Owning your own Shadow

[987baz]

Luis recommended a book at one of our International skype meet ups that I have just started reading. It's a short read, on kindle it says 120 pages.

Written by Robert Johnson who is a noted lecturer and Jungian analyst.
From wikipedia

He studied at the University of Oregon and Stanford University. In 1945, he went to Ojai, California, as a student of Jiddu Krishnamurti, an Indian spiritual teacher. In 1947 he began his own therapy with Fritz Künkel. He later studied at the C. G. Jung Institute in Zürich, Switzerland, where Emma Jung, the wife of C. G. Jung, was his principal analyst. He completed his analytical training with Künkel and Tony Sussman. He established an analytical practice in Los Angeles in the early 1950s with Helen Luke. In the early 1960s he closed his practice and became a member of St. Gregory's Abbey, Three Rivers, in Michigan, a Benedictine monastery of the Episcopal Church.

After four years in the monastery, Johnson returned to California in 1967. He resumed his career as a psychotherapist and lectured at St. Paul’s Cathedral in San Diego, working closely with John A. Sanford, an Episcopal priest, Jungian analyst, and author. In 1974, a collection of his lectures was published as He: Understanding Masculine Psychology. The book became a bestseller after Harper & Row acquired the rights. He was the first of many books giving a Jungian interpretation, in accessible language, of earlier myths and stories and their parallels with psychology and personal development.

Johnson also studied at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram in Pondicherry, India.[2] In 2002 he received an honorary doctorate in humanities and a lifetime achievement award from Pacifica Graduate Institute.

Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal

The shadow in Jungian psychology is the unconscious dumping ground for undesirable characteristics of personality. "Owning" the shadow--accepting it as part of one's self--is seen as the first step toward wholeness. Using examples from history, mythology, and religion, Johnson, author of Inner Work ( LJ 7/86) and Transformation ( LJ 8/91), offers a tour of the shadow, showing its origin and features, and demonstrating how and why it bursts into consciousness when least expected. Returning to the subject of his earlier work We ( LJ 2/1/84), the author reveals how experience of romantic love may lead to awareness of both positive and negative aspects of the shadow, and how integrating the shadow into one's personality can be a challenging religious experience. This clearly written, thought-provoking work is recommended for academic and public libraries.

Johnson, Robert A.. Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche (p. 26). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

To refuse the dark side of one’s nature is to store up or accumulate the darkness; this is later expressed as a black mood, psychosomatic illness, or unconsciously inspired accidents. We are presently dealing with the accumulation of a whole society that has worshiped its light side and refused the dark, and this residue appears as war, economic chaos, strikes, racial intolerance.

So far it seems interesting and I am hoping that he talks about strategies for how to go about integrating the shadow later int he book.

Maybe Luis can comment on this?

 

[Laura]

Luis recommended a book at one of our International skype meet ups that I have just started reading. It's a short read, on kindle it says 120 pages.

<snip>
So far it seems interesting and I am hoping that he talks about strategies for how to go about integrating the shadow later int he book.

Maybe Luis can comment on this?

Have you finished Samenow, Raine, Fallon, Ressler and Collingwood? Ideas of "integrating the shadow" may become irrelevant with practical information about how to do The Work.

 

[987baz]

Have you finished Samenow, Raine, Fallon, Ressler and Collingwood? Ideas of "integrating the shadow" may become irrelevant with practical information about how to do The Work.

No, almost finished IOH and about to start on SM, I'm just reading this on the side, as I usually have a few books on the go at the same time, but if you think it may be a waste of time I will discontinue.

Would it be advisable to read Raine or Samenow along side Collingwood or should I wait until I have finished Collingwood?

 

[Laura]

Have you finished Samenow, Raine, Fallon, Ressler and Collingwood? Ideas of "integrating the shadow" may become irrelevant with practical information about how to do The Work.

No, almost finished IOH and about to start on SM, I'm just reading this on the side, as I usually have a few books on the go at the same time, but if you think it may be a waste of time I will discontinue.

Would it be advisable to read Raine or Samenow along side Collingwood or should I wait until I have finished Collingwood?

Finish IoH since you are almost there and then go to Samenow, both books. Based on what people are getting out of it, that might be the first thing. Then you'll understand why you need to read the others.

