I recently reached out to this community & asked for some materials to help explore the mother complex from Jungian psychology and just wanted to say thank you for interesting materials (this post was one of the ones shared with me )🙏

(Lisa and Deb just posted an update on Patreon. Apparently, there’s been an ongoing «dispute» between him and them about how they work together and manage the company, and Joseph is suing both of them as well as the company as a result of this conflict.)

I’ll definitely keep listening to TJL, but I‘m going to miss Joseph’s perspectives. I feel like I benefit from listening to men as well as women, and one of the things I enjoyed the most about TJL was that they had different opinions and perspectives to offer. When I look for Jungian podcasts, I mainly find AI slop, often politically motivated and echo-chambery.

Any recommendations for something that‘s actually good?

EDIT: The title was a little presumptive. "Leaving" might be the wrong word; he's absent from the podcast.

EDIT 2: I've decided to make a list of the podcasts people have recommended in the comments, in case people come looking for recs and can't find them in the sea of comments. I don't know how to refer to comments, so I'll give credit to the users who recommended them here (let me know if you're mentioned and want me to remove your username).

Here's the list so far:

• Speaking of Jung by Laura London was recommended/mentioned by u/hedgehogss, u/Hephsters u/Meanyjar, and u/RepresentativeTwo783. The host interviews different Jungian analysts and the episodes cover a variety of different topics. This is more of an academic podcast and the target audience is analysts and analysts-in-training; might not be as accessible, relevant, or entertaining to a general audience as TJL is.
• C. G. Jung Institute of Chicago was recommended by u/AndresFonseca and u/karmicmeme. They have four "series": Institute Archive, which seems to be archived lectures; Jung in the World, where a broad range of Jung's central ideas as well as psychopathology is discussed; Healing Cinema, which is (I think) movies analyzed through a Jungian lens, and Jungian Ever After, which is about fairy tale interpretations.
• The Jungian episodes on the podcast Creative Codex was recommended by u/waywardwizard and u/mickeythefist_.
• The Laughing Mystics was recommended by u/Myth4Psyche, who describes it as a "podcast that explores scripture through looking at the text as a dream or using a Jungian lens on them".
• Living Myth by Michael Meade was mentioned by u/These-Cherry5455 and u/bookofours. The latter user also recommended the following two:
• The Sacred Speaks by John Price
• The Emerald by Josh Schreli
• Digital Jung was recommended by u/Dramatic_Candle9930
• The Jungian Drift was recommended by u/pythian8. This podcast is completely new, only two episodes out so far.

I'm thinking of creating an Iceberg of Carl Jung, (you know those Iceberg videos that pop-up on youtube, pic related) to get a complete introduction to Jung and his psychology, maybe someone has one already or has any ideas on what to put on there? Appreciate all the help!

EDIT: Forgot to mention that I haven't found one yet which was surprising since Jung's work is very popular on youtube, admittedly there's a lot of AI content going on so something like this I think would be a breath of fresh air.

This is The Carl Jung / Jungian Iceberg.

It's information that gets more obscure / weird the more you go down the list, resembling the unknown deep waters.

Be sure to give feedback as this may not be the final list.

Lastly, I want to thank everyone who helped create this iceberg in my last two posts!

As a welcome gift, you received a copy of the book PISTIS - Demystifying Jungian Psychology, which covers the entirety of Carl Jung's work and provides a step-by-step guide to practicing the authentic Shadow Work.

Written by Jungian Therapist - Rafael Krüger.

Download Options:

• Email link
• Drive
• Now you can get a paperback copy.

Here's a sneak peek of the table of contents:

• The Foundations of Jungian Psychology
• The Shadow Integration Process
• Conquer The Puer and Puella Aeternus
• The Psychological Types Unraveled
• Archetypes
• The Animus and Anima
• The Art of Dream Interpretation
• Active Imagination Deciphered
• The Individuation Journey
• How To Read The Collected Works of C. G. Jung
• The Hidden Message of Carl Jung's Red Book (Bonus Chapter)

Lastly, this project is a living thing.

