jonamo_cat (jonamo_cat) wrote in thspaknietzsche,
jonamo_cat
jonamo_cat
thspaknietzsche

emotional keys to self overcoming

jungs' archytypes are forces to be set in relation with and against one another in an effort to undermine the emotional inbalence that brings about psychosis. the idea is pressumably that the concepts therin can be clinicaly or sophisticatedly manipulated from without so as to reverse an individuals perspective on themselves or their situation.

but this active process of willingly rearranging myths for a person, though a relativists dream come true, does not restore control to the person. but rather sublimates them through the myth itself into a particular standpoint. it increases one area of their emotional ressonance, but does it not neccessarily create a polarity from the alternative ressonance?

not just from the polar emotional state, but concievably from the polar relation of archytypes. in otherwords, they become entrenched in a system of good and evil.

precisely by the cementing of the emotions within the frame of archytypes.

and yet, by the will to power, nietzsche id not mean to provide us with an emotional key...or did he?

if he did, it is one designed only to overcome resentment and nothing more, and if he didnt, then what the will to power means is something else entirely. something of the very nature of emotional action towards revealing truth/revealing falsities to be on some other grounds entirely.

and that the expanse of your own grounds.....is a potentialy ceaseless process, so long as one does not confuse your grounds with external definitions. this too is presumably the intended meaning of heideggers contemplation of nothing. seeking to deny emotional keys all together, and yet if everything is the will-to-power, contemplation of nothing, seems, nonsensensical. infact the very idea of nothing, when requiring of a specific absense of a fruit of a specific will, could be merely a sublimation of resentiment, and by no means freedom from it.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 1 comment
granted i havent read jung in ages, i did just read lacans constructions of psychosis and heurosis. while in the abstract these conceptions of the dynamics of psychosis can aid our conceptual understanding, they do not transalte into the evidence based understanding of psychosis, as was encouraged by foucalt in 'madness and civilisation'.

psychosis is not caused by a singularity such as emotional imbalance, but emotional imbalance is often apart of psychosis becuase of the intensity of the experience and the neurotransmitter involved. that being said here is an intresting fact to reflect on, one we can mutually agree on a bit, the subject matter or signifiers present in psychosis are cultrally determinant and they shift across time - except for the jesus theme lol - example is the "matrix" which according to a psychnurse i know was the 2nd highest delusion presenting the yr after the film was released....jesus was still the highest ranking delusional/ hullicinatory experience. but what would i know im a mental health worker with a critical theory major ;D
your concepts are evolving well, hope i challenged you into an even better construction. xox
o id be curious about heidegers contemplation of nothingness and how it sits with the buddhist concept of 'emptiness'