 속에서는 즐거움은 순간으로 사라지고, 괴로움만 영원처럼 남게 됩니다.

​

또 다른 예를 들자면..

컵에 물이 절반이 있습니다.

반대로 보면 컵에 물이 절반이 없습니다.

관점에 따라 물은 있기도 하고 없기도 합니다.

​

컵에 물이 있는 것을 원하면

'물을 다 먹고 반밖에 안남았네'라고 보여지고

물에 대한 집착이 없으면

'물이 아직도 반씩이나 남았네'라고 보여집니다.

​

보고 싶은 것만 보게 하는 인식작용,

다시 말하면 생각의 습관..

즉 생각 이전에 작동하는 자동시스템이 괴로움만 보게 하는 주된 원인이라고 생각됩니다.

.

.

.

.

이쯤에서 제목을 소환해 봅니다.

우리는 괴로움만 남아있는 이 세상을 왜 살까요.

​

넌 왜 사니? 결국 괴로움인데..

​

사실 사는 것에 이유는 없다고 생각합니다.

이유보다 존재가 먼저이기 때문입니다.

이미 살고 있는데 왜 사느냐라는 질문 자체가 모순이라고 생각됩니다.

이유가 없거나 또는 목적이 달성되면 죽어야 할까요?

제대로 된 물음이라면 '왜'가 아니라 '어떻게'가 되어야 한다고 생각합니다.

​

너는 어떻게 살거니? 결국 괴로움인데..

​

자동시스템이 보여주는 대로 괴로움만 보고 살 것인가.

아니면 자동시스템에 끌려가지 않을 것인가.

​

어느 것이 좋고 어느 것이 나쁘다는 것은 아닙니다.

어느 선택이든 대가가 따르기 때문입니다.

만약, 그 대가에 무게가 있다면 두 가지 선택에 따른 대가 역시 그 무게는 같다고 생각됩니다.

하지만 여삼추처럼 우리가 느끼는 무게는 다를 것이라고 생각됩니다.

​

자동시스템에 끌려갈 것인가, 끌고 갈 것인가.

그냥 선택과 그에 따른 결과가 있을 뿐입니다.

​

그리고 그 선택은

같지만 다르고, 다르지만 같다고 생각됩니다.

​

선택은 자유입니다.

.

.

.

.

너무 심각한 것 같네요.

인생 뭐 있나요?

푸시킨이 누군지 알고 살아도 되고,

몰라도 사는데는 아무런 지장이 없습니다.

​

누군가 나에게

왜 사느냐고 물으면..

그냥 사는거죠.

​

또 다시

어떻게 사느냐고 물으면

내일 또 출근하고 그냥 삽니다. ^^;;

Hi everyone!

For the past year and a half, I've been exploring archetypes through my dreams and keeping a dream journal. I took a two month break for personal reasons, but today I decided to start writing my dreams down again. This was the first dream I had after that break, and I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts on it. I find many things from the dream interesting but can't understand it all, so I'm curious to hear how others may interpret them.

Here is the dream:

I dreamed that I was in a forest with a group of friends. At first we were filming some music video for a song, and when we finished we decided to just wander around the forest for a bit. I left my regular phone in the car and took an old one that could only make calls, just in case. The forest was beautiful. No people, pure nature. It was on some uninhabited island where people literally had no access. We were walking through the forest when we heard a very strange song from afar, as if it was being sung by a strange child, supposedly in a child’s voice but with a dark, weird undertone. Up on the hill you could see a kind of house that was more like a closed off facility. Cameras, a high barbed wire fence, armored windows etc. My friends got scared and asked whether someone was going first or if we should just skip it because they were afraid to go there. I said I wasn’t scared and started walking in that direction first. I approached the gate and there stood an older woman who was singing that song in a child’s voice. When she saw us she quickly went into a glass room made of thick bulletproof glass and said we shouldn’t be there, but nothing more. Somehow we managed to get inside, but we were in a kind of entrance hall. White walls, white light, doors with armored windows, a bit like a hospital or some government facility. They locked us in that room. There were two doors, one large double door that seemed to lead further inside, and a smaller one next to it. We tried to go through but couldn’t. At one point I lay down next to the smaller door and through a thin gap an nearly invisible hand, as if made of black gas, grabbed my arm. It pulled my arm very hard, so that I couldn’t move even a centimeter. I was paralyzed, the air became thick, and I felt that if it wanted to it could literally explode my head, yet it didn’t hurt me. I lay motionless for a while but eventually it let go. It seemed purely animalistic and emotional, as if it was being held captive there and wanted to communicate that way because it couldn’t do it otherwise. I moved away from the door and a mild panic started in the group, still wrapped in a joking tone though. We wanted to call the police or any help, but the facility was blocking everyone’s phone signal. At some point we noticed a third door. I went inside and there was a locker room. Some shoes, jackets, etc. I liked the shoes, they looked good quality, so I decided to put on a pair so that if needed I could run better and move more easily in general. I put on one shoe and laced it up very tightly, not knowing what awaited us, when suddenly a huge man with a long beard appeared inside, resembling a giant. He said nothing and his eyes radiated cold. He simply started killing us, and he was so strong that no one stood a chance even though there were about 8 or 10 of us. He killed us all. But the dream didn’t end. The next thing I saw were a kind of dinosaurs or old wild animals that had lived on this island hundreds of years ago and carried on normal conversations. One of them, like a chief who looked like a huge wolf, was first talking to another wolf about how that one had accidentally fallen on his dog. The other got up and apologized, then unknowingly handed him the dog’s corpse, thinking it was still alive. It was lying on the wolf’s back and the huge wolf forgave him, as if knowing that the other didn’t even understand what he had done, and said that he had to find a new dog anyway. The words didn’t come from indifference exactly, he just lived in a world where death was everyday. Then a dinosaur resembling a huge chicken with beautiful shiny feathers said that “there are only 97 thousand of us left, the bigger we are, the stronger we are, but then it’s hard to make equipment for us.” He meant specifically his species, though they lived in harmony with other dinosaurs, and by equipment he meant some small ornaments and armor, thin silver pendants and small armor pieces for the animals. Then I also saw my group of friends as people who in other incarnations had lived in harmony with these dinosaurs, dressed in some skins and clothes resembling Neanderthals. I understood then that this institution has been killing people and animals since the dawn of time, has existed there since the age of the dinosaurs, and already back then it had modern technology. As if it had some separate purpose of its own that I don’t understand. Then I woke up.

Id be interested in any interpretations. I know dream interpretation is highly personal, so I'm not looking for a definitive answer, just different perspectives from people with more experience that might help me understand the dream better, because there is a lot happening. Also, what could the invisible being from the facility be or represent? After waking up I felt a fascination with it and a will to build a connection with it, but it sounds like a bad idea to me. The being was very powerful with a very heavy energy. It had full power over me only by grabbing my arm and could kill me any time it wanted to. It was made out of pure emotions and intuition, more like an animal then a being that thinks and acts like a human. The only means of communication it had was grabbing my arm.

Thanks for reading!

Jung begins with the Ego, that is, the “I,” and moves toward the Self.

Ep.14 ~ Ep.18 are individual stories, but they all begin with Jung’s Ego and together form a process of deconstructing the “I.”

Ep 14. What am I?

→ I cannot be defined by my name, occupation, or role

Ep 15. Where is the boundary of me?

→ The boundary becomes blurred, from the body and microorganisms to the Earth and the universe

Ep 16. How do I perceive?

→ Deconstructing the senses, thoughts, habits, and automatic system

Ep 17. How do I live?

→ Deconstructing desire, suffering, automatic reactions, and choice

Ep 18. Do I exist, or do I change?

→ Deconstructing Descartes’ fixed “I” once again

Ep 19. Then, how does Jung see this “I”?

→ Jung expands the “I,” while I, the salaried worker, deconstruct the “I.”

To briefly summarize the episode roadmap:

Starting from Jung, I shake the “I” → shake the boundaries → shake the way of perceiving → shake the way of living → shake existence itself → return to Jung.

If the moderation team determines that this post is not sufficiently related to Jung, or for any other reason does not meet the community’s standards, please feel free to remove it.

I respect the moderation team’s judgment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Shift in Perspective: Ep. 16. Kant, a Little Break

​

​

Trying to see the invisible “me” must have given you a lot to think about by now.

I’ll slow down for a beat.

I wanted to give my mind a chance to cool down, but there weren’t many people who could help with that, so I brought Kant along.

​

This time, let’s take a quick peek at Kant.

​

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher, and I think he was one of the most influential philosophers in Western philosophy.

​

I think Kant’s central question is very simple.

​

“Do we know the world as it is?”

​

I think Kant’s answer is, “No.”

​

And I agree with him on that.