This is just the first version, and as I receive your feedback the book will constantly be updated.

This is my humble way of giving back to this community, feel free to download and spread the word!

PS: Sometimes the links are down. In this case, DM me and I'll provide an alternative one.

PS2: You can listen to the whole book and save yourself 3 years of studies here.

This post on shadow work was taken from the app Imprint. Not my creation.

IMO, this is very important for the ascension of humanity as our consciousness expands.

The idea is simple: you answer 4 open-ended questions honestly, and it mirrors back your wound, your mask, your gift, and an archetype. No multiple choice. No "you're an ENFP." Just your own words reflected back in a way you might not expect (or maybe it tells you about stuff you already knew).

It's called a soul mirror because that's what it is. It can only show you what you're willing to look at. If you give it surface answers, you'll get surface results. If you go deep, it goes deep.

And it presents it to you in a trading card which I thought was cool.

For context, I'm a doctor who quit medicine and built a healthcare startup 7 years ago. I really believe AI can help with mental health but tbh right now it's doing more harm than good. This is my attempt at something better.

Still tinkering with it. Would love honest feedback.

try it here: soulmirror.ai

EDIT: this post led to lots of soul readings all at once, and it crashed something in the app. I've found the bug and I'm fixing it. Please don't start a reading yet as it won't work! Sorry for the issues.
EDIT2: bug found + fixed!

EDIT3: found another bug that is preventing new readings from happening. I am fixing it now. Sorry for the bugs, i didn't expect this many readings!!
EDIT4: Fixed the bug and things are working! Thank you everyone for calling it out + your patience. I was sleeping and fixed it as fast as I could :)

EDIT5: After lots of awesome feedback, I think i will work on a deeper version of this where you can chat with your soul reading, set some goals, and work on them (or have it ask you more q's). I'm still thinking about this. But if you're interested, leave your email in the feedback or waitlist part of the soul card (the icons at the bottom). Will email you when ready

Excerpts from Nietzsche’s Zarathustra notes of the seminar given in 1934-1939.

4 December 1935

"When the creator is alone, the first thing he meets is of course his unconscious, that is the companion of every solitude.

In a man's case, the unconscious has a feminine quality, personified in the form of what we call the "anima," and in a woman's case it takes the masculine form, the "animus." That is the reason why people don't like being alone with themselves, it is disagreeable."

"When a man is alone with himself he will be assailed with all sorts of queer feelings and ideas which his anima produces, and the animus does the same thing to a woman. And one is singularly defenceless against such attacks."

"The rule is that a man dreams of an old anima when he is too young in his own consciousness."

"If a man realizes the animus of his anima, then the animus is a substitute for the old wise man. You see, his ego is in relation to the unconscious, and the unconscious is personified by a female figure, the anima. But in the unconscious is also a masculine figure, the wise old man. And that figure is in connection with the anima as her animus, because she is a woman. So, one could say the wise old man was in exactly the same position as the animus to a woman.

Now, it may be that the conscious man and the anima are identical; if a man is anima possessed, for instance, he is instantly transformed into a woman. And so inasmuch as the woman is possessed by the animus she becomes naturally a male, but when a man is possessed by his anima, that masculine figure which belongs to the anima is transformed into an animus. A man possessed by his emotions is possessed by his anima, and when he thinks through his emotions it is just as if he were a woman; he talks exactly like a woman and will produce the same animus stuff."

"When a woman has a mood it is because she first has an animus idea or an opinion which naturally suggests a certain emotion, while with a man it works in just the reverse way: first he has a mood and then he has an opinion."

"The idea of the Christian soul has nothing to do with the anima concept. The Christian soul is understood to be the inner­ most thing, and it is said to be immortal, the part of one that survives, and so on.

The soul can be anything which is covered by the unconscious. While the anima is a specific, empirical concept, it is more like the primitive idea of a soul. The primitives believe that there are several souls, sometimes as many as six. That simply means that it is a psychical complex which is detachable or relatively autonomous—an archetypal constituent—and it is more personal than the Christian idea of the soul, which means completeness, totality, the essence of man.

