Category Archives: Psychology

The thing about Jung is

Ideas have a life of their own
Archetypes have a life of their own

Thoughts are what exist in our conscious mind
But they are sourced from prima materia, the external world, aka the collective unconscious
In the collective unconscious, the loadstones of thought exist as archetypes.
We evolved to understand/recieve them as thoughts and instincts
Something like that.
Thoughts still do exist, but as a subproduct (in programming we would say higher level language) of evolution interacting with archetypes

Abrahamism and Virginity

The whole no sex before marriage bit in Abrahamism

Its a patriachial sociological engineered function.

Women’s sexuality [, specifically that which] empowers a woman (i.e. sex as a commodity) is viewed as a threat to the existing male dominated hierarchy.

Rather, carefully selected archetype role models of women are propagated in the texts such as Esther, Delilah, Mary Magdalena, Virgin Mary, etc.

All have specific archetypes they exhibit which in turn shape [unconsciously] the gender roles promoted for [abrahamic] adherants.


Edward Eddinger
Ego and Archetype
Christ as Paradigm of the Individuating Ego

I myself have been saying autonomy and dealing with the loss of a friend who I projected my anima (that I identified as Hypatia) onto. This is very consoling to read.

“The end of this passage makes clear the purpose of inciting discord. It is to achieve the solitary condition, the state of being an autonomous individual. This can be achieved only by a separation from unconscious identification with others. In the early stages, the separatio is experienced as painful strife and hostility. Parents and family are the most frequent objects of unconscious identification. Jesus singles out the father for special mention:

And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father who is in heaven.

Parents have power over their grown children only because the latter continue to project the images of the archetypal parents to their personal parents. To call no man father means to withdraw all projections of the father archetype and discover it within…

…’…if a man will lose his ego for my sake, he will find the Self.’ [paraphrasing Jesus]

‘It is no easy matter to live a life that is modelled on Christ’s, but it is unspeakably harder to live one’s own life, as truly as Christ lived his.’ [Jung]

…blessed are those who are aware of their spiritual poverty and are humbly seeking what they need. Understood psychologically, the meaning would be: The ego which is aware of its own emptiness of spirit (life meaning) is in a fortunate position because it is now open to the unconscious and has the possibility of experiencing the archetypal psyche (the kingdom of heaven).

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Mourning is caused by the loss of an object or person who was carrying an important projected value. In order to withdraw projections and assimilate their content into one’s own personality it is necessary to experience the loss of the projection as a prelude to rediscovering the content or value within. Therefore, mourners are fortunate because they are involved in a growth process. They will be comforted when the lost projected value has been recovered within the pysche.”

Sex and the Office Power Moves

I think the reason I hypothetically upset J***, C******, and T** was in their eyes they are the gatekeepers to everyone’s hope, an opportunity at full time.
So if I came in there and said I was ok with getting laid off cuz I’d still get my masters, was an insult to their opportunity which they viewed as the best they could offer anyone (exposure to CICD and C suite). They wanted me to integrate there with my masters.
I truly believe the reason everyone acted the way they did by turning a blind eye to the affair was its expected in Abrahamic patriarchy culture to objectify women. Even S***** acknowledged that by turning a blind eye to my return (this I didnt know at the time) because she exhumes that lifestyle. However with me I did feel guilty and was violating the patriarchy’s unspoken rule of objectification is expected and simultaneously violated the republican rule “keep it yourself” to scandal.
“Sex and the Office” says women caught sleeping their way to the top are halted generally once outted.
I think it’s okay to have sex in the workplace but the way its discusses imo is from a patriarchial sanctioned “don’t ask don’t tell” POV.
Which creates this anxiety in people about it and it remains very much a power move.

Selected Response: “that is absolutely true. But desperate times man… I’ve certainly been presented with the opportunity to do so, but don’t want to subjugate myself to whims of some dude on a power trip.”**

At that point all hell broke loose coupled with the fact I didn’t care for the opportunity* and was creating scandal with talk of dominatrix, I think that’s when the uppers gave their blessing to let those angry at me have at it. They did what is always done in criminal cases. Try to get former friends to turn on each other, let them do the dirty work for you. To get them to show they are hungry for an opportunity and willing to get their hands dirty. That’s my best guess.
*I thought they misinterpreted me, that I didn’t want it. I did its just that I was truly mentally ill from seeing her and it was hurting me psychologically with insomnia and mania daily. But they didn’t care. It violated their world view which expected me to be a player about it. But that’s the thing. I’m a soft heart (I can be mean, though usually unintentionally by usually just walking away from a relationship (ghosting), ironically, but lately I’ve tried to be more mature about it and am on the other end of the spectrum where I can’t walk away). Idk I just can’t be mean to someone I loved (I can be passive aggressive and make things uncomfortable though). I can’t block it out. That to me is being disingenuous to oneself and I feel corporate life expects you to swallow your emotions because they wanted to prove to everyone that emotions won’t get you paid
It’s kind of like saying women want to be respected but then you see classic objectifiers fucking the women you admire at work… I had a white knight savior complex only to be friend zoned and discarded which taught me that the paradigm I was using does not get me to the desired end goal (nice guys finish last) which was at least continued friendship so I had the affair and fulfilled the expectations of the very thing I didn’t like. Patriarchy. It was very traumatic for me in a way
It’s a turn on to be objectified but people want to use it in certain contexts that benefit them (cost benefit analysis)
**My friend confirmed it is a power move and some women think they have to sleep their way to the top
So power is attraction
I got the distinct impression she was doing it for power because people would tell me she got around, plus the fact that she was giving me personal time, yet when I naively told her I had feelings for her (after hanging out 1:1 multiple times). She started to distance herself. Like I was breaking some unspoken rule. I think she then classed me as a nice “married” guy who wasn’t going to make a move and lost interest cuz I obviously wasn’t a power move nor a Don Draper to her anymore