​

When we perceive the world, we take what we perceive through our five senses as fact.

We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue, and feel with our skin.

These are what we call the five senses, and through them, we perceive the world.

​

This is exactly where I think Kant raised the question:

​

“Do we know the world as it is?”

​

If we look closely at this question, it seems to be asking whether what we know is not the actual world itself, but simply what we perceive through our senses.

And I think our senses can lead to errors in perception depending on the circumstances or conditions.

.

.

.

.

Let’s take a look at the macroscopic world we live in.

​

If we let a blind person feel an elephant’s leg without being able to see the whole elephant, they might think:

“Ah! So an elephant is shaped like a pillar.”

Now, if we let them feel the elephant’s tusk, they might think:

“Ah! So an elephant is like a spear.”

​

Then what did the blind person actually perceive—a pillar or a spear? Which one is the truth?

.

.

.

.

Now let’s move on to the microscopic world.

​

Let’s observe a deeply loving couple kissing in a laboratory.

​

Here is the first observation.

The two are pressed closely together, simply exchanging saliva.

​

If we observe the process, they can perceive that their tongues and lips are pressed against each other.

However, according to what scientists have confirmed, we are made up of atoms.

If we were to enlarge the nucleus of an atom to the size of a 100-won coin, the electron would exist about 1 km away at the same scale.

The coin would not even be visible from 1 km away, yet most of the space between them would be empty.

In that empty space, is what they perceive as being closely pressed together really a fact?

.

.

.

.

If what we feel is different from the actual world, as in this case, our eyes, nose, tongue, ears, and skin might just be decorations after all.

​

Can we really trust all the information provided by our senses?

I think this is probably what Kant was questioning.

​

But I think there is one more faculty we use to perceive what is true, beyond the five senses.

​

I think this is where Kant and I, although we started with the same question, begin to take different perspectives.

I am not saying that I am right and Kant is wrong.

From this point on, I simply think that my perspective and Kant’s perspective are different.

​

If we go one step beyond the five senses and look at our conscious world, we see only what we want to see and hear only what we want to hear.

​

Let me give you an example to make this easier to understand.

No matter how much Galileo proved, demonstrated, and insisted that the heliocentric model was correct, those who believed in the geocentric model still regarded their own beliefs as fact and did not change their thinking.

​

Conversely, we have never seen for ourselves that the Earth is round, yet we accept other people’s explanations and evidence and perceive them as fact.

​

If we call the faculty through which we perceive what is true a sense, then we have not just five senses, but one more.

That is “thought.”

​

At this point, I suddenly think of the third teaching from the Sermon on the Mount in Ep. 2: “Do not swear an oath.”

​

Because our senses have limitations, judgments we believe to be absolute can change depending on the conditions and circumstances, as in the examples above.

I think this is why Jesus told us not to swear oaths.

I think this is because our judgments can change depending on the circumstances and conditions of perception.

​

In this way, the six faculties through which we perceive what we believe to be facts can also deceive us.

Then, are the things we believe to be facts really facts?

​

Anyway, I’ll take this one step further.

I think there is something else that significantly influences the process of perceiving what is true.

In other words, in the process of perceiving what is true, we need to consider one more thing beyond the five senses and thought.

​

That is “habit.”

​

There are habits of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling through the skin, and the remaining one, the most important, is the habit of thinking.

Because habits differ from person to person, they infinitely expand the way our six faculties of perception work.

​

Because of this process of perception, even when we look at the same thing, we perceive it differently.

​

For example, when looking at the same rose:

Some people think, “It’s beautiful.”

Some think, “It has so many thorns.”

Some think, “It reminds me of an old lover.”

Some think, “I don’t like it because of my pollen allergy.”

Our eyes are all the same. But the way we see things differs according to the habits each of us has developed.

​

Furthermore, because of this process of perception, we sometimes perceive things to be true in the way we want to see them.

​

A representative example of this kind of habit is optical illusion.

Because of perceptual habits formed over the course of evolution, we tend to perceive things in familiar ways.

​

The same is true of our other senses.

In particular, when our senses are exposed to continuous stimulation, they can become fatigued, and we may even stop feeling the sensation.

​

Anyway, the most distinctive of these is the habit of thinking, the sixth faculty of perception.

I think this habit of thinking is the biggest cause of the discriminating mind I have been talking about all along.

​

Our habit of thinking automatically distinguishes between what we like and dislike the moment we see something.

We continue our thinking only in the direction we prefer, and we may even naturally rationalize it.

As a result, we believe those thoughts are facts, while at the same time becoming convinced that they are right.

​

The most frightening thing about these habits is that we automatically react without even realizing it, before we have a chance to think.

​

I think of this habit of thinking as an automatic system.

.

.

.

.

So, to summarize it again:

​

The wisdom of balance taught by the Four Great Sages

↓

helps maintain balance against the habit of thinking

↓

frees us from the automatic reactions of like (good) and dislike (evil)

↓

allows us to make choices freely

↓

frees us from all suffering

↓

and ultimately sets me free.

​

​

In this context, I think Jesus meant it this way:

​

If you remain in me

(If you love your enemies as I have told you)

​

you will know the truth,

(the discriminating mind arising from the Ego that distinguishes between good and evil will be removed)

​

and the truth

(the state of Eden before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is, a state without the discriminating mind)

​

will set you free.

(free you from automatic reactions)

​

※ Note: There is a Korean saying that if a small bird greedily tries to follow a stork, the small bird’s groin will tear apart.

(I think it is safer to start by consistently loving my neighbors, since it is difficult to love my enemies from the very beginning. Of course, you are free to choose. And I think there are many other paths as well. But I don’t think anything in this world comes for free.)

​

I brought Kant in so we could take a break, but I’m not sure if things have only gotten heavier.

.

.

.

.

I have to go to work again tomorrow.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ah... I wish I could go to work in the lab too. ♡

.

.

.

.

Oh... automatic reaction... ㅠㅜ

.

.

.

.

[Original text]

융은 에고, 즉 ‘나’에서 시작하여 셀프를 향해 나아갑니다.

Ep.14 ~ Ep.18은 각각의 이야기이지만, 모두 융의 에고에서 출발하여 ‘나’라는 대상을 해체하는 과정입니다.

Ep 14. 나는 무엇인가?

→ 이름·직업·역할로는 나를 규정할 수 없다

Ep 15. 나의 경계는 어디인가?

→ 몸·미생물·지구·우주까지 경계가 흔들린다

Ep 16. 나는 어떻게 인식하는가?

→ 감각·생각·습관·자동시스템을 해체한다

Ep 17. 나는 어떻게 살아가는가?

→ 욕망·고통·자동반응·선택을 해체한다

Ep 18. 나는 존재하는가, 변하는가?

→ 데카르트의 고정된 ‘나’를 다시 해체한다

Ep 19. 그렇다면 융은 이 ‘나’를 어떻게 보는가?

→ 융은 ‘나’를 확장하고, 나(월급쟁이)는 ‘나’를 해체하는 것으로 보입니다.

에피소드 로드맵을 간단히 정리하면:

융에서 시작해서 나를 흔든다 → 경계를 흔든다 → 인식 방식을 흔든다 → 삶의 방식을 흔든다 → 존재 자체를 흔든다 → 다시 융에게 돌아간다.

모더레이션 팀에서 이 글이 융과 충분히 관련되어 있지 않거나, 다른 어떤 이유로든 커뮤니티의 기준에 부합하지 않는다고 판단하신다면, 삭제하셔도 괜찮습니다.

저는 모더레이션 팀의 판단을 존중합니다.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

​

관점의 전환: Ep 16. 쉬어가는 칸트

​

보이지도 않는 나를 보려고 하니

그동안 머리가 좀 복잡했을듯 합니다.

한템포 쉬어 가 봅니다.

머리 좀 식히려고 했는데, 식힐 만한 사람이 별로 없어서 칸트를 데려왔습니다.

​

이번에는 칸트를 살짝만 조명해 봅니다.

​

임마누엘 칸트는 독일의 철학자로, 서양 철학에서 가장 큰 영향을 끼친 철학자 중 한 명이라고 생각합니다.

​

칸트의 핵심 질문은 아주 단순하다고 생각합니다.

​

"우리는 세상을 있는 그대로 알고 있는가?"

​

칸트의 대답은 "아니다."라고 생각됩니다.

​

그리고 나 역시 그 부분에는 동의합니다.

​

우리는 세상을 인식할 때 다섯 개의 감각기관을 통해 인식한 것을 사실이라고 받아들입니다.

눈으로 보고, 귀로 듣고, 코로 냄새맡고, 혀로 맛보고, 피부로 느낍니다.

그것을 오감이라고 하며 오감을 통해 우리는 세상을 인식합니다.

