Interaction With Jungian Archetypes – The Personification of Digital Avatars In Video Games

During the past few months I have been reading Carl Gustav Jung’s – The Red Book.  It is a very cerebral read, one created by digging deep into the mind and exploring our relationships with the world around us.  Jung explores how we deal with ideas and concepts that are very unique to the human condition, concepts that we all share but visualize slightly different.  For example we all have a Shadowy figure that represents the parts of our being that we don’t like and wish to unassociate with. Another example is the concept of Mother and Father, even though on an individual level these figures may vary we all have as humans a core set of Archetypal placeholders.

Jung also brings forth the idea that our Ego is how we visualize ourselves to the outside world and the true Self is this sort of an Archetype as well, but it is one that pertains to us, which we regularly add to and subtract from.  The Ego’s health is based on the projection ( at least this is the way I interpret Jung’s writing) of the Self and how it interacts with the unconscious mind…

Someone who is able to adventure forth through Self on a cerebral/dream like/ altered state or unconscious level interacts with a myriad of Archetypes which represent Myths, Hard to grasp Ideas, Original Thought, Problems, Etc.

I found this idea fascinating and have been thinking about it a lot.

What I find incredible about the idea of Ego projecting Self tackling big problems is it sort personifies the the very nature of Video Games?  Think about it…

1 ) “Ego” wants a sense of adventure – which could represent the initial thought or spark of unconscious dream.

2 ) You find a game that you identify with – which corresponds to the way your perception of the world could work on an unconscious level.

3 ) You pick a character that is suppose to represent you, in the digital world – this again closely resembles this concept of Jungian “Self”

4 ) you visually throw that character into hard to describe problems and situations, that may represent a host of issues in real life, some very well may test your very core or nature in dealing with things like ( Morality, Faith, Justice, Etc. )

5 ) You attempt to beat the game, and or pass the level, solve the problem – this is “Self” interacting and learning from the encounter.

6 ) When you do, or shut the game off… you return to the world/reality and you for the most part… you are different…

Here are some Resources if You want to research further

YOUTUBE OF JUNG DISCUSSION – The Red Book: Part 1

YOUTUBE OF JUNG DISCUSSION – The Red Book: Part 2

WIKI on JUNGIAN ARCHETYPES:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes

Good Read:

http://www.starbridge.com.au/en/elearning/transpersonal-counselling-course-module-1/lesson-7-jung-archetypes.htm

WP_20130930_003

WP_20130930_002

WP_20130930_001

I

Sketch Book – The Walking Stick – The Inertia of Purpose

Ever since we took a vacation up north I’ve been fascinated by the idea of walking into nature… cleaving an old tree from the ground and using the once stationary inanimate object as a walking stick.

I keep asking myself why this found object has meaning, yet is not the idea of inanimate objects charged with new life the building blocks of stories through out history. The sword in the stone, the grail, a wizards staff, witch brooms, wands etc.

The idea is simple, the stick was just a stick… it would have like wise stayed in the woods… turned to dirt…. and no doubt been the fuel of another sapling, or ferns… but I’ve removed it from its cycle, effectively imbued it with purpose even if it is the purpose of “hey dude this stick looks cool, and I’m going to put it in my mud room by the back door”

What does this simple idea say about life in general?  Objects can and will remain in cycle indefinitely as they have a purpose given by natural order, but in some cases objects can be imbued with greater purpose outside of the original natural cycle or order.

The cause of giving objects greater purpose potentially makes the object more useful resulting in the object being greater than the some of its parts.

Its interesting, that the concept of “soul” and the purpose of inanimate objects sort of fits hand in hand?

So I pose this question… if the stick once made into a walking stick is not used does it still have purpose? or comically does the purpose dissipate like heat from the surrounding area around the walking stick?

Then ask the same question based on our bodies when we die? Would our purpose dissipate like heat? It sounds silly to say, but the simple analogy is meant to be direct.

Theoretically once the walking stick is used outside of its predictable natural order, the genie is out of the bottle… The possibilities for the stick are infectiously endless and almost have an inertia.

Example: stick is sitting there someone looks at it… and says that’s neat… I need one…. stick is sitting there dog takes it runs down the street.. kids picks up stick becomes sword.

So where we make the analogy to our bodies and the soul instead of purpose dissipating…. the now imbued purpose of the walking stick actually starts radiating “potential energy” based on a higher probability of possible outcomes… in laymen’s terms in the analogy of soul…. based on what you did, and how you did it, and the effect…. theoretically you would have more “potential energy” upon death… which carries with it perpetual inertia… I had a flash of Obi Won Kenobi before Darth Vader cuts him down in the original Star Wars…

Ok its a little morbid, and has martyr written all over it, but is interesting that something inanimate can have an inertia of involvement even after its use.

The inertia of purpose… radiating potential energy…………… sounds like magic to me…….