I think I touched the 3rd rail. Whoever obliged her power moves.

Attraction is power.




Project homepage Readme

Using ICPSR polling data of 8th & 10th grade Americans. I transform from a set of predictor terms into what I call a “semiotic grid” of 1’s and 0’s which are then used to identify a class of 1’s and 0’s of desired outcomes of 3 specific response terms. GPA, gang fights, and (gasp) presence of psychedelic drug use.

I use monte carlo resampling to achieve class balancing and do a modified bestglm algorithm to get a wider set of terms via cross validation then through Cross Validated holdout analysis then tabulated. That’s just for initial factor reduction/pooling potential candidates. Then these terms go through more class balancing, cross validation once more using actual bestglm unmodified to arrive at a final regression formula as well as terms that are always population significant & closing with ROC.

I am offering the project as a type of open house to potential employers to determine if my skillset would be a good fit for what you hope to do with numbers.


I’ve learned from coding and having family that it is essential to have uninterrupted time to finish a thought.  It doesn’t have to be an uninterrupted day.  But enough time to figure just one problem out all the way through.  This is because the change cost involved in removing your focus (in psychology there is a term called flow) to a different task erases your short term memory where all your crucial insights and short term resolutions were being worked on.  Putting that to the side and returning to it requires context switching, change costs.  I’ve heard of this concept before in coding. 

I always get a little anxious worried I’ll be interrupted while working on a deep problem.  Well, I’ve had a lot of time to work on my capstone project and I am greatful because I think it’s exactly where I want it to be.  It’s taken a lot of early morning coding to get it to where I want it at, and having the ability to focus on a problem until I see it through has been a blessing.

Jung on Feminine Passivity

This reminds me of the whole monad-dyad, actual/potential motif. When a man falls for someone, he pours his heart out in terms of ideas and women are often sold on ideas (until they learn the wiser).

This ties into the discussion about the nixie

Finally, it should be remarked that emptiness is a great feminine secret. It is something absolutely alien to man; the chasm, the unplumbed depths, the yin. The pitifulness of this vacuous nonentity goes to his heart (I speak her as a man), and one is tempted to say that this constitutes the whole “mystery” of woman. Such a female is fate itself. A man may say what he likes about it, be for it or against it, or both at once; in the end he falls, absurdly happy, into this pit, or if he doesn’t he has missed and bungled his only change of making a man of himself. In the first case one cannot disprove his foolish good luck to him, and in the second one cannot make his misfortune seem plausible.
– Jung

Representation Collections

“Representation collections” – represent forms
[archetypes:] forms without content… representing merely the possibility of a certain type of perception and action”
…adduce convincing mythological parallels. It does not, of course, suffice simply to connect a dream about a snake with the mythological occurrence of snakes, for who is to guarantee that the functional meaning of the snake in the dream is the same as in the mythological occurrence of snakes, for who is to guarantee that the functional meaning of the snake in the dream is the same as in the mythological setting? In order to draw a valid parallel, it is necessary to know the functional meaning of the individual symbol, and then to find our whether the apparently parallel mythological symbol has a similar context and therefore the same functional meaning. Establishing such facts not only requires lengthy and wearisome researches, but is also an ungrateful subject for demonstration. As the symbols must not be torn of their context, one has to launch forth into exhaustive descriptions, personal as well as symbological…
I mention this case not in order to prove that the vision is an archetype but only to show you my method of procedure in the simplest possible form. If we had only such cases, the task of investigation would be relatively easy, but in reality the proof is much more complicated. First of all, certain symbols have to be isolated clearly enough to be recognizable as typical phenomena, not just matters of chance. This is done by examining a series of dreams, say a few hundred, for typical figures, and observing their development in the series. The same method can be applied to the products of active imagination. In this way it is possible to establish certain continuities or modulations of one and the same figure. You can select any figure which gives the impression of being an archetype by its behaviour in the series of dreams or visions. If the material at one’s disposal has been well observed and is sufficiently ample, one can discover interesting facts about the variations undergone by a single type. Not only the type itself but its variants too can be substantiated by evidence from comparative mythology and ethnology…
– Jung