Mark Anthony in Inspiration, beBee in English, Writers Team Manager • Evolve Housing + Support Oct 1, 2016 · 1 min read · +700

Lets really connect

Perhaps we are connected more than we know. Carl Jung thought so. I am not an expert on Jungian practice but I did have some exposure to his ideas. He believed in the collective unconcious. He believed all of us, every human being were connected. At some level we all had the same Archetypes , perhaps given different names, appearances and definitions, but, universally they meant the same to us, they represented something and that something was the same!

Lets really connect

Ever been thinking about someone and that someone then calls you on the phone? Perhaps that's the collective unconscious at work. Maybe you were just about to reach for the phone and, boom they ring you! No doubt many will have  great rational explanations as to why this happens, we choose to believe what we want to believe, I think.

Or, do we? Frames of reference, learned behaviour, the ID( Unconscious forces already formed between 0-5 that we have little control over) and Operant conditioning are but a few of the things used to describe why we do what we do, behave like we behave and BE

Affinity , beBee and some other stuff got me thinking about this ( actually I often ponder these things) but beBee and what its aims are triggered me to think about it on this occasion. It would seem that beBee is on a journey, a journey to actualisation, a journey to reach the top of the triangle in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and a journey of discovery 

If this is true, lets all get together and make the unconscious concious 

Lets really connect 

CityVP Manjit Oct 2, 2016 · #5

#3 What I note (and this is solely for my own way of being) is that brand archetypes is a robotic interpretation of Jung's archetypes, that is why he left the conversation about types to the end of the book - if you read Psychological Types within the first three pages he addresses robotic formulation of types as "childish parlour games". He goes on to say that we must not be obsessed with the types and the actual meat of his book took him 20 years to write - and that is the poetic part of his book - but people have dismissed that poetic and actually focus on the programming of types - quite ironic really, and here I am not asking anyone to agree or disagree, we don't have to if we are truly poetic.

+1 +1
Mark Anthony Oct 2, 2016 · #4

#2 Thank you Brian. I was reading a piece of yours recently pertaining to 9/11. I think there is a lot more to us than meets the eye!

+1 +1
Mark Anthony Oct 2, 2016 · #3

Thank you commenting CityVP. I think we do indeed need the poetic.I was never attracted to the behavioural approaches for , it seemed too me they viewed us humans as almost robotic machines that could me programmed , un-programmed and reprogrammed. #1

Brian McKenzie Oct 2, 2016 · #2

Take a wander through Remote View - it attaches 'addresses' to time, place, emotions ~ some truly freaky and nearly frightening conseauences of a shared "consciousness"

+1 +1
CityVP Manjit Oct 1, 2016 · #1

Jung made a gallant effort in "psychological types" to show stories over time that was his attempt to make a case that the extrovert nature dominates society because of an implicit bias towards the group and that the introvert nature will find balance when we find a more aligned flow between individual and group. He also explored what psychic disorder there will be if an introvert is shaped by societal culture to live in an extroverts world. In my case being born in poor part of London, I was protected as a child from the plentiful existence of potential bad company - in many ways that shifted what may well have been a natural extrovert disposition, into what now exhibits itself as an introvert nature, where my personal privacy is more important. In my case I did not experience the psychic disorder an introvert must adjust to, to accommodate and fit into an extrovert world.

I don't pay much regard to Maslow's hierarchy of needs because how does that explain the value of Jesus washing someone's feet? The elitism and class divsions of the industrial and imperial empire age warped and kinked what actually informed hierarchy. So we have lived through centuries of bad hierarchy, enough to get people exploring concepts such holocracy or other systems that counter the known effects of hierarchy. Personally I don't see hierarchy as bad, other than people execute it in a bad way - we have hierarchy in our body that gives us structure and function. The spine of organization is different to a spine of a human being, but both are about information flows.

Whatever mythology we may pick, that is a freedom of choice and even what we call strategy at the business organization level can be laden with mythologies, so much so that we may have men of reason practicing organizational witchcraft, that they happen to call "being strategic". We are moving towards evidence based approaches and we are using computers for analytics - but we do still need the poetic.

+3 +3