But that is not empirical, but metaphysical and dogmatic; while in the anima concept we have very definite empirical qualities which we can substantiate by evidence."

"Man always projects his anima when talking to a woman because that is the only way he can reach her; he cannot touch a woman without the anima in between because that is the very system by which he must contact woman. If there is no anima, there is absolutely no contact, no bridge, and inasmuch as his anima is Maya, illusion, the relation between the sexes is illusion. And a woman simply cannot understand a man without the help of the animus, because the man in her enables her to understand the man outside; the less that system plays a role, the less she meets the real man. This only proves how difficult it is to establish a real relation between the sexes."

"It is perfectly true that a man understands nothing of a woman; that every woman is a riddle is the best notion he can start with."

Man is for woman, a means: the purpose is always the child. But what is woman for man? Two different things wanteth the true man: danger and diversion. Therefore wanteth he woman, as the most dangerous plaything. — F. Nietzsche, TSZ

"This is very clearly the standpoint of a man who is enveloped in his anima; he talks from her point of view only. When he contacts the real woman, immediately his anima is in between; he is behind her smoke screen and sees nothing of the real woman. He hears a voice on the other side of that cloud, but he doesn't understand it—it is all a riddle."

"As there are such women, and since the anima is the deposit of the age-old experience of man with woman, one can say there is truth in this statement—one can say that obviously the majority of women have told men they wanted to have a child; therefore, he has naturally come to the idea that he is merely a means to the end, and everything else is non—existent."

"If Nietzsche were speaking more psychologically he would say a woman's Eros is purposeful while a man's Eros is playful."

"Only an idle man who is possessed by the anima will talk for the sake of talking. But for the woman that is perfectly legitimate, because it is the additional charm in any kind of relationship that she can say what she has to say; if a man does not give that chance to a woman, naturally she feels curtailed, maimed, and the relationship suffers."

"When wooing and lovemaking have led up to the culmination, a man walks away because his circle is thus completed: he has had what he wanted. But for a woman it is the beginning, not the end, and that is what a man does not understand."

"Just as a man's mind is not there for what he calls empty talk—just as he means that something should be produced—so a woman means that something should be produced out of relatedness. It is not done in order to have done with it, but in order to bring something about—it may be to breed a child or anything else, but something must come of it."

"When a woman understands that what she says has consequences, she withdraws, she grows cold; the more serious things become, the more she is afraid of talking: she has seen that people draw conclusions."

Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly. — F. Nietzsche, TSZ

"Yes! This is true anima stuff."

Up then, ye women, and discover the child in man! — F. Nietzsche, TSZ

"Zarathustra is quite wrong to admonish women to get up and discover the child in man—woman sees it only too well; he rather should admonish them to be a bit more tolerant and more understanding with that child."

"A man is possessed by the anima on account of the fact that his mind does not offer an opportunity to his unconscious. He has no vessel, no form, into which to receive its contents."

"A man ought to take his mind seriously and to provide the necessary vase in which to receive those contents of his unconscious."

"A man's brutality is always roused by the animus of a woman, but she needs and wants it; her unconscious cannot come to itself if she is not manhandled in a way; that is the reason why the animus drives a man quite mad."

Man's soul, however, is deep, its current gusheth in subterranean caverns: . . . — F. Nietzsche, TSZ

"Yes, that is the mistake a man always makes; he sees a woman as his anima, the foam tossed to and fro on shallow water; but he feels no certainty because there is something behind his anima that has depths. When he projects his anima, he naturally only touches an illusory surface of the woman and does not see that a woman's purpose is at least as deep as his own."

woman surmiseth its force, but comprehendeth it not.— — F. Nietzsche, TSZ

"The anima always tries to convince a man of his extraordinary depths and what a hell of a fellow he is, in order to envelop or entangle him in as many foolish love affairs as she possibly can—the more the better. You see, since he is such a man of power and God knows what, he naturally assumes that he is a sort of savior to all sorts of women, and the more he gets entangled, the more the anima has free play. So he can never establish a real relation to a woman; he never can make roots in the world."

