The SHADOW also contains "nice" characteristics. For example, the desire to hug your fellow human. It's just that the individual pushed that side down to the shadow, because they learned somehow that it was unacceptable. So the shadow has unpleasant characteristics, but certainly not exclusively so.
Normalizing audio takes all of 120 seconds for a video of this length. I know this because I'm an adobe editor. There shouldn't be a 10db+ difference between narration and title sound. Mike's narration is inexcusably inaudible over the closing title cards.
Could’ve just been an accident. I doubt the editor doesn’t know how to do their job. Everyone makes mistakes. It’s possible they even mistakenly uploaded a previous version of the video before they did the final audio edits.
Freaked me out. First audio I listened to since last using my computer, though I had just turned my volume down, so I cranked it back up. Then ***INTRO MUSIC!!!!*** . GAH! (I use external speakers that are connected to a few devices that all have different volume levels. Yeah, I need to label that analog volume dial with 'good' marks for each device.)
You really need to work on the sound engineering on this one. Half the time I couldn't hear you, and the outro music completely covered your voice to the point that it sounded like distant, unintelligible mumbling.
KathyK Who here is a fan of a certain Canadian college professor who has become famous in recent years for his political thoughts and defense of free speech as well as psychological insights and biblical analysis?
pretty sad cc mythology is ending, it's taught me so much about common human concepts that all cultures and races express. It has taught me that all humans have the same dreams, aspirations and fears no matter where and when they are from and that we can all find a commonality. I hope we see Greg sometime soon on this channel
Going to miss this channel so much. I’m on an Academic Team, and mythology has always been something I was weaker in, so this series was a godsend. Thanks Mike.
Yep. Just because women can have male qualities doesn't mean that there are still tendencies of qualities that are generally more male or female. Would've been better not to include this.
Can't be helped. if he doesn't distance himself a little from those truths about gender, he will lose viewers and/or get into a lot of trouble when people find out he doesn't disagree with them. That, or he is genuinly policing his own thoughts.
I think all that is really important to know about Freud and Jung is that psychology like all science had to start somewhere. The initial contribution to psychoanalysis was important for finding out things previously unkown. Now as you say there are many different forms of therapy and over a century of data and trial and error. When you read about how Freud handled some of his patients.... it's like, "yikes!"
Thanks for this, I've been trying to understand Jungian archetypes today and have been a bit baffled. This is the clearest explanation I've seen thus far, well communicated. Star Wars helped :)
The video feels really quiet! I notice that newer crashcourse videos are always super quiet and it's a tad annoying, I have impaired hearing and need to turn everything up.
What a complete butchering of both Freudian and Jungian ideas! I suppose the limited time in these videos can't possibly allow for anything other than a cursory glance at the psychoanalysts. However, this video is a complete misrepresentation of what Jung thought of as the archetypal masculine and feminine (presented here in this video as the anima/animus). If anything, Jung would considered the archetypal feminine as the source of all creativity and revered it just as much, if not more, than the archetypal masculine. This reductionistic assigning of seeming negative qualities to the feminine and positive qualities to the masculine is NOT at all what Jung does. Also, since when was 'the self' considered an archetype? It's the conceptualization of a completely integrated personality, not an archetype.
Average Joe Yeah. I think I was distinguishing between the archetypes within personality and the archetypes within myths as distinct when I said this. They're actually the same thing!
It's very difficult to thumbnail Jung's ideas - partly because of the subtlety of the ideas themselves, partly because of the layers of cultural accretion that have adhered to them, but mostly because Jung did his thinking in public over the course of about 70 years and changed his mind on fundamental issues along the way. So any summary of Jung is met with the question "is this the Jung of 1922 or 1939 or 1970 etc." (The same is true of Freud, with less development over time, but even more cultural accretions...) But this channel is "CrashCourse," not "Nuanced Topics in Deepest Depth." I hope it inspires interested folk to look a little deeper into some interesting and influential thinkers.
What am I supposed to do once this series wraps? This is all I've had to look forward to on this channel every week, since the computer science series became impossible to follow. Mythology could give another hundred episodes, and we're getting cut off at 41. Every series I really like dies.
I'm not a fan of Freud. Researching menstruation in fairy tales has made me say (in public) "Freud get your penis envy out of my menstruation metaphor." While the looks I got were funny it wasn't nice to be on their receiving end.
While I get your discomfort with discussing some of Jung's ideas, I would appreciate it if you didn't feel the need to express it at every instant while discussing it. You could have started off by stating your apprehensions or stated them after discussing his ideas. It would just seem more genuine and give the due value to the ideas, in and off themselves. Just a suggestion though.
Absolutely wonderful video!! The description of Jung's psychology is excellent. I have to speak up, though, and question the sound mixing during the star wars description. I could barely here the narration. Otherwise, I'm in love with this video.
Just so you know, Jung's archetypes are not 'a sort of super psychic ether', they're part of the human condition like instincts are. Archetypes are concepts similar to Kant's a priori concepts, and they're both way different from some sort of collective super mind of humanity.
there's nothing sexist about jung's idea if you consider that when he's talking about female or male he's actually referencing the archetypal forms of the concepts within the collective unconscious. He's not saying women are moody, when talking about the anima of a man, he's saying that one of the caracteristics of the female archetype is moodiness. that's it. stop acting offended.
Absolutely. To butcher Jung he's essentially saying that male and female individuals have aspects of both archetypes. If you look at the gender as a group such as with big 5 personality or their career choices (women choose far more nursing, primary education etc) then you can see the archetype come into focus. These archetypes have been around for thousands of years, Camile paglia has a great lecture about it.
So he got upsetted by the irrational characteristic of the Anima but not when he saw that the masculine animus represented evil. Bravo, gotta love the internal consistency
I agree they are mischaracterizing Jung; he was incredibly high in traits openness and introvertedness( last individual based traits and profession one would expect to carry such biases).
@Iouisaahh, I agree. I was pretty okay with what he said until he mentioned Jung's idea being 'Patriarchal'. Then, I was just...'hmmmmm.' I have no problem of him saying Jung's idea was patriarchal. Being a man of the early twentieth century is quite possible that Jung was patriarchal. But I do have a problem with the way he said it. It's almost like a little side note to tell the audiences that 'hey, I'm not a misogynist. That's just Jung.'. And him giving his opinions about the anima and animus seem inappropriate as well. I get that he has his opinions but like I said, I don't like the way he said it. There's an attempt to signal his position as a feminist in the video. Or maybe that's just me.
