The complete video got banned by KZbin

​@@ortedoxaWhere can I find the first guy's full interview?

Marie Louise Von Franz

As humans we are in relationship to everything. He was specifying a "type" of relationship.

Yes,but his English phrasing is very good and grammatically correct . I wonder where he learned that .

Marie-Louis von Franz, she collaborated with Carl Jung on the psychology of the "shadow projection". Basically fulfilment based on insecurity and either not talking it out, or projecting it on each other.

Nah bro they just don't get Jung's genius man

In all seriousness, men have a tendency to project a negative image or idea on the feminine, because they do not understand it and given jordan is an "intellectual", he will most certainly speak of something stupid like the above. I dare say that he is stupid for, if you get into typology, he clearly has a complete lack of development of feeling and if one does not develop no matter how high iq he will never be able to orient himself on what is intrinsically acceptable or not, more specifically to be accepted or not. You should be more concerned with the people who listen to him, the problem is he is eloquently right about a few topics and in addition to his status as an "intellectual" causes listeners to, for a lack of a better term, shut their brain off.

I totally agree. There is something about Peterson and women, his requirements of them and his beliefs..

@@eliash.6142 He does not see them realistically or as human beings really. The way he speaks of them seems more like how a scientist would study a rat.

@@friktogurg9242 true. some kind of complex. Put that man into an association test!

shes gone to where ?

@@leusmaximusx she still lives in Chicago and I moved cities after our breakup

@@jaredhonusankrom dont kick yourself up,, men are hunters-risk takers,,, get on with what good work ur planning,,, you'll find out later , you have a new nice lady again.. dont lose your sense of humor in life,,,good women always love happy chaps Cheer up man, wish you the best p.s : women really love doing the chores.

I lost the girl i loved the same way, Its a crazy feeling bc ive changed alot in the past 2 years in such a positive way. I just turned 30 have everything going for me. Im honestly better than i expected and there's always this part of me that feels like i owe this change to her, i want to give this to her but never can or will. Its a weird feeling makes you think about life.

@@leusmaximusx You completely invalidated him with your response. It's unkind to shut people down like that when they're expressing themselves. He didn't say that he missed having sex with different women. He said that he specifically misses HER! Also, he said nothing about chores, he said MASCULINE work. That's more than likely a job somewhere to pay the rent. P.S. Nobody likes doing chores.

I don’t know that then the phrase must be false

my single mother doesn’t care about that stupid statement lol

Then you’re lucky, a load of uncertain guessing is often times useless.

hm, that's probably because Jung "created" those concepts and the other people here where his disciples. no wonder then that they are capable of explaining them so eloquently and compactly ;)

They pretentiously used so many unnecessary words back then. Finally at the end he says it: Jane had tapped into her masculine energy as he had tapped into his feminine energy.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e5WWp4OYbsegmdk

@@laurenroberts3091 Thank you so much!!

@@robertastella7240 Hey, the comment above dissapeared, is there a chance you could post the name here? This video abrupted the moment I really need to watch go unfold!

You obviously don't understand.

I think it's A Matter of Heart. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIbIlmOAn75km7s

Would have liked more context around that bit. Cut off too soon. Was interesting what he was saying about androgyny. Anima and animus is very gender non conforming theory

​@@somaticjet2717 Not really, Anima and Animus are actually quite heavily based on gender. Simply because it states that there are only two genders. There are two gender categories in which we define the world (not only those two, but male-female is one of many pairs in which we categorize our world). So it's not as much as androgyny and more like: Men have evolved certain behaviors differently than women. But every male and female have the shared knowledge of this. However, man usually utilizes their learned behavior - and therefore the Anima (the female "soul") is uncounscious. So when he's talking about men getting swept by love at first sight is the projection of the Anima. You see someone who resembles (he says a good imitation) your interior image of the "perfect" women, the Anima. And it's like meeting yourself, it's like part of your being existing into the world. Of course, the problem is that that being is not yourself, and the "love quarrels" start because that other being starts to shatter the projection you've made.

kind of funny that this is deemed an "oof." You must assume that "thinking" is superior to "feeling." Feeling is why women can sniff out certain bs'ing guys. They dont need to THINK about why they FEEL off about someone. You cant operate very well in this world without a bit of both, hence the anima and animus theory.