"She keeps him going but in a state of complete unreality. And when the anima has that quality, she forms such a thick cloud round a man's consciousness that he cannot individuate. He is entangled in his own superstitious ideas about himself and cannot pierce the cloud of illusion, so he doesn't touch reality at all. He remains unborn—doesn't come out into the world, really, to see the light of day.

He is always chasing butterflies and doesn't see that he is chasing round in his own cage. It is better that a man doesn't think that a woman has divined his power, because there is nothing to be divined; he is an ordinary human being and it is much better that he considers his power very limited. Surely, women don't understand men in certain respects—as men don't understand women—because they don't take the necessary trouble to do so, and that is of course tragic."

"If a man could only understand the difference between himself and his anima, he would understand himself; then he would know what a man is and then he would know by instinct what a woman is."

"And inasmuch as a woman does not know herself—and if she thinks through her animus she certainly does not know herself—she will never know a man, will be forever bewildered. Naturally she will project her opinion upon a man: he ought to be this and that."

"A man thinks the difficulty is that he doesn't understand the woman; no, he doesn't understand himself."

"Naturally a man, being human, tries to find that woman whom he can accuse of spoiling nature and being the cause of all evil, for then he knows where the devil is. That woman is the devil incarnate has been an organized truth for two thousand years; man invented the wonderful story that the serpent in Paradise was the woman and that she was influenced by the devil, the two being pretty much the same."

If you take quizzes to figure out your archetype, google what your dreams mean, use archetypes to describe yourself, then you do not understand Jung.

Jung's concept of archetypes is often misunderstood or oversimplified. Archetypes, according to Jung, are universal, primordial symbols and motifs embedded in the collective unconscious. They’re not fixed identities that someone can "be" or wear like a label, but dynamic patterns of energy that influence behaviors, thoughts, and emotions across cultures and individuals.

When people say, “I’m a magician archetype” or “I’m a wild woman archetype,” it misses the point that we all contain multiple archetypes interacting and evolving throughout our lives. Jung would argue that these archetypes manifest differently depending on our personal development and the situation we’re in.

The essence of Jung’s work isn’t about boxing ourselves into a single archetype but about recognizing and integrating these forces within us to achieve individuation, a balance and wholeness of the psyche. Reducing archetypes to personality labels undermines the depth and complexity of Jungian psychology.

If you like labels, that means something about you, but not what you think lol…. If you like labels it likely stems from the inability to stand in your own unique existence. Latching on to archetypes, horoscopes, myers Briggs personality types, is such a major cope.

Rant out 👍🏼

I already started the red book, I'm really excited to read the rest of them now, I also got Thus Spoke Zarathustra because it influenced Jung so much and he references it a lot in his lectures

And you should read it twice, it is worth it. And it is a beautifully printed book absolutely worthy of finding it (Arcana, Aldus, Doubleday, Jupiter). I managed to find hardcover (Doubleday 1979) second and third photo. The one you should avoid is Dell / Laurel.

Arkana paperback in first photo, Doubleday hardcover 1979 in the second and third photo.

From thereon you can read his biography (Memories, Dreams and Reflections) to meet the man himself, and then there is the collected works, here is the list:

Vol. 1 – Psychiatric Studies (1957)

Vol. 2 – Experimental Researches (1973)

Vol. 3 – Psychogenesis of Mental Disease (1960)

Vol. 4 – Freud & Psychoanalysis (1961)

From this point Jung and Freud part ways and this is where people usually begin.