Really enjoyed it but felt awkward when you were criticising Jung's genderism. It's not sexist, it seems to be facts. And there's nothing oppressive about men and women having on average different traits.
When you watch children growing up, their personality differences (timid, assertive, anxious, confident etc.) don't usually follow gender lines. Those come in as society reinforces what men and women are meant to be. There is actually very little supporting the idea that men and women naturally act differently. Jung was hugely influenced by traditional ibrahimic ideas of gender roles (think Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). It becomes sexist and oppressive when you equate women with all things timid and submissive, and men with all things aggressive and dominant, and use this to determine what is normal and acceptable. The criticism was bang on
It's meant to be both deeper and more general than that. There are positive and negative aspects of the anima and animus. Those qualities (in their absolute sense, i.e., "all things") are equated to (putting it better: are aspects of) the anima and animus themselves, not "men" or "women", which are concrete things and not what Jung nor archetypes as such refer to. They are embodied qualities that belong to the collective unconscious and ultimately to whatever that stems from (something like the a priori )facts of evolution). The criticism was too shallow and so is yours.
@@juliettasorensen4574 hate to bring it to you, my mayor is in Psychology and we are studying gender roles and in scandinavian countries they did studies about gender. They did their best to let people decide what they want and surprisingly men in mayority were more aggresive than women. Women were more caring. Nothing wrong in that, it's science. I highly suggest you to follow up on this research and check that men chemical composition is different than women and men's hormones act way differently on their emotional state.
This goes without saying but I just want to reiterate specifically that the animation y’all do is really good. You guys care about the channel and it shows.
no no no xc no wrapping up this series mike 😭 it’s probably the only crash course series i wait for every time and watch a new episode as soon as it‘s released 😅
Its important to understand that Jung's use of masculine and feminine was meant to express the duality that is build into the world when it moves from the unconscious wholeness represented but the Uroboros to the limited nature of the conscious thought. The fact that they are male and female is simply because there is a proclivity toward one of the poles with each of the sexes and women and men by their nature show a side of the duality as they are seen as a duality. This should not suggest that women are damned to the feminine aspects, simply that their positions place then uniquely close to the positive and negative aspects of the feminine or mother: life giving and taking, consuming and terrible but nurturing and feeding. So when Jung says the feminine traits it is wrong to assume it means women necessarily have them simply that they are most symbolized in women
Jordan peterson covers this better WITHOUT the eye swint/ rolling to suggest that the mind of a 2018 PBS presenter is superior to Freud and Jung. He has misunderstood so so much. More research and less personal opinion please.
Oh yes. When I was in Vienna I saw statues of you everywhere because of your pearls of wisdom. Ohh wait, you achieve nothing in your life and criticise others for trying. That fact you think your opinion is definitive highlights the blind stops in your personality. Keep changing the the world nothing.
A cute but inmature answer. You use no specifics or examples which confirms you don't know what you are writing about. Words like 'many consider' without reference are meaninglessness. A weak response similar to the previous one. Must do better.
Freud wrote a paper on the benefits of cocaine. Although, if you support him, that means you must have some belief in his hypotheses. Have you personally experienced or knew many people who have experienced urges to kill their father and marry their mother?
In modern story-telling theory, we have the concept of "mental sex" which correlates to the animus and anima here. We also see a lot of role reversal with the mental sex, so that characters deviate from their gender-assigned mental sex. I only point this out because Leia is dominated by a male mental sex where Luke is dominated by a female mental sex. So, he really has and animus, not an anima. Minor semantic point, but since we're talking about character building and all that, figured I would mention it.
Its patriarchal to say that women dont personify undeseriable cualities like moodiness and irrationality, but saying that men are aggresive and "take silent obstinate evil ideas" dont make you flinch. Cool.
Those "yeesh" moments when discussing anima/animus were just overtly politicised for no reason other than to virtue signal. Jung's ideas on the anima were not statements that all women are irrational and moody. The guy who had no doubt seen thousands of patients would've made the observation that women had the proclivity to tend towards certain personality traits than guys would. Which by the way aligns with the ancient mythology with which you are discussing so that only makes you look like a hypocrite. The "ladies need a lot of help with that kind of thing" in reference to searching for wisdom is just quite frankly stupid. Nobody is helping ladies with these things. They would be achieving those goals entirely by themselves due to a part of their own psyche! The conceptualisation Jung used to define the idea was again based on ancient archetypally (not stereotypically) defined ideas of what separates male and female. You need only look into mythology to understand that. Keep the cringeworthy political subtext out of the discussion because it isn't appreciated!
I disagree that they are inherently different, as both men and women are human, and being human leads to a lot of similarity's physically and mentally.
As someone who is trans, I disagree with a lot of whats said here. Men and women are pretty similar, and theres no clear distinction between traits, outside of what can be accomplished through hormones. Culturally, there are imposed differences, but these are social differences, or constructs, rather than truly defined differences
Boy its a good thing I grew up and still am christian, otherwise that jumble of flowery word vomit wouldnt make a lick of sense. As much as you like to convince yourself Im mistaken, you really have no idea what its like to not align with your gender. Youve concocted this wonderful sounding fantasy that doesnt even begin to address any actual parts of being trans, and frankly sounds pathetic and ignorant. Your idea of a revival occuring because of people viewing themselves as their own god shows a misunderstanding of what people think nowadays. Your ideas of the mirror are wrong based on science, because all I need to do is be born with a few different genetics, but same chromosomes, and I look and sound different, thanks to hormones. And Ive got sin. But this is no sin. This is loving and accepting myself, and living out my heavenly body as God intended. Its not perfect, but nothing on this world is. Sometimes that happens. thats okay. Your hate and ridiculous statements though, theyre nothing. They are fun to laugh at though.
