|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Skepticism||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 broken link
- 3 Collective Conscious/Unconscious
- 4 Collective Unconscious is NOT Universal Consciousness!
- 5 Quick n Blind
- 6 Couldn't the explanation be more indepth?
- 7 schizophrenia and collective myths
- 8 Superconscious = Collective Unconscious?
- 9 Massive Overhaul
- 10 Footnote
- 11 Complete Revamp
- 12 Additions and Removals
- 13 Popular Culture
- 14 On Criticism
- 15 Collective Conscious
- Critics have argued that this is an ethnocentrist view, which universalized Jung's archetypes into human beings' archetypes.
I'm not so sure ethnocentrist is the right word here. --DanielCD 15:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Note: I marked my first "minor copyedit" edit as a minor edit by accident. It is not a minor edit. --DanielCD 15:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he means ecocentric? Pertaining to a "home-sphere" as apposed to a race?
I'm not sure references to collective consciousness, or hive minds, should be in this article. For one thing, it has nothing to do with commonality of experience or shared cultures. In a hive mind, every individual acts as an independent synapse, allowing the hive to work as a gestalt. Secondly, there are so so SO many hive minds in fiction, from the Tyranids of Warhammer 40K to the Zergs of Spacecraft, and Star Trek's BORG, that listing all of them would be an article unto itself. -- Raveled
I would suggest giving examples of collective unconscious in modernist literature, that was the beginning, the revolution so to say.
EDIT: One example of collective Unconsciousness in "modernist literature" may or may not be in an episode of Star Trek VOYAGER. In about the 6th season there is an episode named "Unimatrix Zero". If you know anything about The BORG in Star Trek, you would know that there is no Unimatrix Zero, and that the smallest one is Unimatrix One that protects the BORG Queen. In this episode, there is a glitch in a couple thousand drones, where when they regenerate, they go in to a paradise where they can carry out a normal life, but don't remember it when they are't regenerating. (At least until Janeway interferes again. -_-)
Collective Unconscious is NOT Universal Consciousness!
Collective Unconscious is NOT Universal Consciousness - the redirection from Universal Consciousness to Collective Unconscious should be removed.
Quick n Blind
The consciousness of the collective, is an infinite concept. There are collective consciousnesses being created at every second of existence. E.g. In scientology, there are the 8 dynamics of existence 1 = self, 2 = pro-creation (husband, wife, seed(s)) ;) 3 = group (family, workplace, neighborhood, temporary atonomous zones, etc.) 4 = human race (all humans on the planet), 5 = life forms (animal and plant life), 6 = Mest universe (matter, energy, space, and tiime) 7 = spiritual (souls/spirits/conscoiusnesses/angels/demons/gohsts etc.), 8 = Infinity (God, Holy tinity, Super consciouness etc.) And if you belive that there are aliens, then they probably go like in 4.5 or something. Anyway, there are collective consciounesses springing up consctantly in the on going time capsul we call the universe. There are some consciousnesses that have been around since the begining of time and are still around right now, and there are some that are born and are gone just as fast e.g. (that's a good idea, no wait this will work better...) And then split that up into the conscious which is what we are able to speak about, and then there's the sub conscious which is too abstract to speak about sometimes but at the same time it's like the qualities and interpretations of various stimuli physical, mental or spiritual......... The mind is a tool of creation. It can be used to create conciousnesses such as this website that is a virtual organic entity (or can be defined as such).... etc. So, i'm just flowing with thought here people, just wanted to get some conscoiusness out there. Peace, and Productivity. Go Humans!!
Oh and the point of my mentioning Scientology was to identify the various subjects that collective consciousnesses could be about.
Oh and I agree with Universal collective consciousness should not direct you here to unconsciousness. Actually my rant here should not even be here either, but I couldn't fing a Collective Consciousness page.
--DreHectik 06:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place for essays. Once that is understood: Oh and I agree with Universal collective consciousness should not direct you here to unconsciousness. If you have a good reason to stop it from doing so, stop it from doing so. Actually my rant here should not even be here either, but I couldn't fing a Collective Consciousness page. There is a page on Collective consciousness. -- Hoary 08:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't the explanation be more indepth?