​

바로 이 지점에서 칸트가 문제를 제기했다고 생각합니다.

​

"우리는 세상을 있는 그대로 알고 있는가?"

​

이 질문을 잘 살펴보면,

우리가 아는 것은 실제의 세상 그 자체가 아니라, 우리의 감각기관을 통해 인식된 것일 뿐이지 않은가? 라고 이해됩니다.

그리고 그 감각기관은 상황이나 조건 등에 따라 인식오류를 일으킨다고 생각됩니다.

.

.

.

.

우리가 사는 거시세계를 살펴 봅니다.

​

전체를 볼 수없는 장님에게 코끼리 다리부분을 만지게하면 장님은 이렇게 인식합니다.

'아! 코끼리는 기둥처럼 생겼구나'

이번엔 코끼리의 상아부분을 만지게 하면 이렇게 인식합니다.

'아! 코끼리는 창같구나'

​

그렇다면 장님이 실제로 인식한 기둥과 창은 어느 것이 사실일까요?

.

.

.

.

이번에는 미시세계로 가 봅니다.

실험실에서 찐하게 사랑하는 남녀의 키스를 관찰해 봅니다.

​

첫 관찰 결과입니다.

둘은 서로 밀착되어 그냥 침을 주고 받습니다.

​

그 과정을 관찰해 보면 둘은 혀와 입술이 서로 붙어있다고 인식할 수 있습니다.

그러나 과학자들이 확인한 사실에 의하면 우리는 원자로 구성되어 있습니다.

만약 원자핵을 백원짜리 동전만큼 키운다면, 전자는 같은 비율로 약 1km 정도 떨어진 공간에 존재합니다.

1km 밖에서 동전은 보이지도 않는데 그 사이의 대부분은 빈 공간입니다.

이 텅빈 공간에서 그들이 밀착되었다고 인식한 사실은 정말 사실일까요?

.

.

.

.

이처럼 우리가 느끼는 것과 실제의 세계가 다르다면,

우리의 눈, 코, 혀, 귀, 피부는 그냥 데코레이션일 수도 있습니다.

​

과연 우리 감각기관의 정보를 모두 신뢰할 수 있을까요?

아마도 칸트는 이부분에 대해서 문제를 제기했다고 생각됩니다.

​

그런데 나는 사실을 인식하는 기관이 오감을 넘어서 한가지가 더 있다고 생각합니다.

​

바로 이 부분이 문제제기에 대한 시작은 같이 했지만 칸트와 나의 관점이 갈라지는 부분이라고 생각됩니다.

내가 옳고 칸트가 틀렸다는 말이 아닙니다.

이 시점 부터 나의 관점과 칸트의 관점이 다를 뿐이라고 생각합니다.

​

오감에서 한발 더 나아가 우리의 의식세계를 살펴보면

우리는 보고 싶은 것만 보고 듣고 싶은 것만 듣습니다.

​

이해하기 쉽게 예를 들어봅니다.

갈릴레오가 아무리 지동설이 사실이라고 증명하고 보여주고 외쳐도 천동설을 믿는 사람들은 자신의 생각을 사실로 인식하고 바꾸지 않았습니다.

​

반대로 우리는 지구가 둥글다는 것을 직접 본 적도 없지만, 다른 사람의 설명과 증거를 받아들이고 그것을 사실로 인식합니다.

​

만약 사실을 인식하는 것을 감각기관이라고 부른다면, 우리에게는 감각기관이 다섯 개만 있는 것이 아니라 하나 더 있습니다.

그것은 바로 '생각'입니다.

​

이 부분에서 문득 Ep. 2 산상수훈의 세번째 가르침인 맹세하지 말라가 떠오릅니다.

​

우리의 감각기관의 인식에는 한계가 있기 때문에,

우리가 절대적이라고 믿는 판단은 위에 제시한 사례들 처럼 조건과 상황에 따라 달라질 수 있습니다.

나는 이러한 이유로 예수님께서 맹세하지 말라고 하셨다고 생각합니다.

왜냐하면 상황이나 인식조건에 따라 판단이 변하기 때문이라고 생각합니다.

​

이처럼 우리가 사실이라고 믿는 여섯 가지 인식기관은 우리를 속일 수도 있습니다.

그렇다면 과연 우리가 사실이라고 믿고있는 것은 정말 사실일까요?

​

어쨌든, 나는 여기서 다시 한발 더 나아가서,

사실을 인식하는 과정에 중대한 영향을 미치는 것이 또 있다고 생각합니다.