1. I am Christian, I have given my life, and whether you believe my words on that or not doesnt change that. 2. I do not believe in science. I accept science as valid. I trust science. Science is not a belief system, but simply a method of stockpiling and organizing information. So, that phrase is rignt, but not how you intended. 3. Nothing about being trans is popular. I felt threatened by my parents, I struggled to find a safe place to work, I had to hide myself often. Nothing about it is popular. Popular assumes want to be it, and will envy people who are it. Hiding yourself from people makes it clear this isnt popular. 4. Raketeering's a new one, ill give you props for creativity. Still rude, as you admit, but clever. 5. You realize that the original Jewish God, Yahweh, was not considered to have a gender, right? And that we are based off of God? And that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, as a moral poem about consequences of disobeying God, and that the origin stories (Of which, Im sure you know, there are two) contradict when taken literally? 5. Genetics creates a lot of weird things. Theres all sorts of mutations, all sorts of deviations from your 'Norm'. Intersex people exist, people with hormonal or genetic differences and develop differently than a cis person (person with a gender identity that matches their accepted body) would, or are born with malformed genitals, or both genitals... the list goes on. These are things that happen genetically and physically. Nothing is wrong with this happening, yet this stigma against people who deviate from gender roles forces them to be treated as female more often than not. Deformations are not wrong, just as Jesus, who healed and spoke with lepers and the crippled and the blind, and the mentally ill. Where is your love, then?
EverythingIC Christians were the ones who created this mess of different gender roles. It was their God who didn't know if he was male or female in the beginning. Making others believe that because they like to put make up in the face, then they must be female. If their wasn't such a need to put down woman in Christianity. Men would still be wearing skirts today and feeling comfortable.
For anyone coming here for their first exposure to Jung, your woke take on gender is just going to confuse them. It’s unnecessary to inject modern gender theory into this brief introduction to Jungian ideas. I was going to show this to my wife but now I’ll go find a video that just explains the facts and doesn’t posture and moralize.
I have recently started diving into Greek mythology and one of the reasons is because I have read some of Carl Jung's work. I noticed he often referenced mythology and the old testament, but I didn't know much about either subjects. After reading the old testament, I read "The Iliad and I am now reading The Odyssey. I have noticed how mythology is very patriarchal, which definitely makes me want to open-hand slap my forehead at times. But, the stories are entertaining and educational.
Not quite. The shadow represents unconscious or repressed aspects. Luke Skywalker had the potential to become like Darth Vader or Han Solo. That's what separates the shadow from just a foil.
I like how you dont care that men are framed as violent savage risk takers but you need to pause the video to tell us how upseting the female labels are. Solid pandering 10 outa 10
So I watched this video right before I watched The End of the F**cking World on Netflix, and wow, it really informed my viewing. I might've picked up on this, anyway, because I'm trained in the art of interpretting Literature, but... I noticed that a certain character kind of resembles James, and the house that person lives in kind of looks like James' home. That had some really interesting implications. Plus, you can totally view Alyssa as his anima. Right in the beginning, she talks about being overwhelmed by emotion a lot of the time, which is the complete opposite of James. The story is about their relationship, but it's also about him coming to terms with emotions he's been avoiding for years. Great series, I highly recommend it!
i once heard a fellow say to his compatriot: "with friends like you, who needs animas". It's nice to know what that means now. At least i think he said "animus". He was a very well dressed fellow, with a bit of a lisp. So was his gentleman friend. I don't know really. The things you see in a Baltimore flea market are often beyond explanation to me.
I know I'm obviously coming late here but the green brothers are working with the idea channel guy to try making us less stupid? That's unbelievably awesome
I don't want this to be the end. D: I even finally slowed down the video so I could read every single description at the beginning (some we covered, some we didn't) all of which were quite interesting.
He uses the exclamation word "Eeesh" twice during is description for anima/animas. He makes a point to show that men can be irrational too, which is true, but seems to fail in pointing at the women can be aggressive too. His seconds "eeesh" comes when describing how the animas give women wisdom, taking action and speaking out. Also, 2 animas( male traits) are aggression and obstenience. He doesn't seem to go "eeesh" on saying that women can have those to traits...
if one wants a more insightful analysis of the two(if you find their ideas appealing) i suggest Jordan Peterson’s channel. He’s dedicated hundreds of hours to their ideas in his lectures, he’s a more interesting orator( not to say the man above wasn’t interesting but the brand that comes with the channel seems to bog down the controversial ideas that Freud and Jung hypothesized). He delves a little further and is very well read and worth the trip to his channel.
Peterson is loved by the alt-right for his support of various racist and sexist ideologies. He uses Jung's ideas as ammunition in the culture wars; he no longer tries to explain them, and certainly has never wrestled with their implications for his own Nazi-ish ideas, nor how they comport with evolutionary biology (which is very well, actually) He's an ideologue and an egotist. Basically, he's lost the plot completely...
That was a spectacularly shallow straw-man criticism of Jung and Freud. I feel obligated to clarify. 1. Freud's work on the subconscious and unconscious mind laid the groundwork for what modern psychologists take for granted today - that we are not in control of a large part of our mind and motivations. Unfortunately Freud's peculiar interest in sexual reductionist is all he is remembered for today. That would be like if George Washington were to only be remembered for being a slave holder - yes, he was a slave holder, but he was also one of the most important Americans to have ever lived for his role in the founding of the nation and establishment of the limitations of the presidency. 2. Jung, having left Freud precisely because of his peculiar form of reductionist, took the idea of the unconscious mind a step further - he proposed the collective unconscious. The idea is based on this presupposition: That ideas which are too complex to yet be understood or articulated in rational form are represented symbolically and in narrative form, to be imitated and embodied by people. It is no different to someone watching say... Spiderman, and deciding to emulate his character as a human being, learning from his mistakes and imitating his strengths. These archetypes evolve in the same manner as biological entities evolve, archetypes that accurately represent the nature of lived experience persist as people who embody those archetypes continue to be successful and transmit the stories to the younger generation, with each successive generation 'updating these ideas to match up with modern times'. That is why they are archetypes - the structure of the narrative remains the same while the details shift according to the times. Osiris (first godly pharaoh of Egypt) became God became Mustafa (from the Lion King), Set became Satan became Scar. That's just one example. 3. As far as the legitimacy of their ideas are concerned? As I said, Freud's idea of the unconscious mind is now a fact taken for granted, while his work on sex has been mostly disproved. Jung's works meanwhile have been mostly ignored by modern psychologists not necessarily because his theories have been proven wrong, but because psychologists don't quite know what to do with them. They are like Einstein completely flipping the table on Newton, except psychologists were too terrified or too dismissive (because of the perceived superstitious element to it) to take him seriously (laziness and unfairly dismissive as far as I'm concerned), unlike Einstein. Part of the reason might be that the advances in technology enabling study of the brain and the subsequent biological reductionism that followed has led many psychologists to stray away from the more cognitive and social theories of psychology, definitely including Jung whose ideas were very abstract. Another reason might be the recent eminence of the psychologists studying the frontal lobe (high order thinking part of the brain) over affective neuroscientists (who study the much older emotional parts of the brain as well as emotion in general) because of the recent technological advancements made in that direction as well. Affective neuroscientists have demonstrated greater sympathy for Jung's basic presuppositions about archetypes (though the specifics are still rather debatable even in these circles) as it seems our emotions and the resulting behaviour act in line with the archetypes (more likely vice versa), and so Jung's claims that archetypes are the symbolic and embodied representations of the ideals of the 'collective unconscious' seem at least plausible if not likely. 4. The problem with this video is that: (i) Some of the information presented was misleading if not false. (ii) Like Einstein or Quantum physics, none of Jung's ideas make any sense in isolation. You have to read dozens of his books to fully understand him as they all interrelate and build upon each other. I myself am a mere rookie in this regard. It is supremely dificult (and this video has failed) to explain his ideas in a way that makes sense in such a short period of time. I fear that may be another reason why so many psychologists dismiss Jung - one book by Jung doesn't make any sense on its own, but psychologists conclude that (based off that one experience with a book of his) that it must all make no sense, when the reality is that it makes more sense the more you read. 5. It's interesting to note that everyone from the private sector to self-help gurus (god I hate that term) to social psychologist, anthropologists, and sociologists seem to agree narrative play a central role in our lives. It's just the biological (broadly speaking) and cognitive psychologists that continue to dismissis Jung as not to even be entertained beyond blanket criticism. Though his specific ideas about the nature of the archetypes are debatable, his fundamental presuppositions seem to be well-tested in practice, even if not taken seriously in theory.
