Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Continues at: http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/zweig.htmlIlluminating the Shadow:
An Interview with Connie Zweig
By Scott London
In psychology, the dark side of human nature is often described as the alter ego, the id, or the lower self. The great Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung called it the "shadow." By shadow, he meant the negative side of the personality, the sum total of all those unpleasant qualities that we would prefer to hide.
Connie Zweig
While Carl Jung coined the term "the shadow," the idea of a dark side of human nature dates back to antiquity and has figured in some of our most famous stories and myths, from the dark brother in the Bible to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
For psychotherapist Connie Zweig, the shadow represents one of the most important yet least understood aspects of human nature. We all have a shadow, she says. The challenge is to meet it face-to-face. Unless we come to terms with our own dark side, she says, we're condemned to be its victim.
Connie Zweig is the author of Romancing the Shadow. She has also edited a bestselling anthology on the subject called Meeting the Shadow. Zweig is the founder of the Institute for Shadow-Work and Spiritual Psychotherapy in Los Angeles.
Scott London: Of all the metaphors that have been used to illustrate the shadow in recent years, my favorite is Robert Bly's image of the big bag we drag behind us.
Connie Zweig: Yes, he said that we spend the first half of our lives putting everything into the bag and the second half pulling it out.
London: What did Carl Jung have in mind when he formulated this idea?
Zweig: He believed that everything that is in our conscious awareness is in the light. But everything of substance which stands in the light — whether it's a tree or an idea — also casts a shadow. And that which stands in the darkness is outside of our awareness.
As Jung saw it, the shadow operated at several levels. First, there is the part of the mind that is outside of our awareness. He called this the personal unconscious or personal shadow. That is the conditioned part of us that we acquire from our experiences in our childhood when that which is unacceptable, as determined by the adults around us, is cast into shadow. It may be sadness or sexual curiosity. Or it may be our creative dreams and desires. That's personal shadow. But there is another level as well. Jung also talked about the "collective unconscious" or the "archetypal shadow."
London: What are some of the most common manifestations of the personal shadow?
Zweig: The personal shadow is that part of us that erupts spontaneously and unexpectedly when we do something self-destructive, or something that is hurtful to someone else. Afterwards, we know it's been around because we feel humiliated, ashamed, and guilty.
For example, one of my patients — a young woman in her 20s — has had a series of brief relationships in which she very quickly has unprotected sex with men she does not know. She feels so devastated afterwards, filled with shock and self-hatred. She says, "How could I? I thought I saw this the last time. I thought I'd never do it again. I thought I really understood why I was doing it, and that it would never happen again. And here I am. I can't believe it." This is her shadow — her sexual shadow is acting out in ways that are bringing her terrible pain and grief.
I would say the personal shadow is that part of us that feels like it can't be tamed, can't be controlled. For instance, many parents who struggle with their children with impulses of rage that rise up, and they yell, or maybe even hit the child. Then, afterwards, they say to themselves, "Oh, my God, I can't believe I did that. Who am I?" That's the shadow.
London: There have been a spate of books and conferences about the shadow in recent years. Why do you think this subject has become so popular now?
Zweig: In some ways our collective denial has broken down. I think that has been happening gradually since the 1960s. We've lost faith in politicians. We watch them enact their own shadows in the headlines everyday. And we have lost faith, to some extent, in celebrity heroes because we read about their failings and double-lives everyday in the news. I also think that a lot of people in the New Age or counter-culture — people who have been really involved in spirituality and Eastern philosophy — have had experiences in which either their teachers or their communities broke their hearts in some way.
And on a larger scale, there are so many topics that were in the cultural shadow which are now out in the light. For example, domestic violence, childhood sexual abuse, alcoholism in epidemic proportions. These are topics that would not have been commonly spoken about 20 years ago and are now understood by everyone.
LSD culture in America is fraught with paradox- truly a double edged sword.
I'm thinking that his intended audience looks more like "white hippies using psychedelics recreationally" but if he were trying to disabuse traditional native people of their beliefs, I agree- that would be extremely problematic.undead wrote: Many native people would consider Mr. Kent's analysis arrogant or even racist, as he uses the white man's abuse of the substances as evidence that the traditional interpretation of the experience is wrong. When he says that there is no evidence of a spirit world, he completely negates the countless generations of native people who have used these substances over thousands of years, and for many people these surviving cultures are stronger evidence than the non-explanations western science has to offer
In the case of white hippies using psychedelics recreationally, I think he is right on the money...
As far as the thesis in the above article I will only say that when it comes to this subject, the lack of human knowledge is almost 100%, so to say that something must not exist simply because it doesn't show up on scientific instruments is pure hubris.
undead wrote:I think that not taking oneself too seriously and being honest with oneself is the best policy for psychedelic experiences. That is what . I always tell people when they are having a difficult trip or perpetually looking for something - just be honest with yourself about yourself, because yourself is the only thing that you will find, and understanding that this is the ultimate goal makes getting there a lot easier.
For example, one person I know once had a problematic relationship with LSD. He would take it too frequently and in too high doses. Eventually he lost control of himself, became disconnected from reality, and had to go to the psychiatric hospital (willingly) to get sorted out. One of the examples of his craziness that he cites is that he "thought that he was the one sent by God to save the world". Now, this is a feeling that practically everyone who takes a psychedelic will feel at least for a moment during the experience. This is also a feeling that motivates a lot of very normal people to do good things.