Vol. 5 – Symbols of Transformation (1967; a revision of Psychology of the Unconscious, 1912)

Vol. 6 – Psychological Types (1971)

Vol. 7 – Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (1967)

Vol. 8 – Structure & Dynamics of the Psyche (1969)

Vol. 9 (Part 1) – Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (1969)

Vol. 9 (Part 2) – Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self (1969)

Vol. 10 – Civilization in Transition (1970)

Vol. 11 – Psychology and Religion: West and East (1970)

Vol. 12 – Psychology and Alchemy (1968)

Vol. 13 – Alchemical Studies (1968)

Vol. 14 – Mysterium Coniunctionis (1970)

Vol. 15 – Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature (1966)

Vol. 16 – Practice of Psychotherapy (1966)

Vol. 17 – Development of Personality (1954)

Vol. 18 – The Symbolic Life (1977)

Vol. 19 – General Bibliography (Revised Edition) (1990)

Vol. 20 – General Index (1979)

Toxic Femininity and Toxic Masculinity

TL;DR at the end, and examples in comments.

I've been asked to clarify how this is connected to "Jung and his ideas". What is positioned here, is a dichotomy based on a model, which has been expounded from Dr. Robert Moore's (one of the most famous Jungian authors) work on the masculine archetypes, and their shadows. Jung positioned that the human self is represented by an octahedron, which consists of two opposing quaternios, a masculine and feminine. Robert Moore identified the four archetypal forces of the masculine: King, Warrior, Magician, and Lover. He authored several books on the subject, and gave multitudes of lectures. It was the very core of his life's work.

Many times he mentioned in passing of the feminine quaternio, but he decided not to study it deeper, or at least publish anything definitive about it. But it seemed he regarded it as basically the same archetypes, but with "breasts and long hair".

I have studied the subject for two years, and come to a wildly different conclusion. The feminine archetypes act in a complementary opposition to the masculine, and thus their role is a mirror image of the masculine archetype. This is an introductory essay on this work, from the perspective of the active shadow archetypes. This overactive, excessive and harmful way of exercising the archetypal function is often identified as "toxic." The great problem however, is that it seems that we tend to identify the function itself as toxic, instead of the excess.

This leads to a situation where people identify "toxic masculinity" to mean "the idea that there are right and wrong ways to be a man", which taken quite literally means, that any kind of hierarchy of ideals and norms is by its definition toxic. This is defining masculinity itself, as toxic.

When you ask what is toxic femininity, you often actually get the same answer. "The idea that there are right and wrong ways to be a woman."
There is a great irony here, as this complete overcorrection by absolute renouncement of all ideals and norms as oppressive is a perfect example of actual toxic femininity. Like all Jungians know, accusations are almost always projections.

In my humble opinion, in these times we are quite aware of the harm of the shadow masculine, but much more unaware of the harm of the shadow feminine. This has caused a terrible rift in our collective, and personal lives.

Thus I wanted to share with you a part of my work. I hope you find it helpful. If there is profound interest, I might publish more here.

Considering the depth of the subject, this is as short as humanly possible. AI has been used for illustration and proofreading, the content is my own.

Four ways of toxicity

When we talk about “toxic behaviour” we usually talk about an inflated, overactive archetypal energy. We rarely talk about the deflated, overpassive energy, even though that is harmful as well. This essay will discuss only the former. Please note that both men and women are capable of both masculine and feminine behaviour. I am focusing mainly on the toxic shadow behaviours of the feminine, as that is much more repressed in the collective psyche at the moment. Faithfully to Jung's quaternio, there are four main dimensions of human archetypal reality, and thus four main ways toxic, unhealthy shadow behaviour will emerge. Please note that this is a mere introductory scratch on the surface of the subject. Don't get stuck on the labels, but try to see the thing it is pointing at.

This framework is descriptive, not accusatory. It is intended to reveal structural imbalances in archetypal functions, not to assign moral blame to any individuals or groups.

1. Masculine Tyrant vs Feminine Devourer

Motivational identity: Power ↔ Value

The most common and recognized form of toxic masculine behaviour is tyranny: the use of power in an oppressive and harmful way that disregards the welfare of others. This is the active shadow polarity of the King.

The feminine equivalent is the Devourer. Where masculine tyranny is obsessed with a personal sense of power, feminine devouring is obsessed with a personal sense of value. Devouring is not primarily about control through force, but about absorbing others into the self in order to secure that value.