YAY, STORIES AND JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGY! this is like my idea of heaven in video form... I love the Shadow Complex :) My own Shadow is represented by a character of the opposite sex, though.
Most people read a book of Jung and think it is nonsense when in reality the rest of the argument is contained in all his other books and cannot be simplified into one book. Of those that decide to give him the benefit of the doubt and continue reading start to understand Jung, then most stop reading from terror. Only few survive to the end. Then it all makes sense. But only after reading many of his books and truly thinking about his work in a serious manner over a long span of time.
Jung is like Nietzche, except as a psychologist that thought like a philosopher, philosophers alienated him and psychologists dismiss him. Its quite sad.
"Yeesh" - interj. A noise made to signal one's virtue while condescendingly describing theories which, while supported by decades of hard science, are nevertheless inconvenient to one's politically correct worldview.
See my shadow changing Stretching up and over me Soften this old armor Hoping I can clear the way by Stepping through my shadow Coming out the other side Step into the shadow Forty six and two are just ahead of me
Hey, CC guys. The audio mix is messed up in the credits: I can barely hear Mike talking. Just so you know.
+
+
Its their editor whoever they are.
The loudness of the audio fluctuates a lot throughout the video.
Also at the thought bubble portion, Mike's voice is almost overriden with the lightsabers and sound effects
The SHADOW also contains "nice" characteristics. For example, the desire to hug your fellow human. It's just that the individual pushed that side down to the shadow, because they learned somehow that it was unacceptable. So the shadow has unpleasant characteristics, but certainly not exclusively so.
If Freud would've seen all the "step-mother" related *pr0n* content we have on the internet today he'd be like: "Well I'll be damned."
Is there something wrong with the sound? I've only seen 50 comments about it, so i'm not sure...
WHAT?
Someone please teach the editor how to normalize audio. Mike is quiet, and when you turn up the sound to make it listenable, the intro is SUPER LOUD.
I don't know about you, but it was fine on my end XD
prolly the chapter was rushed or the post production team had a headache...
Normalizing audio takes all of 120 seconds for a video of this length. I know this because I'm an adobe editor. There shouldn't be a 10db+ difference between narration and title sound. Mike's narration is inexcusably inaudible over the closing title cards.
Could’ve just been an accident. I doubt the editor doesn’t know how to do their job. Everyone makes mistakes. It’s possible they even mistakenly uploaded a previous version of the video before they did the final audio edits.
Freaked me out. First audio I listened to since last using my computer, though I had just turned my volume down, so I cranked it back up. Then ***INTRO MUSIC!!!!*** . GAH! (I use external speakers that are connected to a few devices that all have different volume levels. Yeah, I need to label that analog volume dial with 'good' marks for each device.)
You really need to work on the sound engineering on this one. Half the time I couldn't hear you, and the outro music completely covered your voice to the point that it sounded like distant, unintelligible mumbling.
You must Embrace Your Shadow to gain Victory and be set free...
SET free. Get it? Ok ill just go out the backdoor
@theokchannel Are you paraphrasing the Sith code?
Justin Scott twas the idea
Crash Course shall free me.
[Cleaning room intensifies]
G.G. JORDAN PETERSON MUCH?
Scrolled down through the comments looking for buckos. Was not disappointed.
KathyK Who here is a fan of a certain Canadian college professor who has become famous in recent years for his political thoughts and defense of free speech as well as psychological insights and biblical analysis?
😂😂😂
Remember it's weird to take gender into account when studying psychology... :|
pretty sad cc mythology is ending, it's taught me so much about common human concepts that all cultures and races express. It has taught me that all humans have the same dreams, aspirations and fears no matter where and when they are from and that we can all find a commonality. I hope we see Greg sometime soon on this channel
Mike Rugnetta is one of those people who are really pleasant to hear and see them express themselfs
TheZurtu 👍🏻
If animus represents male in female and anima male in female, what is anime?
A mistake.
Mark of the Ghost anime is when you cant tell if it's male or female.
Anime is the unity between the feminine and masculine
anime is sayin “screw dat” to the binary
Its represent of gay
Going to miss this channel so much. I’m on an Academic Team, and mythology has always been something I was weaker in, so this series was a godsend. Thanks Mike.
That criticism of Carl Jung´s archetypes regarding genderization was really shallow and inaccurate.
Yep. Just because women can have male qualities doesn't mean that there are still tendencies of qualities that are generally more male or female.
Would've been better not to include this.
Can't be helped. if he doesn't distance himself a little from those truths about gender, he will lose viewers and/or get into a lot of trouble when people find out he doesn't disagree with them. That, or he is genuinly policing his own thoughts.