 

[Luis Miguel]

Have you finished Samenow, Raine, Fallon, Ressler and Collingwood? Ideas of "integrating the shadow" may become irrelevant with practical information about how to do The Work.

I found that book before the reading recommendation of the new books. Of course, it has a Jungian perspective and falls very short in the light of the down to earth and practical information of Samenow, Raine, Fallon and Ressler.

Now, given the mention of the criminal mind material here, it's interesting to note similarities in some ideas of Owning your own Shadow, to the ideas of thinking errors, and how our thoughts influence behaviour. The "shadow", those discarded and unconscious aspects of our personality - that fuel narratives and stupid thoughts with no base in reality -, can drive us to thinking errors and stupid behaviour.

For example, "projecting the shadow" comes from a number of thinking errors: "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?" Depending on the context, it involves closed thinking, minimizing our own errors or personal negative traits and taking a victim stance and blaming others; lack of effort and not being proactive and responsible for our own "shadow"; see ourselves as good one and the person you cast the shadow on as bad; feeling better than others and not being aware of our own destructive behaviour, and failure to put oneself in another's position...

And as it has been mentioned, those thinking errors are also related to "stressors", those weak links that "break" and lead criminals to commit brutal acts. The criminal mind could also serve as a metaphor for someone "possessed by the shadow".

Recognizing and making conscious the "shadow" could be related to 'thinking about thinking', the issue, again, is the deepness and pragmatical approach of the criminal mind material. And as i see it, reaching a "wholeness" in Jungian terms, is also similar to be aware of those thinking errors and having a conscious grip on one's own behaviour, that will help us to have a more honest, responsible, and engaged life, have a strong moral basis, and basically keep our humanity.

At the time when I started reading the book, it came to my mind something that has been discussed here many times: how we cannot recognise our own "shadow" without help, without feedback. As we are full of biases, and our awareness has lots of blind-spots, we need that a mosaic consciousness - as it has been mentioned -, the Network, to actually see the big picture.

Well, in this case, it could just be my associative interpretation running amok , it's a small book and it cannot be compared with the value of the of the recommended material, but it was really helpful for me.

Now, a lot of things started to make sense in practical terms with Samenow, that's were I am in my reading.

All this reminded me of this video:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...w="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[987baz]

Finish IoH since you are almost there and then go to Samenow, both books. Based on what people are getting out of it, that might be the first thing. Then you'll understand why you need to read the others.

Ok, thanks Laura, I will start on Samenow once I have finished IOH!

Have you finished Samenow, Raine, Fallon, Ressler and Collingwood? Ideas of "integrating the shadow" may become irrelevant with practical information about how to do The Work.

I found that book before the reading recommendation of the new books. Of course, it has a Jungian perspective and falls very short in the light of the down to earth and practical information of Samenow, Raine, Fallon and Ressler.

Now, given the mention of the criminal mind material here, it's interesting to note similarities in some ideas of Owning your own Shadow, to the ideas of thinking errors, and how our thoughts influence behaviour. The "shadow", those discarded and unconscious aspects of our personality - that fuel narratives and stupid thoughts with no base in reality -, can drive us to thinking errors and stupid behaviour.

For example, "projecting the shadow" comes from a number of thinking errors: "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?" Depending on the context, it involves closed thinking, minimizing our own errors or personal negative traits and taking a victim stance and blaming others; lack of effort and not being proactive and responsible for our own "shadow"; see ourselves as good one and the person you cast the shadow on as bad; feeling better than others and not being aware of our own destructive behaviour, and failure to put oneself in another's position...

And as it has been mentioned, those thinking errors are also related to "stressors", those weak links that "break" and lead criminals to commit brutal acts. The criminal mind could also serve as a metaphor for someone "possessed by the shadow".

Recognizing and making conscious the "shadow" could be related to 'thinking about thinking', the issue, again, is the deepness and pragmatical approach of the criminal mind material. And as i see it, reaching a "wholeness" in Jungian terms, is also similar to be aware of those thinking errors and having a conscious grip on one's own behaviour, that will help us to have a more honest, responsible, and engaged life, have a strong moral basis, and basically keep our humanity.

At the time when I started reading the book, it came to my mind something that has been discussed here many times: how we cannot recognise our own "shadow" without help, without feedback. As we are full of biases, and our awareness has lots of blind-spots, we need that a mosaic consciousness - as it has been mentioned -, the Network, to actually see the big picture.