This explanation doesn't really explain what "Collective unconscious" is for the uninformed reader looking for a introduction to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCRivers (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
schizophrenia and collective myths
I don't know if this helps but this article says a community's myths are decisive in the definition of a culture's delusions in schizophrenics... one wikipedia article said Jung learnt from work with schizophrenics... the delusions were guilt in Austria and persecution in Pakistan http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ProduktNr=224276&Ausgabe=226529&ArtikelNr=29094 Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Superconscious = Collective Unconscious?
I'm not sure this redirect is correct. I mostly encounter "Superconscious" in the context of New Age beliefs (such as the Law of attraction) referring to a higher universal mind. That doesn't appear to gel with "Collective Unconscious", though the article is so vague it's hard to be sure. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 06:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I was redirect here when looking for info on Universal Consciousness. This redirect is not correct. Universal Consciousness is a metaphysical term, not psychological. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, Jung never used a term equivalent to "superconscious" mind. The term seems to have originated with psychosynthesis, so should redirect there perhaps.--Smcg8374 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is really really poor, in my opinion. given that this topic is 1/3 of all of Jung's work, it needs more than an introduction and a poxy collection of see also's. Not only that, but a major section on contemporary views on the collective unconcious would be good. From my understanding, the concept is incongruous with evolutionary theory, which is what Jung based it on. Genes pass on physical attributes not memories, surely the notion of a universal memory inherited from cavemen is bollocks?
You are thinking of Darwinian evolution by natural selection. In Jung's time Lamarckian Evoloution by means of inherited characteristics was a popular theory. easytiger (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
"Genes pass on physical attributes not memories, surely the notion of a universal memory inherited from cavemen is bollocks?" I totally disagree with this statement. What is a memory? It is a physical pattern of neuron wiring and neurochemistry. If the collective unconscious is passed through the generations, then it must be passed by one or more genes which code for how the neurons are wired and the neurochemicals set to establish the memory itself. This is a phsical structural process that occurs and changes with evolution. Leo2618 (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The quote in the first paragraph from "Evolution and Revolution in Child Psychiatry: ADHD as a Disorder of Adaptation" does not exist. I read the whole article looking for it, then used a search function to look for the entire phrase and individual words. The quote is simply not in the article. This is very disappointing as I really was hoping to be able to quote it myself.
This article does not cite any references to Jung's work, and it is pretty obvious that the person who made this article did't read any of Jung's work. Jung did not reference it to inherited memory, he refered to it as the unconscious structure of the psyche universal to all humans, and that it underlies and organizes psychic processes, and due to its universal presence in humans, it gives rise to similarities in unconscious imagery. He related it other organisms with brains as well, such as a chic imprinting the first creature it sees into its psyche as "mother," - an example he in fact used. Archetype would be mother as the psyche in a chic autonomously organizes imagery into that category. I am thinking that this article needs to be completely redone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Additions and Removals
Ok people, I added a quote from Jung from Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, and I removed those new age "see also" references that have nothing to do with Jung's concept of the Collective Unconscious. It still needs a lot of work, but at least we broke the chain of disinformation on this topic, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the section on criticism specifically because it stated:
'In spite of his avoidance of ontological affirmations, Jung often appears to suggest that the collective unconscious is a metaphysical reality, which invites less sophisticated analysts to engage in ideological thinking and inflated claims to transcendent knowledge',
However, the fact of the matter is that Jung actually had responded to this suggestion about his concept of the collective unconscious as a metaphysical idea, and he admitted to being very irritated with that misrepresentation. He considered the collective unconscious a biologically rooted thing. The issue here, is that the term "collective unconscious" was not used by Jung as a social phenomena, but as a phenomena of individual person's psyche. When taken out of Jung's original context and instead treated as a social phenomena, it takes on this different meaning - the metaphysical reality, which Jung never meant. It is true he had a concept of a "transcendental function" of the psyche, but this is a different line than inviting "inflated claims to transcendental knowledge". If we are going to keep this criticism in here, we should make sure that we make a distinction where the deviation from Jung's original idea happened in literature and who was the source of this change in meaning of the term "collective unconscious". The way the criticism was laid out makes it look like Jung suggested something he never actually said, an inference on the part of the author of the section "On Criticism".
Has it occurred to any other editors that Wikipedia could be the human collective conscious? It knows more than any of us could ever know individually.10:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)