@@robbiehoen tbh you should be able to tell which is it by his beard. Nevertheless, i still enjoy this course =p
True, though you’re not going to get nuanced analysis in a 10 to 15 minute “Crash Course”
Agreed. This guy is a snowflake, he can't take about scientific data.
I think all that is really important to know about Freud and Jung is that psychology like all science had to start somewhere. The initial contribution to psychoanalysis was important for finding out things previously unkown. Now as you say there are many different forms of therapy and over a century of data and trial and error. When you read about how Freud handled some of his patients.... it's like, "yikes!"
audio is very bad. low and noisy
Specifically, it feels very quiet with Mike, and loud and the sound effects.
Yes the audio is very low
And it's nor normalized. I cranked up the volume to hear mike and then BOOM! intro music.
same lol
Just one more episode? D:
I'm gonna miss this so much...
This is my second time watching this
I want to slay a dragon. And that’s that. Bucko!
James Wynne save your father from the underworld while you're at it.
But have you cleaned your room yet?
Thanks for this, I've been trying to understand Jungian archetypes today and have been a bit baffled. This is the clearest explanation I've seen thus far, well communicated. Star Wars helped :)
The fact that society needs you to watch what you say about gender so much kinda proves jung.
Boby Rob how?
Correlation does not mean causation perhaps.
No
The video feels really quiet! I notice that newer crashcourse videos are always super quiet and it's a tad annoying, I have impaired hearing and need to turn everything up.
Marlene Get better speakers, or buy a sound augmenting device for your ears.
The future is now, old man.
The audio is a little down mixed actually.
I think the mixing for this episode was particularly off. The music drowned him out during the credits.
Is there a chance we get to have a season 2 for mythology? I love it a lot!
What a complete butchering of both Freudian and Jungian ideas! I suppose the limited time in these videos can't possibly allow for anything other than a cursory glance at the psychoanalysts. However, this video is a complete misrepresentation of what Jung thought of as the archetypal masculine and feminine (presented here in this video as the anima/animus). If anything, Jung would considered the archetypal feminine as the source of all creativity and revered it just as much, if not more, than the archetypal masculine. This reductionistic assigning of seeming negative qualities to the feminine and positive qualities to the masculine is NOT at all what Jung does. Also, since when was 'the self' considered an archetype? It's the conceptualization of a completely integrated personality, not an archetype.
But that in itself would make it an archetype, wouldn't it?
Average Joe Yeah. I think I was distinguishing between the archetypes within personality and the archetypes within myths as distinct when I said this. They're actually the same thing!
Don't forget to make a season 2 covering the gods you didn't talk about, like Thoth and friends. Do not leave us without talking about in-depth Thoth
It's very difficult to thumbnail Jung's ideas - partly because of the subtlety of the ideas themselves, partly because of the layers of cultural accretion that have adhered to them, but mostly because Jung did his thinking in public over the course of about 70 years and changed his mind on fundamental issues along the way. So any summary of Jung is met with the question "is this the Jung of 1922 or 1939 or 1970 etc." (The same is true of Freud, with less development over time, but even more cultural accretions...)
But this channel is "CrashCourse," not "Nuanced Topics in Deepest Depth." I hope it inspires interested folk to look a little deeper into some interesting and influential thinkers.
What am I supposed to do once this series wraps? This is all I've had to look forward to on this channel every week, since the computer science series became impossible to follow. Mythology could give another hundred episodes, and we're getting cut off at 41. Every series I really like dies.
If according to Jung, women have an Animus and men have an Anima, do nonbinary people have... an Anime?
I'm not a fan of Freud. Researching menstruation in fairy tales has made me say (in public) "Freud get your penis envy out of my menstruation metaphor." While the looks I got were funny it wasn't nice to be on their receiving end.
Nightmaridragon 13 oooh where can I find more about ur research?? I'm very interested.
While I get your discomfort with discussing some of Jung's ideas, I would appreciate it if you didn't feel the need to express it at every instant while discussing it. You could have started off by stating your apprehensions or stated them after discussing his ideas. It would just seem more genuine and give the due value to the ideas, in and off themselves. Just a suggestion though.
I agree
Jordan "Jung said..." Peterson
Jordan “I learned this partly from reading Jung” Peterson
Duh, Peterson is a Psychologist, and Jung is very influential in the psychological education community.
AstralProjector * Yeah, I know.
AstralProjector * it’s just a joke
Anyone that doesn't like Peterson for leaning on Jung's writing missed the point completely.
Absolutely wonderful video!!
The description of Jung's psychology is excellent. I have to speak up, though, and question the sound mixing during the star wars description. I could barely here the narration. Otherwise, I'm in love with this video.
The anima helps the guy being a better person also! How to see unfairness anywhere...
This comment is very inappropriate.
Just so you know, Jung's archetypes are not 'a sort of super psychic ether', they're part of the human condition like instincts are. Archetypes are concepts similar to Kant's a priori concepts, and they're both way different from some sort of collective super mind of humanity.
there's nothing sexist about jung's idea if you consider that when he's talking about female or male he's actually referencing the archetypal forms of the concepts within the collective unconscious.
He's not saying women are moody, when talking about the anima of a man, he's saying that one of the caracteristics of the female archetype is moodiness. that's it.
stop acting offended.
I've noticed a lot more of that sort of thing in this series, and in the sociology series, just more so
Absolutely. To butcher Jung he's essentially saying that male and female individuals have aspects of both archetypes. If you look at the gender as a group such as with big 5 personality or their career choices (women choose far more nursing, primary education etc) then you can see the archetype come into focus. These archetypes have been around for thousands of years, Camile paglia has a great lecture about it.
So he got upsetted by the irrational characteristic of the Anima but not when he saw that the masculine animus represented evil. Bravo, gotta love the internal consistency
I agree they are mischaracterizing Jung; he was incredibly high in traits openness and introvertedness( last individual based traits and profession one would expect to carry such biases).
@Iouisaahh, I agree. I was pretty okay with what he said until he mentioned Jung's idea being 'Patriarchal'. Then, I was just...'hmmmmm.'
I have no problem of him saying Jung's idea was patriarchal. Being a man of the early twentieth century is quite possible that Jung was patriarchal. But I do have a problem with the way he said it. It's almost like a little side note to tell the audiences that 'hey, I'm not a misogynist. That's just Jung.'. And him giving his opinions about the anima and animus seem inappropriate as well. I get that he has his opinions but like I said, I don't like the way he said it. There's an attempt to signal his position as a feminist in the video. Or maybe that's just me.