다시말하면 사실의 인식과정에는 오감과 생각을 넘어서 한 가지를 더 고려해야 합니다.

​

그것은 바로 '습관'입니다.

​

보는 습관, 듣는 습관, 냄새맡는 습관, 맛보는 습관, 피부로 느끼는 습관이 있고 나머지 한가지는 제일 중요한 생각하는 습관이 있습니다.

습관은 사람마다 다르기 때문에 여섯가지 인식기관의 작용을 무한대로 확장시킵니다.

​

우리는 이 인식작용 때문에 같은 것을 보더라도 서로 다르게 인식합니다.

​

예를 들어 같은 장미를 보고도

어떤 사람은 "예쁘다."

어떤 사람은 "가시가 많다."

어떤 사람은 "옛 연인이 생각난다."

어떤 사람은 "꽃가루 알레르기 때문에 싫다."

라고 인식합니다.

눈은 모두 같습니다. 하지만 보는 작용은 각자 형성해 온 습관에 따라 달라집니다.

​

더 나아가, 우리는 이 인식작용 때문에 보고 싶은 대로 사실을 인식하기도 합니다.

​

이러한 습관의 대표적인 예가 착시 현상입니다.

오랜 진화의 과정에서 형성된 인식 습관 때문에 우리는 익숙한 방식대로 대상을 인식하려는 경향이 있습니다.

​

나머지 감각기관도 마찬가지 입니다.

특히 우리 감각은 자극이 지속되면 피로해져서 느낌조차 사라지기도 합니다.

​

어쨋든, 이중에 가장 특별한 것은 여섯 번째 감각기관의 생각의 습관입니다.

이 생각하는 습관, 즉 사고의 습관이 바로 지금까지 계속 이야기해 온 분별심을 일으키는 가장 큰 원인이라고 생각됩니다.

​

우리의 생각하는 습관은 대상을 보는 순간 좋고 싫음을 자동으로 구분합니다.

그리고 자신이 좋아하는 방향으로만 생각을 이어가며, 그것을 자연스럽게 합리화 하기도합니다.

그 결과, 우리는 그 생각을 사실이라고 믿으며, 동시에 그것이 옳다고 확신합니다.

​

이 습관들의 가장 무서운 점은 생각하기도 전에 자신도 모르게 자동반응 한다는 점입니다.

​

나는 이 생각하는 습관을 자동 시스템이라고 생각합니다.

.

.

.

.

그래서 다시 정리한다면

↓

4대성인의 가르침인 균형의 지혜는

↓

그 사고의 습관으로부터 균형을 유지시키고

↓

좋고(선) 싫음(악)의 자동반응으로부터 벗어나

↓

선택을 자유롭게 함으로써

↓

모든 괴로움으로부터 벗어나

↓

나를 자유롭게 합니다.

​

​

이런 맥락에서

예수님은 이렇게 말했다고 생각(해석)합니다.

​

너희가 내 안에 거하면

(너희가 내 말대로 원수를 사랑하면)

​

진리를 알지니,

(선과 악을 구분하는 Ego에서 비롯된 분별심이 제거될지니)

​

그 진리가

(선악과 먹기 이전의 에덴, 즉 분별심이 없는 상태가)

​

너희를 자유롭게 하리라.

(자동반응으로부터 너희를 자유롭게 하리라)

​

※ 주의: 뱁새가 황새를 따라가면 가랑이가 찢어집니다.

(첨부터 원수를 사랑하기는 어려우니, 먼저 내 이웃을 꾸준히 사랑하는 것부터 시작하는 편이 안전하다고 생각됩니다. 물론 선택은 자유입니다. 그리고 다른 길도 많다고 생각합니다. 하지만 공짜는 없다고 생각됩니다.)

​

​

쉬려고 칸트를 데려왔는데 더 무거워진건 아닌지 모르겠습니다.

.

.

.

.

나는 내일 또 출근합니다.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

아.. 나도 실험실로 출근하고싶다.♡

.

.

.

.

헐.. 자.동.반.응.. ㅠㅜ

In this essay, we discuss the myth of the Succubus and two of its three components, the castrated and castrating woman. How can this help us better understand where Jordan Peterson and the traditional psychoanalytic tradition go so wrong in regard to the “feminine” archetype? In understanding myth, we must be conscious how our own perspective is always projected onto the world no matter how hard we try otherwise.

Thanks for your time and attention :)