If you were to ask what is the most important word in the Democratic Party today, I think many would agree it is the word – equality. They want everything to be equal. They want socialism. They want Medicare for all. They want Free education up to the college level. They want reparations for those they don’t think had an equal chance to live in this society – the Blacks.
I would contest that equality is not the most important ideal we should strive for. Rather I think individuation is. Carl Jung talked about individuation. But I am going to address my interpretation of it that includes other people’s ideas beside those of Jung.
Individuation starts at birth. A baby is born. In my ideal world parents would not impose their personalities on the child but would “watch” to allow the child’s personality to unfold. Now that would include the values of some of my Democratic friends. It would mean the child with gay tendencies or transgender tendencies’ personality would unfold, too.
Next the child would have an education geared to develop their gifts. That means there would be choice in education, variety. A reader of Carl Jung and his followers I envision it as schools where sensing types could get a more sensing education, where intuitive types could get a more intuitive type education, where thinking types could get a more thinking type education, where feeling types could get a more feeling type education.
The goal would be to help the individual develop their strengths. All along their education they would be helped to think about career goals, what they would like to do at the end of their education. There would be models of the different careers who would come to talk to them and in having an education geared to the different personality types, their teachers,who most likely would share their type, would be models, too.
In my individuated world these children would grow up knowing themselves well. That’s part of the individuation process. They all along would have been thinking about their gifts and how they differ from others of different personality types. They would understand what their interests are, what their weaknesses are, what their shadow was like.
In my individuation world they would be very familiar with the idea of the shadow and projection and hence they would possibly be less likely to project their shadow on others.
Now individuals going to such specialized schools – if they so choose – because choice would be the second big value in my ideal world – would need to learn communication skills/the communication style of the different personality types and how to communicate with them.
Now to my second biggest value – choice. I believe with the existentialists it is choice which distinguishes us as human. I further believe we have the right to freely make choices about the direction our life will take.
There would be hardly any censorship in my ideal world. People could think any thought they wanted to, could feel any feeling – what they would be responsible for were their actions. Their actions could be subscribed by law much as we have laws today that seek to eliminate behavior like murder/stealing/ rape etc.
Another value in my ideal world would be boundaries. There would be an acknowledgement of boundaries between people – no mindreading what the other person thinks – you would ask.
There would be boundaries between nations – no allowing to cross into another person’s country without permission – respecting the laws of that country.
Another value of my ideal society would be transparency. There is no way to reverse the technology that now allows our intelligence agencies to spy on everyone of us 24/7 but we would set limits on it. And the transparency that has solely been turned onto us, would in my ideal world in which checks and balances are almost inoperable because of the size of the Administrative State – be turned on government, too. We would institute Whistle blowing protection laws and demand every entity of government have a web site which sought to make its operation transparent to the people with a mission statement of purpose, statements of long and short term goals, criteria which would provide evidence of goal achievement, statements of which goals they had achieved, which goals they were working on, timetables for their achievement, job descriptions with their associations to the stated goals spelled out, number of employees, salaries etc. Everything would be spelled out on their website, so we the people could hold them accountable, could know what they are doing.
In my ideal conception there would be medical system reform. We would change from a Big Pharma dominated medical system to a functional medical system. In this functional medical system causes would be treated, not just symptoms. It would emphasize knowledge of the link between nutrition and wellness, knowledge about the link between lifestyle and wellness, an understanding of the needs of our body to remain well, needs for exercise etc. So as the current medical system is a pill dispensing medical system, the new medical system would be especially keen on dispensing information to help us make healthier choices.
I think I’ll end there. In place of seeing equality as the goal, my ideal society would see individuation, educational reform, medical reform, respect for boundaries, transparency, individual choice as the goals.
Jung - Understanding Type
P.S. - When I wrote this I was a Democrat supporting Gore over Bush. When I became a Government Gang Stalking target and saw that the Democrats were doing nothing to expose that secret surveillance program, I became a Libertarian. Today I am an Independent supporting Trump and the Republican Party - especially groups like the Freedom and Liberty Caucuses in the House of Representatives.
When a person has a very different personality from our own, we might think of them as "crazy." We do that because their strengths/dominant function is our weakness/inferior function. When their personality functions are in our "shadow" - we might project our own unconscious shadow on them.
Dan Bongino About the latest Shooter: We’re Missing Something.
Dan, saw you on Martha MacCallum’s showing saying – we’re missing something – when it comes to these shooters. Can I take a shot at answering your question? The shooter said he was angry; he made a comment about over-priced food at the festival. Why is he angry? If the food was over-priced one might think the shooter couldn’t afford to buy it/go to the festival.
My guess is this was a person who didn’t feel like he belongs/fits in. Why is he angry? No doubt when he read the extreme literature he found lots of scapegoats for his anger, but what is at the bottom of it?
I think right off the bat we can say the shooter was a Narcissist. It’s obvious he thought only of himself – his feelings: he didn’t think of that six year old boy he killed as a separate person with rights of his own, the right to life.
I would say most of these shooters are Narcissists, but why? My guess is their alienation/Narcissism began at the very beginning of their lives. They had personalities imposed on them, rather than having the people around them helping them to unfold their innate potential, their unique personalities.
I doubt a young man, who from his earliest childhood had people around him helping him to unfold the gifts he inherently had would go around shooting people.
And when the shooter went to school – what if there were alternatives – perhaps, magnet schools where those with a scientific bent could go to more scientifically oriented schools? - those with an artistic bent could go to more artistic oriented schools - those with who liked to work with their hands could go to schools that might help one prepare for entering the trades etc. They could go to schools where in their teachers they could find role models for what they wanted to be, where our schools offered choices – but real choices – so a child could find a place where they felt they belonged, a place to develop their gifts and interests and skills – prepare them for some future.
Do you think if the shooter had an experience like that he would be angry? Or would he have hope, hope for a better, satisfying future? And, perhaps, he would have empathy, because those around him had empathy for him, for who he really was. Would a person with those opportunities be so angry that they’d engage in a horrific shooting spree?
I-It relating is totally subjective. The I looks at everything in relation to their self. Their desires and concerns are a barrier to real meeting. There is contrivance and hypocrisy. Imposition characterizes I-It Relating as the I tries to impose their views, their wants on the other.