Really enjoyed it but felt awkward when you were criticising Jung's genderism. It's not sexist, it seems to be facts. And there's nothing oppressive about men and women having on average different traits.
When you watch children growing up, their personality differences (timid, assertive, anxious, confident etc.) don't usually follow gender lines. Those come in as society reinforces what men and women are meant to be. There is actually very little supporting the idea that men and women naturally act differently. Jung was hugely influenced by traditional ibrahimic ideas of gender roles (think Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). It becomes sexist and oppressive when you equate women with all things timid and submissive, and men with all things aggressive and dominant, and use this to determine what is normal and acceptable. The criticism was bang on
It's meant to be both deeper and more general than that. There are positive and negative aspects of the anima and animus. Those qualities (in their absolute sense, i.e., "all things") are equated to (putting it better: are aspects of) the anima and animus themselves, not "men" or "women", which are concrete things and not what Jung nor archetypes as such refer to. They are embodied qualities that belong to the collective unconscious and ultimately to whatever that stems from (something like the a priori )facts of evolution). The criticism was too shallow and so is yours.
@@mojo9291 Well argued 🙂
Agreed No need to bring in feelings about differences between men and women .
@@juliettasorensen4574 hate to bring it to you, my mayor is in Psychology and we are studying gender roles and in scandinavian countries they did studies about gender. They did their best to let people decide what they want and surprisingly men in mayority were more aggresive than women. Women were more caring. Nothing wrong in that, it's science. I highly suggest you to follow up on this research and check that men chemical composition is different than women and men's hormones act way differently on their emotional state.
This is my favorite series, I don't want it to be over :(
Audio was all over the place with this one
Great episode! I’ve really enjoyed CC Mythology this past year, and I’m gonna miss it when it’s over. Mike has done a great job hosting!
This goes without saying but I just want to reiterate specifically that the animation y’all do is really good. You guys care about the channel and it shows.
no no no xc no wrapping up this series mike 😭 it’s probably the only crash course series i wait for every time and watch a new episode as soon as it‘s released 😅
It’s hard to hear over the Star Wars animation and sound
Thanks! Such a good job delivering a concise introduction to complex ideas in a short period of time! And in a lighthearted manner, too!
Why did you only put comments on negative animus female 'traits' and not the negative 'male" traits?
Stop defending sexism, Frode.
Because he can't help but read sexism into a narrative that doesn't have one.
It's an exquisite irony that you're able to so beautifully describe the forest while simultaneously denying trees exist.
Audio difficulties aside, great episode! Loved ThoughtBubble's Star Wars breakdown.
Forever Jung
Jung talent time
I got like obsessed with Jung after playing persona 3, good video loved it
Its important to understand that Jung's use of masculine and feminine was meant to express the duality that is build into the world when it moves from the unconscious wholeness represented but the Uroboros to the limited nature of the conscious thought. The fact that they are male and female is simply because there is a proclivity toward one of the poles with each of the sexes and women and men by their nature show a side of the duality as they are seen as a duality. This should not suggest that women are damned to the feminine aspects, simply that their positions place then uniquely close to the positive and negative aspects of the feminine or mother: life giving and taking, consuming and terrible but nurturing and feeding. So when Jung says the feminine traits it is wrong to assume it means women necessarily have them simply that they are most symbolized in women
This is my favourite CC. But this PC guy is very hard to swallow.
Jordan peterson covers this better WITHOUT the eye swint/ rolling to suggest that the mind of a 2018 PBS presenter is superior to Freud and Jung. He has misunderstood so so much. More research and less personal opinion please.
Oh yes. When I was in Vienna I saw statues of you everywhere because of your pearls of wisdom. Ohh wait, you achieve nothing in your life and criticise others for trying. That fact you think your opinion is definitive highlights the blind stops in your personality. Keep changing the the world nothing.
A cute but inmature answer. You use no specifics or examples which confirms you don't know what you are writing about. Words like 'many consider' without reference are meaninglessness. A weak response similar to the previous one. Must do better.
Freud wrote a paper on the benefits of cocaine. Although, if you support him, that means you must have some belief in his hypotheses. Have you personally experienced or knew many people who have experienced urges to kill their father and marry their mother?
LOL Imagine living in 2018 and being defensive about Freud and Jung.
Mike Rugnetta is by far and away my favorite (besides Hank) CC host.
In modern story-telling theory, we have the concept of "mental sex" which correlates to the animus and anima here. We also see a lot of role reversal with the mental sex, so that characters deviate from their gender-assigned mental sex. I only point this out because Leia is dominated by a male mental sex where Luke is dominated by a female mental sex. So, he really has and animus, not an anima. Minor semantic point, but since we're talking about character building and all that, figured I would mention it.
Its patriarchal to say that women dont personify undeseriable cualities like moodiness and irrationality, but saying that men are aggresive and "take silent obstinate evil ideas" dont make you flinch. Cool.
You messed that up
I hope you enjoyed the trip into the core of the feminist doctrine
The "patriarchy" huu, itself an animus projection
Mike Rugnetta is a national treasure.
Those "yeesh" moments when discussing anima/animus were just overtly politicised for no reason other than to virtue signal. Jung's ideas on the anima were not statements that all women are irrational and moody. The guy who had no doubt seen thousands of patients would've made the observation that women had the proclivity to tend towards certain personality traits than guys would. Which by the way aligns with the ancient mythology with which you are discussing so that only makes you look like a hypocrite. The "ladies need a lot of help with that kind of thing" in reference to searching for wisdom is just quite frankly stupid. Nobody is helping ladies with these things. They would be achieving those goals entirely by themselves due to a part of their own psyche! The conceptualisation Jung used to define the idea was again based on ancient archetypally (not stereotypically) defined ideas of what separates male and female. You need only look into mythology to understand that.
Keep the cringeworthy political subtext out of the discussion because it isn't appreciated!
This video was profoundly enlightening. Thank you.
Does "yish" comments. Makes me feel like you (an many others) are missing the point
Women and men ARE inherently different. Equal, but not the same
I disagree that they are inherently different, as both men and women are human, and being human leads to a lot of similarity's physically and mentally.
As someone who is trans, I disagree with a lot of whats said here. Men and women are pretty similar, and theres no clear distinction between traits, outside of what can be accomplished through hormones. Culturally, there are imposed differences, but these are social differences, or constructs, rather than truly defined differences
Boy its a good thing I grew up and still am christian, otherwise that jumble of flowery word vomit wouldnt make a lick of sense. As much as you like to convince yourself Im mistaken, you really have no idea what its like to not align with your gender. Youve concocted this wonderful sounding fantasy that doesnt even begin to address any actual parts of being trans, and frankly sounds pathetic and ignorant. Your idea of a revival occuring because of people viewing themselves as their own god shows a misunderstanding of what people think nowadays. Your ideas of the mirror are wrong based on science, because all I need to do is be born with a few different genetics, but same chromosomes, and I look and sound different, thanks to hormones. And Ive got sin. But this is no sin. This is loving and accepting myself, and living out my heavenly body as God intended. Its not perfect, but nothing on this world is. Sometimes that happens. thats okay. Your hate and ridiculous statements though, theyre nothing. They are fun to laugh at though.
1. I am Christian, I have given my life, and whether you believe my words on that or not doesnt change that.
2. I do not believe in science. I accept science as valid. I trust science. Science is not a belief system, but simply a method of stockpiling and organizing information. So, that phrase is rignt, but not how you intended.
3. Nothing about being trans is popular. I felt threatened by my parents, I struggled to find a safe place to work, I had to hide myself often. Nothing about it is popular. Popular assumes want to be it, and will envy people who are it. Hiding yourself from people makes it clear this isnt popular.
4. Raketeering's a new one, ill give you props for creativity. Still rude, as you admit, but clever.
5. You realize that the original Jewish God, Yahweh, was not considered to have a gender, right? And that we are based off of God? And that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively, as a moral poem about consequences of disobeying God, and that the origin stories (Of which, Im sure you know, there are two) contradict when taken literally?
5. Genetics creates a lot of weird things. Theres all sorts of mutations, all sorts of deviations from your 'Norm'. Intersex people exist, people with hormonal or genetic differences and develop differently than a cis person (person with a gender identity that matches their accepted body) would, or are born with malformed genitals, or both genitals... the list goes on. These are things that happen genetically and physically. Nothing is wrong with this happening, yet this stigma against people who deviate from gender roles forces them to be treated as female more often than not. Deformations are not wrong, just as Jesus, who healed and spoke with lepers and the crippled and the blind, and the mentally ill. Where is your love, then?
EverythingIC Christians were the ones who created this mess of different gender roles. It was their God who didn't know if he was male or female in the beginning. Making others believe that because they like to put make up in the face, then they must be female. If their wasn't such a need to put down woman in Christianity. Men would still be wearing skirts today and feeling comfortable.
I think that "Yeesh" goes in all directions when talking about men/women/etc...
For anyone coming here for their first exposure to Jung, your woke take on gender is just going to confuse them. It’s unnecessary to inject modern gender theory into this brief introduction to Jungian ideas.
I was going to show this to my wife but now I’ll go find a video that just explains the facts and doesn’t posture and moralize.
This video makes me think about Jordan Peterson, I love that guy
"Maybe your thinking, I don't want to sleep with my mother" hahaha!
This one and #41 aren’t included in the Mythology playlist. Love the series! Thank you!
Crash course mythology needs to clean their room
Clean your room.
😭 Nooooo, I never want this series to end! There are so many more stories to share 😢
I just love to heard about mythology! I am learning a lot with this serie! I do not want to see the end coming
I hope they do a crash course linguistics one day!
I have recently started diving into Greek mythology and one of the reasons is because I have read some of Carl Jung's work. I noticed he often referenced mythology and the old testament, but I didn't know much about either subjects. After reading the old testament, I read "The Iliad and I am now reading The Odyssey. I have noticed how mythology is very patriarchal, which definitely makes me want to open-hand slap my forehead at times. But, the stories are entertaining and educational.
Wow, one of the best episodes. Thanks Crash Course.
I TOTALLY LOVE THIS CANCEL 😂 KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗
So the "shadow" is like a foil?
Mikayla Eckel Cifrese yes
Not quite. The shadow represents unconscious or repressed aspects. Luke Skywalker had the potential to become like Darth Vader or Han Solo. That's what separates the shadow from just a foil.
Sound levels! You almost blew out my eardrums with your outro!
This was a great episode
I like how you dont care that men are framed as violent savage risk takers but you need to pause the video to tell us how upseting the female labels are. Solid pandering 10 outa 10
This is my college final dissertation!
So I watched this video right before I watched The End of the F**cking World on Netflix, and wow, it really informed my viewing. I might've picked up on this, anyway, because I'm trained in the art of interpretting Literature, but... I noticed that a certain character kind of resembles James, and the house that person lives in kind of looks like James' home. That had some really interesting implications. Plus, you can totally view Alyssa as his anima. Right in the beginning, she talks about being overwhelmed by emotion a lot of the time, which is the complete opposite of James. The story is about their relationship, but it's also about him coming to terms with emotions he's been avoiding for years. Great series, I highly recommend it!
dont end this plz.... this is the only thing that keeps me alive.
The audio is messed up in a lot of places. Cant hear Mike over the star wars noises in the Vader part, music is abruptly loud or quiet, ect.
i once heard a fellow say to his compatriot: "with friends like you, who needs animas". It's nice to know what that means now. At least i think he said "animus". He was a very well dressed fellow, with a bit of a lisp. So was his gentleman friend. I don't know really. The things you see in a Baltimore flea market are often beyond explanation to me.
All I know about Jung is what I learned in the Persona 5 episode of Extra Credits.
LOL star wars section nice vid!
I know I'm obviously coming late here but the green brothers are working with the idea channel guy to try making us less stupid? That's unbelievably awesome
This stuff is great! Such a fun way to learn learn learn. Thank You!
I don't want this to be the end. D: I even finally slowed down the video so I could read every single description at the beginning (some we covered, some we didn't) all of which were quite interesting.
He uses the exclamation word "Eeesh" twice during is description for anima/animas. He makes a point to show that men can be irrational too, which is true, but seems to fail in pointing at the women can be aggressive too. His seconds "eeesh" comes when describing how the animas give women wisdom, taking action and speaking out. Also, 2 animas( male traits) are aggression and obstenience. He doesn't seem to go "eeesh" on saying that women can have those to traits...
if one wants a more insightful analysis of the two(if you find their ideas appealing) i suggest Jordan Peterson’s channel. He’s dedicated hundreds of hours to their ideas in his lectures, he’s a more interesting orator( not to say the man above wasn’t interesting but the brand that comes with the channel seems to bog down the controversial ideas that Freud and Jung hypothesized). He delves a little further and is very well read and worth the trip to his channel.