​@@randymulder9105 Well, I'd say that Jung partially responded that in the video. You find out, sometimes there's nothing, but sometimes there is. Anima-Animus is not everything. It's not like your projection is what's best. It's the best you have up to that moment. I'd say we project a lot, but it's not like it's unhealthy or wrong. It is what it is. Being conscious of it is the key part. It's not like you won't project. What came to me was like "knowing your destiny". If you don't know what's going to happen, it might be a horrible, expectation shattering destiny. But if you do know, you can accept it, accept your destiny. Because you have one, part of it is decided by yourself consciously, part uncounsciously. Not one side is good or bad. A shattering of a projection only occurs because you believe the projection to not be a projection. You identify yourself with the projection, unconsciously. Otherwhise, it's just a projection, just a natural, and beautiful, part of being a human.

​@@randymulder9105 Not a teacher but thank you for the compliment! And I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding mystery. There's a quote I like that is something along the lines of: "If you knew everything that would happen in the future, it would not be the future, it'd be the past". Not knowing, or understanding, is what gives colour to things you do understand, your "eureka" moment is only possible because of the time spent in the dark, searching for answers. One thing I've learned was that people often want answers, but they can't tolerate the unknown. If you want answers, you're gonna have to look where you have not looked yet. And that's very anxiety inducing, involves risk taking and sometimes it's just easier to forgo the answers. Say you have anxiety. Finding the answer as to why you have anxiety can bring more anxiety, because maybe you have to come to terms that you have to make a drastic change in your life (job, love life, etc), and you've been postponing this knowledge, because once you knew it, you'd have to take the risk and change. And that's hard. To realize you're wrong, in a deep level, that you, yourself, made a mistake and now you have to start over... You can't really blame if you project that mistake onto others.

I recommend terence mckenna, aldous huxley, osho, ram dass

Every human has both female and male genotypical traits.

Huh?

I also found it very rude! Alas, as a Jungian analyst and couples therapist I'll try to make some sense of that psychodynamically (sp?) - in no way excusing Jung for being the rude mf he was at times cus that's a fact, ok? Seeing as they seemed to have been possessed by their respective animus/anima, a woman identified with her animus won't exactly be able to talk about her own ideas from the get-go, she will be but a mouthpiece for her animus, and the men identified with his anima will not express the anima's ideas, but feel the anima's feelings while being able to keep their ideas mostly intact from the anima - and since they were at the beginning of analysis, giving the man space to share his ideas first could bring a "more accurate" take of the dynamic between the couple from the consciousness' standpoint, while her view could bring a more precise view of the unconscious dynamic. Again, TRYING to make some sense of this here, ok? We could also see it as they were in the 1930's in Europe, so it probably would be the cultural custom of the time for the man to take the lead in these situations? Another option.

Yeah, it was a quite a sexist statement lol

@@isntitrich000 You know he said, right after, "that didnt have to be so".. Talk about projection ;)

@@AnonymousAnonymous-wk9dc ohhh… I didn’t catch that the first time

Jajakakakkak

93 93/93

@@Asign2012 93 93/93!

You're not talking about Wheelwright right?

yes the new phase you speak of hindus have found it like 5000 years ago but unfortunately the made it religion because they couldn't explain it.

use lube mein brudda 🔥💯

Absolutely possible.. Roger Taylor wrote a tune called I'm in Love with my Car..

It's your 1st Amendment right. Maybe not according to comment guidelines. Bless you ❤️

Og

It really is dated as a theory in my opinion. The idea of a “shadow” from Jung and the whole hierarchy of needs from Maslow, they paint the wrong picture of what’s going on neurologically. Great theorists for their time, but a lot of their ideas have stuck when they just aren’t true. The id, ego and super ego from Freud, not painting an exact picture either. Each of them were right about various things, but their theories just don’t hold up in modern times. They helped the psychological community greatly, they should be commemorated, but I feel frustrated that their theories are believed so readily.

@@Theendman42 could you elaborate a bit? What are the theories of today that should be studied?

It's more accurate than you think. I would say that masculine knows, and feminine understands. That basically means the same.

It's obviously a generalization, and the speaker is appealing to common intuitive experience. You betray a desire to dismiss Jung for some reason

did you even listen to the context in which he makes that statement. he is citing it as a commonly held belief and using the case of him and his wife as a counterexample! also if you knew anything about Jungian views on personality, you'd know they categorize people as thinking and feeling independent of gender.

And the abundance of stupid comments

Quite the projection to base a proposition on such a narrow data set

It's not about them, it's about me.

@@Karmakatt6 but it's hard to think that way

I don’t think the amount of comments determine how many people understand. I mean it could be filled with dumb jokes and offensive statements, for all i know, and I can’t really say they understood the point of the video