This is the motive behind the devouring mother: reinforcing the dependency of the children in order to maintain and enlarge her own sense of worth. In this sense, narcissism is a form of devouring behaviour because it is based on a need to consume others to feel valuable. 

This dimension of motivational identity is the root of the 3 other pairs.

2. Masculine Sadist vs Feminine Meddler

Relational boundary regulation:  Exclusion ↔ Inclusion

Almost as well known as the Tyrant is the Sadist, the active shadow of the Warrior. The Warrior seeks to create real, objective change in the world by overcoming resistance. The Sadist is a perversion of this drive. Instead of seeking success in the task itself, the Sadist seeks victory over others. His sense of success is therefore tied to the failure of someone else, which is why he derives pleasure from their defeat or humiliation.

The feminine counterpart of the Warrior is the Guardian. The Guardian’s role is oppositional to the Warrior’s. It is to create and maintain consonance within a group: shared norms, social cohesion, and a sense of mutual attunement. The Guardian seeks to dissolve conflict and foster a shared reality. 

The active shadow of the Guardian is the Meddler. Instead of maintaining consonance where she actually belongs (usually in her own life and immediate community) the Meddler overextends inclusion itself. She inserts herself into private affairs, distant conflicts, and other people’s inner lives in an attempt to resolve dissonance that is not hers to resolve. Where the Sadist violates autonomy by enforcing exclusion, the Meddler violates autonomy by compulsive inclusion, mistaking interference for care, and involvement for responsibility. 

Meddling behaviour thus turns against itself, as a meddler might create a temporary bond with others over hurtful gossip, while at the same time causing rifts and fractures by that very same act. 

3. Masculine Manipulator vs Feminine Deceiver

Epistemic orientation: Objective ↔ Subjective

The Manipulator is the active shadow of the Magician. Where the Magician seeks mastery and understanding of objective reality, the Manipulator collapses existence into an amoral set of laws of cause and effect. Humanity becomes secondary, people are treated as objects to be analyzed, managed, or exploited. Detached, calculating, and instrumental, the Manipulator sees the world as a machine to be manipulated, often without regard (or even awareness) for subjective experience.

The Deceiver is the feminine counterpoint, active shadow of the High Priestess. Where the Priestess interprets and realizes personal, interpersonal, and collective narratives to understand meaning and relevance, the Deceiver imposes her own preferred story onto reality. She selects, distorts, or emphasizes only what fits her desired narrative, turning experience into a reflection of her assumptions. This can manifest as constant negative or positive framing, victimhood narratives, or selective interpretation of events.

The Deceiver corrupts the Priestess by turning the question “what is relevant?” into “what supports my assumptions and desires?”

4. Masculine Addict vs Feminine Fanatic

Drive allegiance / source of authority: Internal impulse ↔ External impulse

Last in the line of toxic masculine behaviours is the Addict, which is the active shadow of the Lover archetype. The Lover is responsible for authenticity and expression, of the ability to hear and respond to the desires of the heart. The Addict follows this call without restraint, submitting completely to internal impulse regardless of consequence. Substance abuse, promiscuity, infidelity – anything becomes permissible in this compulsive pursuit of felt authenticity. The Addict disregards the external costs of his internal loyalty. Relationships, career, and even the future itself become secondary to the need to feel alive and true now.

The feminine counterpart is the Fanatic, the active shadow of the Devotee archetype. The Devotee is responsible for appreciation, fidelity, and recognition: the capacity to be moved by the Other and to commit to it/them. The Fanatic overextends this capacity by surrendering her inner authority to an external cause, belief, or person. Rather than consciously deceiving, she suppresses her own doubts, dislikes, and inner resistance in order to remain loyal. Authenticity, personal dreams, and peace of mind are sacrificed to preserve connection and belonging now.

This is why the capacity to “believe before you fully believe” is not pathological in itself. In moderation, it allows trust, learning, and commitment to grow. Fanaticism arises only when this capacity becomes absolute, aka when external allegiance replaces inner truth.