Everyone is here from Jordan Peterson apparently.
If you want mystical reactionary self-help instead of a critical look at the validity of said ideas, yeah.
C'est Pas Sourcé i would disagree with the assertion that peterson isn’t critical of the ideas that freud(especially) and Jung are associated with.
C'est Pas Sourcé Maybe not so much Jung but he himself aligns with Jungs beliefs quite a bit.
Peterson is loved by the alt-right for his support of various racist and sexist ideologies. He uses Jung's ideas as ammunition in the culture wars; he no longer tries to explain them, and certainly has never wrestled with their implications for his own Nazi-ish ideas, nor how they comport with evolutionary biology (which is very well, actually) He's an ideologue and an egotist. Basically, he's lost the plot completely...
Great subject! I'm from Brasil and I learning English. This video will help me! Thanks :)
One of the best videos I have ever watched!
I'm cunfused, where did Jung and Freud based their ideas on?
Frode Lithander It really looks like pseudoscience, but don't they have some credebility nowadays?
Frode Lithander thanks
That was a spectacularly shallow straw-man criticism of Jung and Freud. I feel obligated to clarify.
1. Freud's work on the subconscious and unconscious mind laid the groundwork for what modern psychologists take for granted today - that we are not in control of a large part of our mind and motivations. Unfortunately Freud's peculiar interest in sexual reductionist is all he is remembered for today. That would be like if George Washington were to only be remembered for being a slave holder - yes, he was a slave holder, but he was also one of the most important Americans to have ever lived for his role in the founding of the nation and establishment of the limitations of the presidency.
2. Jung, having left Freud precisely because of his peculiar form of reductionist, took the idea of the unconscious mind a step further - he proposed the collective unconscious. The idea is based on this presupposition: That ideas which are too complex to yet be understood or articulated in rational form are represented symbolically and in narrative form, to be imitated and embodied by people. It is no different to someone watching say... Spiderman, and deciding to emulate his character as a human being, learning from his mistakes and imitating his strengths. These archetypes evolve in the same manner as biological entities evolve, archetypes that accurately represent the nature of lived experience persist as people who embody those archetypes continue to be successful and transmit the stories to the younger generation, with each successive generation 'updating these ideas to match up with modern times'. That is why they are archetypes - the structure of the narrative remains the same while the details shift according to the times. Osiris (first godly pharaoh of Egypt) became God became Mustafa (from the Lion King), Set became Satan became Scar. That's just one example.
3. As far as the legitimacy of their ideas are concerned? As I said, Freud's idea of the unconscious mind is now a fact taken for granted, while his work on sex has been mostly disproved. Jung's works meanwhile have been mostly ignored by modern psychologists not necessarily because his theories have been proven wrong, but because psychologists don't quite know what to do with them. They are like Einstein completely flipping the table on Newton, except psychologists were too terrified or too dismissive (because of the perceived superstitious element to it) to take him seriously (laziness and unfairly dismissive as far as I'm concerned), unlike Einstein. Part of the reason might be that the advances in technology enabling study of the brain and the subsequent biological reductionism that followed has led many psychologists to stray away from the more cognitive and social theories of psychology, definitely including Jung whose ideas were very abstract. Another reason might be the recent eminence of the psychologists studying the frontal lobe (high order thinking part of the brain) over affective neuroscientists (who study the much older emotional parts of the brain as well as emotion in general) because of the recent technological advancements made in that direction as well. Affective neuroscientists have demonstrated greater sympathy for Jung's basic presuppositions about archetypes (though the specifics are still rather debatable even in these circles) as it seems our emotions and the resulting behaviour act in line with the archetypes (more likely vice versa), and so Jung's claims that archetypes are the symbolic and embodied representations of the ideals of the 'collective unconscious' seem at least plausible if not likely.
4. The problem with this video is that:
(i) Some of the information presented was misleading if not false.
(ii) Like Einstein or Quantum physics, none of Jung's ideas make any sense in isolation. You have to read dozens of his books to fully understand him as they all interrelate and build upon each other. I myself am a mere rookie in this regard. It is supremely dificult (and this video has failed) to explain his ideas in a way that makes sense in such a short period of time. I fear that may be another reason why so many psychologists dismiss Jung - one book by Jung doesn't make any sense on its own, but psychologists conclude that (based off that one experience with a book of his) that it must all make no sense, when the reality is that it makes more sense the more you read.
5. It's interesting to note that everyone from the private sector to self-help gurus (god I hate that term) to social psychologist, anthropologists, and sociologists seem to agree narrative play a central role in our lives. It's just the biological (broadly speaking) and cognitive psychologists that continue to dismissis Jung as not to even be entertained beyond blanket criticism. Though his specific ideas about the nature of the archetypes are debatable, his fundamental presuppositions seem to be well-tested in practice, even if not taken seriously in theory.
YAY, STORIES AND JUNGIAN PSYCHOLOGY! this is like my idea of heaven in video form...
I love the Shadow Complex :) My own Shadow is represented by a character of the opposite sex, though.
re upload this video, I can't hear anything.
WAIT NO DON'T LEAVE!!! I love this series ;(
Most people read a book of Jung and think it is nonsense when in reality the rest of the argument is contained in all his other books and cannot be simplified into one book. Of those that decide to give him the benefit of the doubt and continue reading start to understand Jung, then most stop reading from terror.
Only few survive to the end. Then it all makes sense. But only after reading many of his books and truly thinking about his work in a serious manner over a long span of time.
Jung is like Nietzche, except as a psychologist that thought like a philosopher, philosophers alienated him and psychologists dismiss him. Its quite sad.
"Yeesh" - interj. A noise made to signal one's virtue while condescendingly describing theories which, while supported by decades of hard science, are nevertheless inconvenient to one's politically correct worldview.
hard science for what? can you give more detail and maybe a S O U R C E.
Dude psychology is the softest science there is.
See my shadow changing
Stretching up and over me
Soften this old armor
Hoping I can clear the way by
Stepping through my shadow
Coming out the other side
Step into the shadow
Forty six and two are just ahead of me
Woo, audio is all over the place!
Jung was a pure genius
i am very thankful to you '''crash cource''
Add this to the World Mythology playlist please :)