Well, in this case, it could just be my associative interpretation running amok , it's a small book and it cannot be compared with the value of the of the recommended material, but it was really helpful for me.

Now, a lot of things started to make sense in practical terms with Samenow, that's were I am in my reading.

All this reminded me of this video:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...w="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks Luis for the further info :)

 

[Renaissance]

Have you finished Samenow, Raine, Fallon, Ressler and Collingwood? Ideas of "integrating the shadow" may become irrelevant with practical information about how to do The Work.

I found that book before the reading recommendation of the new books. Of course, it has a Jungian perspective and falls very short in the light of the down to earth and practical information of Samenow, Raine, Fallon and Ressler.

Now, given the mention of the criminal mind material here, it's interesting to note similarities in some ideas of Owning your own Shadow, to the ideas of thinking errors, and how our thoughts influence behaviour. The "shadow", those discarded and unconscious aspects of our personality - that fuel narratives and stupid thoughts with no base in reality -, can drive us to thinking errors and stupid behaviour.

I think interpreting Samenow's work through 'owning your shadow' could miss some of Samenow's points. I think he really upends a lot of modern psychological thought by looking at deception through the lens of benefiting a false self image and committing crime (which occurs every step of the way).

For example, "projecting the shadow" comes from a number of thinking errors: "Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?" Depending on the context, it involves closed thinking, minimizing our own errors or personal negative traits and taking a victim stance and blaming others; lack of effort and not being proactive and responsible for our own "shadow"; see ourselves as good one and the person you cast the shadow on as bad; feeling better than others and not being aware of our own destructive behaviour, and failure to put oneself in another's position...

There were several instances where Samenow brought up projection in terms of the criminal mind, but did not reference it using that term. Here's one example:

“Interestingly, criminals who prey upon elderly people often express great sentiment toward their own grandparents and senior citizens in their neighborhood, and they go out of their way to help them. They carry groceries, shovel snow, help them cross the street, and run errands. These offenders are extremely protective if they think someone is preparing to take advantage of seniors they know. The criminal’s affection for older men and women of his immediate accquaintance contributes to his view that he is a good person.”

This is actually very similar to, and likely a seed of the ‘mask of sanity’ used by psychopaths to lure victims through a trustworthy image. This tactic makes the victim feel crazy after being attacked because it seems so 'out of character', and it also inhibits the victim from reporting the crime. Another result is that through the creation a 'noble' public image, others may be inclined to defend the criminal if anything becomes public. The 'good person' perception has been engineered in order to provide a cover story both for the criminal so he can still feel like a good person and also for other people to believe in so they will not suspect him of a crime. Viewed this way, this type of projection is a manipulation tactic to build up our self image that feels the excitement and control out of deceiving others. We go to the heart of deceit when we project in this way, and this is much uglier than how projection is often viewed in terms of a mere 'defense mechanism'. Sure there's a lot going on under the surface, but when applied in this type of context it's more like a covert predatory mechanism. It also highlights in pretty concrete terms how we take on the traits of pathological types and psychopaths.

We can apply this to everyday life whenever we get angry or annoyed at others for the very same things we do ourselves. We're really just supporting a false image in our own eyes as well as the eyes of others to deceive, to get excitement out of the power felt from deceiving, and to protect the 'crimes' we commit ourselves. It's pretty nasty stuff, and it's really helpful to use Samenow's framework to feel the full weight and impact of such things.

And as it has been mentioned, those thinking errors are also related to "stressors", those weak links that "break" and lead criminals to commit brutal acts. The criminal mind could also serve as a metaphor for someone "possessed by the shadow".

Samenow doesn't have this view, rather I think he demolishes it. It's more like it is the criminal mind that makes use of "stressors" as a means of committing crime. There is no 'breaking' involved. I think this can be discerned in Inside the Criminal Mind, but I just started on The Myth of the Out of Character Crime, and it seems like he is making a particular point of addressing this issue.

Well, in this case, it could just be my associative interpretation running amok , it's a small book and it cannot be compared with the value of the of the recommended material, but it was really helpful for me.

Now, a lot of things started to make sense in practical terms with Samenow, that's were I am in my reading.

I think it would probably be helpful to put all the 'shadow' stuff totally on the back-burner and try to read Samenow without trying to find associations.