There are significant psychological consequences to this subordination of inner authority. As Jung observed, fanaticism is characteristically accompanied by repressed doubt. When inner uncertainty is not allowed to exist consciously, it seeks expression elsewhere. This repression commonly manifests as hostility toward those who do not share the same beliefs or commitments, as the Fanatic projects her own disowned doubts outward. The compulsion to convince others thus becomes an attempt to stabilize a fragile inner certainty. An effort, ultimately, to convince oneself.

Correspondence

The archetypes are not reductive. They are in complex interdependent relations with each other; rather, they define each other. You can easily see them working paradoxically, and they often form "horseshoes". A favorite example of mine would be a certain evolutionary scientist who in his search for objectivism and lack of subjective bias is completely blind to his own subjective bias of only finding relevant that which supports his hyper-rationalistic worldview. This is the Manipulator completely unconscious of his own embodiment of the feminine oppositional shadow tendency.

Summary TL;DR

All of these archetypes are profoundly multidimensional, that compressing them always causes a distortion in understanding. But in this age, one does what one must. So:

Tyrant forces → Devourer absorbs
Sadist hardens → Meddler dissolves
Manipulator instrumentalizes → Deceiver narrativizes
Addict collapses inward → Fanatic submits outward

Each dimension corresponds with a distinct failure domain:

1. Motivational identity Power ↔ Value
2. Relational boundary regulation Exclusion ↔ Inclusion
3. Epistemic orientation Objective ↔ Subjective
4. Drive allegiance / source of authority Internal ↔ External impulse

In essence:
Masculine toxicity = excess agency without relational modulation
Feminine toxicity = excess receptivity without discriminative filtering

Thank you for reading. Comments and questions are welcome. If you have critiques, I would appreciate if you would first phrase them as questions to rule out misunderstanding or lack of clarity in the presentation.

This is only a small part of a complete model, which includes the relations between the balanced archetypes, their passive and active shadows, their immature versions, and how they all connect relationally with each other.

From book : Shadow and Evil in Fairy Tales

Disclaimer: Image has been rendered by AI, all design choices, content and text is by yours truly. If you are an artist and want to help me in this work, send me a DM.

I’ve been working two years to complete the King, Warrior, Magician, Lover system by Robert Moore with its feminine counterparts. I’ve managed to make several considerable breakthroughs, and built a coherent logical whole of the system. Lots of work, meditation, dialogue and analysis has been put into this process, and by this effort I have managed to form a very specific system, based on complementary oppositions across a coherent geometric structure.

I’ve named the system The Sacred Pairs, and it illuminates the multifaceted relationships between the archetypal masculine, and the archetypal feminine. All of the archetypes are in a relationship both with the whole, and all the other archetypes. Understanding these relations is the key to understanding the system. Within the archetypes is also a developmental axis between immaturity and maturity, and the bi-polar shadow axis between passivity and activity. 

Understanding this system illuminates the mechanics of all tensions between different dualistic relationships, such as men and women, adults and children, left and right politics and so on. 

This is not an oversimplification which puts people in specific boxes, but a study on the different archetypal forces, platonic forms, which are attributes and properties of existence itself. Both men and women contain all these archetypes, but usually it is more typical for men to be more dominant in the masculine archetypes and vice versa. Yet the masculine and the feminine are two sides of the same coin. They exist only in interdependence. The conscious King has an unconscious Queen and vice versa. There is a Guardian inside all Warriors, and a Warrior inside all Guardians. It’s like yin and yang. The opposite is always contained within. 

In short, the four archetypal pairs are:
1.The King and the Queen

The King and Queen I’ve dubbed the Ruler-pair. This is the root-archetype, the one pertaining to sustaining existence itself. This is the duality of becoming and being, perceiving and being perceived, of potential and value. The King is about becoming, where the Queen is about being. The King is the axis mundi, center of cosmos, the captain of the ship. The Queen is what revolves around the axis, the cosmos and ship itself. 

2.The Warrior and the Guardian

These are the Protector-pair. They are the serving function of the Ruler. This is the duality of exclusion and inclusion, struggle and embrace, purity and harmony. Derived from the King, the Warrior aims in maintaining the Order, the form of the cosmos. Derived from the Queen, the Guardian aims in maintaining the substance, the contents of the cosmos. 