I would suggest that this is one of the best parts of the psychedelic experience, allowing people to feel this feeling. One only needs to keep in mind that they are not the only one. In fact, it is them and everyone else on the planet. So you have the difference here between "I am inspired to do something to help the world" vs. "I am the one and only person sent by God to make the world right." It is not surprising that the latter notion would drive people insane, given the pressure and responsibility involved as the one person who will save the entire world. Also, realizing that God is only your higher consciousness and not a white guy with a beard who lives in the sky makes it easier to understand this feeling, and the lack of a person to explain this is often the cause of insane trips off the deep end like the one I referred to.
So don't take yourself too seriously. Also, be honest about what you are doing and why you are doing it. Being honest with yourself can sometimes mean confronting past trauma, and this is often a cause of bad trips. Being honest with yourself also means not making up self absorbed fantasies to make the experience seem more glamorous and real than it is. Most people who have intense contact experiences on psychedelics will not speak on it lightly, at least not to unexperienced folk, because you tend to understand to futility of using words to describe them. Taking things literally is never a good idea when you are discussing subtle phenomena that have no normal words to describe them.
Generally it is good practice to take the most humble and serious stance that you can toward the psychedelic experience. I mean taking the experience seriously, not taking yourself seriously, because approaching a psychedelic experience in a serious way will usually lead to taking your self (ego) less seriously.
An article on how the psychedelic spirit world doesn't exist is kind of pointless. Nobody is in a position to say with absolute authority what is a sane and correct psychedelic experience, really. Definitely not western scientists. Not traditional native practitioners either, although many suspect (including myself) that they are much closer to the truth. It helps to keep in mind that the map is not the territory, and that words will never exactly convey reality. Therefore if a word is useful it can be used to communicate something, provided that it is used in a flexible way.
James Kent uses advanced words and concepts to describe psychedelic experiences and so if everyone reads his book, then we can evolve from spirit worshiping apes into self-neuroprogramming demigods. This is generally what I am trying to push for with actual psychedelic sessions, for myself and others. Most people on earth right now are trying to evolve to something beyond living-dead zombie serfdom so nature spirit worshiping with psychedelics is usually a step or two up from that. Most people on Earth are not intelligent enough to understand neuroscience anyway, so their trips are bound to be inhabited by all kinds of unscientific entities.
If I had the time to do some serious reading on psychology I would start with James Kent and also John C. Lily.
American Dream wrote:So one reasonable stance could be towards being agnostic on these matters- maybe embracing the metaphor without believing too literally in the ideas.
undead wrote:I think that not taking oneself too seriously and being honest with oneself is the best policy for psychedelic experiences. That is what . I always tell people when they are having a difficult trip or perpetually looking for something - just be honest with yourself about yourself, because yourself is the only thing that you will find, and understanding that this is the ultimate goal makes getting there a lot easier.
For example, one person I know once had a problematic relationship with LSD. He would take it too frequently and in too high doses. Eventually he lost control of himself, became disconnected from reality, and had to go to the psychiatric hospital (willingly) to get sorted out. One of the examples of his craziness that he cites is that he "thought that he was the one sent by God to save the world". Now, this is a feeling that practically everyone who takes a psychedelic will feel at least for a moment during the experience. This is also a feeling that motivates a lot of very normal people to do good things.
I would suggest that this is one of the best parts of the psychedelic experience, allowing people to feel this feeling. One only needs to keep in mind that they are not the only one. In fact, it is them and everyone else on the planet. So you have the difference here between "I am inspired to do something to help the world" vs. "I am the one and only person sent by God to make the world right." It is not surprising that the latter notion would drive people insane, given the pressure and responsibility involved as the one person who will save the entire world. Also, realizing that God is only your higher consciousness and not a white guy with a beard who lives in the sky makes it easier to understand this feeling, and the lack of a person to explain this is often the cause of insane trips off the deep end like the one I referred to.
So don't take yourself too seriously. Also, be honest about what you are doing and why you are doing it. Being honest with yourself can sometimes mean confronting past trauma, and this is often a cause of bad trips. Being honest with yourself also means not making up self absorbed fantasies to make the experience seem more glamorous and real than it is. Most people who have intense contact experiences on psychedelics will not speak on it lightly, at least not to unexperienced folk, because you tend to understand to futility of using words to describe them. Taking things literally is never a good idea when you are discussing subtle phenomena that have no normal words to describe them.
Generally it is good practice to take the most humble and serious stance that you can toward the psychedelic experience. I mean taking the experience seriously, not taking yourself seriously, because approaching a psychedelic experience in a serious way will usually lead to taking your self (ego) less seriously.
An article on how the psychedelic spirit world doesn't exist is kind of pointless. Nobody is in a position to say with absolute authority what is a sane and correct psychedelic experience, really. Definitely not western scientists. Not traditional native practitioners either, although many suspect (including myself) that they are much closer to the truth. It helps to keep in mind that the map is not the territory, and that words will never exactly convey reality. Therefore if a word is useful it can be used to communicate something, provided that it is used in a flexible way.
James Kent uses advanced words and concepts to describe psychedelic experiences and so if everyone reads his book, then we can evolve from spirit worshiping apes into self-neuroprogramming demigods. This is generally what I am trying to push for with actual psychedelic sessions, for myself and others. Most people on earth right now are trying to evolve to something beyond living-dead zombie serfdom so nature spirit worshiping with psychedelics is usually a step or two up from that. Most people on Earth are not intelligent enough to understand neuroscience anyway, so their trips are bound to be inhabited by all kinds of unscientific entities.
If I had the time to do some serious reading on psychology I would start with James Kent and also John C. Lily.
Return to Data & Research Compilations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests