• 430: I’m not a student in psychology, or philosophy, but maybe you can help me make sense of these ideas., submitted on 2022-12-12 18:29:00+08:00.
• 431: Help me understand/integrate the part on the shadow, submitted on 2022-12-18 03:41:11+08:00.

430: I’m not a student in psychology, or philosophy, but maybe you can help me make sense of these ideas., submitted on 2022-12-12 18:29:00+08:00.

—– 430.1 —–2022-12-13 12:49:04+08:00:

The quote you linked above is from Letters, Volume 1 at page 33 (English version). Jung was writing to a potential patient, who sought to engage his services in overcoming her struggles to understand others.

The letter: https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/02/08/carl-jung-i-am-afraid-that-the-mere-fact-of-my-presence-takes-you-away-from-yourself/

I can’t even pretend to have the full context of their correspondence. But based on Jung’s other writings I’ve read, Jung was saying the same thing the Oracle was telling Neo in The Matrix:

Know thyself.

Jung wrote that dreams were the impartial, spontaneous products of our unconscious psyche that are outside the control of our will. But there are so many different layers of meaning, navigating them is impossible without some point of reference to orient our understanding.

The idea is that by self understanding, we become the point reference through which we may orient our understanding of the external world. In that way, we wake up.

431: Help me understand/integrate the part on the shadow, submitted on 2022-12-18 03:41:11+08:00.

—– 431.1 —–2022-12-18 17:20:10+08:00:

As of the time this comment is posted, I do not see a satisfying explanation of what integrating the shadow actually means. So I’ll do it.

Here is what integrating the shadow means, in plain English:

As Jung uses the term, an individual’s “shadow” represents his potential to cause harm (of any kind, including violence, reputational, deception or anything else).

An individual may recognize that he has an impulse to cause harm, but not act on it. If that individual can’t act on his impulse because he is weak or cowardly, does that mean he is a good person simply because he has not caused harm to another? Absolutely not, according to Jung. In the best case, such an individual is childlike, infantile and meek (e.g., Frodo in the first part of the first Lord of the Rings book). In the worst case, he is malicious and vindictive, yet cowardly (e.g., Bilbo Baggins or Dostoevsky’s Underground Man). No matter which it is, that person has not integrated his shadow.

On the other hand, an individual may recognize that he has an impulse to cause harm, but does not act on it despite knowing that he absolutely could if he so chose. If that individual chooses not to act, the choice is not because he lacked the option. It is because he had the option and yet did not. In this case, the choice to do what is right by others (or at least refrain from harming them) is done because it is the right thing to do, not for lack of the option to do otherwise. This person has integrated his shadow (e.g., Frodo and arguably Sam, at the end of The Return of the King).

Integrating your shadow is not about “incorporating some parts of the evil about you,” as another commenter incorrectly stated. It’s about coming to terms with the fact that you have the capability to inflict harm on others, and realizing that potential is a source of strength.

Specifically, integrating your shadow has nothing to do with “evil,” as such. But the capacity to cause harm, such as the capacity to engage in violence. Violence is not always evil. Sometimes it is, but other times it is justified (such as in defense of another).

The person who has not integrated his shadow will fold over, in the face of evil, however. The person with an integrated shadow, on the other hand, has the strength to contend with whatever evil he faces and contend with it in a “you do your worst, and I will do mine” sort of way.

Integrating the shadow is also different from being willing to confront evil. Again, integrating the shadow is about having the capability to contend with evil, not act on the desire to confront it. A willingness to confront evil is may require an integrated shadow as a prerequisite, but that alone is insufficient. For example, compare Schindler (who shielded victims of the third reich’s evil, at great risk to his life while still endeavoring to protect his financial interests) with Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Claus von Stauffenberg (both of whom plotted to cut off the head at its source, i.e., kill Hitler, even if doing so meant it would cost their lives).

And integrating the shadow also has nothing to do with how similar or different anyone is to the average German person during the third reich. Not even close to a relevant point.