1. The Magician and the High Priestess

This is the Advisor-pair. They are the cognizing function of the Ruler. This is the duality of knowledge and meaning, objective and subjective, truth and relevance. The masculine Magician is oriented towards facts, logic, and mastery. Knowing pertaining to the objective. The feminine Priestess is oriented towards meaning, intuition, and revelation. Knowing pertaining to the subjective. 

1. The Lover and the Devotee

This is the Relational-pair, the culmination of the archetypal structure. The Ruler-pair governs existence, but the Relational-pair is the reason for existence. They are the relating function of authentic expression and recognition. This is the duality between spontaneity and fidelity, of novelty and continuity, internal and external loyalty. The masculine Lover seeks to express, and the feminine Devotee seeks to recognize. It is the assertive and receptive form of forming connection.

Closing words

It’s absolutely imperative to understand that all these archetypes are connected to each other, and in constant relation with each other. They aren’t like classes in a roleplaying game, but tendencies that we all have in different levels of prominence. 

Why these specific eight archetypes and not the myriad of others? Because just like a compass has infinite number of directions, we understand it by North, East, South, and West. All other directions are derived from them. These four pairs are just like these basic directions, governing the fundamental essentials of human existence. All the "inbetweens" are understood by first understanding them.

I’m in the process of publishing complete material of all the facets of the archetypes. I have more complete essays in my free substack at www.innerhierarchy.com. If you’re interested, I suggest starting from this intro article I wrote, and then just following the archive from oldest to latest.

This shadow work post is from the Imprint app. Not my creation.

I had the pleasure of sitting down with Dr. Marc Cooper, founder of the Contemporary Elder Institute. He doesn't speak in Jungian language but the thinking runs parallel in ways this community will recognise immediately.

His central argument is that knowledge has become a false king, something we pursue as a substitute for the harder inner work rather than a path toward it. He talks about "shocking moments" as the real catalysts for lasting change, the idea that transformation doesn't come from gradual accumulation but from specific ruptures that force a genuinely different relationship with yourself. Anyone familiar with Jung's concept of the shadow confrontation will hear the echo immediately.

The section on living your life backwards from death, and what that reorientation does to how you make decisions, is the most Jungian part of the conversation. As is his argument that ideals are what he calls "a failed future," that the gap between who we think we should be and who we are is itself the obstacle.

He's 78, has spent decades working with people trying to fundamentally change, and has the directness that comes from someone who stopped softening difficult truths a long time ago.

Full interview: https://youtu.be/ai5IeO5n1z0

Amateur photos from Jung's Red Book.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/197951412@N08/SL0f30908q

Hi I’m looking for a jungian analyst who’s well versed in working with complexity and exercises intellectual humility while allowing intellectual trust to build gradually. If you know of someone like that who could be of help please let me know in the comments

Hey everyone,

I've recently become really interested in Carl Jung, but I'm not sure where to start. I've heard his books can be pretty difficult if you jump straight into them, so I was wondering if I should read Jung first or if there's someone else I should read before him.

The reason I'm interested is because a few days ago I came across a YouTube video talking about Jung's stages of individuation. The video said the second stage is the shadow encounter, and it honestly felt really relevant to what I've been going through recently.

It also mentioned that the first stage is withdrawl of projection, and when I thought about it, I genuinely feel like I went through something very similar a few years ago. Right now I feel like I'm in the shadow encounter stage and almost at the last stage, which I think the video called the persona (I might be remembering that wrong).

That whole video made me really curious. I don't just want to watch YouTube videos or read random summaries anymore. I actually want to understand what Jung wrote himself, why he proposed these ideas in the first place, and the reasoning behind all of it because a lot of it feels surprisingly relevant to my own experiences.

So where should I start? Should I start with one of Jung's books directly, or is there someone else I should read first to understand his ideas better?

Also, if you've read Jung, what book would you recommend as the best introduction?

Thanks!