Archetypes in the evolution of the mammalian world mind

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Last night, I put a blanket around my shoulders and brought it up with my arms like a vampire while looking at me cat with big eyes. To my complete surprise, the little bugger actually shook and cowered! Very cute, sad and "awwww"-inspiring! She did not run away and hide under the bed as she normally does when she is afraid; no, instead she froze-- exactly what's SUPPOSED to happen with Dracula/vampires (mesmerism), which is what I was mocking/imitating. Is there an archetype in there somewhere? Weird.

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 14:20 (twenty years ago)

Hello-ooo! Cats and pseudoscience here! Hello-ooo! And my email is [email protected]. Come and get it!

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 14:26 (twenty years ago)

You are mixing your Jungianism and your Dawkinsism and I want no part of it!

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 14:28 (twenty years ago)

Where did instinct come from, if not the genetic memory, evoluted from billion year old pond scum? Tell me that, why don't you?

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 14:33 (twenty years ago)

"Archetype" is a psychological term, derived from Jung. He believed in a collective unconscious. Which is a far cry from Dawkinsian genetically programmed instincts.

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 14:40 (twenty years ago)

But wait, why isn't the collective unconscious another term for genetic memory? Isn't it possible that we invented Dracula because we were once cats who had been scared by a man with a blanket around his shoulders?

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 14:42 (twenty years ago)

No, collective unconscious was some kind of quasi-mystical collective unconscious. Which was supplanted/explained away after the discovery of genetics and DNA.

If cats are scared by large things with bat-like wings, then clearly it's because it is a genetic mamalian memory of GIANT PREDATORY FLYING DINOSAURS.

Get your silly theories straight!

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 14:44 (twenty years ago)

Oh please! You can't just "explain away" something like a"quasi-mystical collective unconscious." If you could, it wouldn't be quasi-mystical!

And isn't it POSSIBLE that Dracula was once a dinosaur?

But, seriously, isn't genetic memory actually a collective unconscious? I mean, it's collected and it's unconscious. It's kind of quasi-mystical any way you look at it, isn't it? I mean, memory of visual impressions, sounds and experiences in general actually stored in dna? A tiny little thing like dna? There's no brain in dna! Also, can someone explain to me how da brain works, please?

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 14:51 (twenty years ago)

http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary-store/Components/639/63983_1.jpg

ARRRRRRRRRRR!!!

Behaviour can certainly be stored in DNA. I mean, on a basic level, thinking is just a collection of neurotransmitters in the brain. Humans like to think that, because we've achieved consciousness, that there's something magical in the process. Memory is a selection of electrical impulses coded in various bits of chemicals.

So you couldn't have "thinking" per se, but you could definitely have some kind of reflex (the r-r-r-reflex, is a motor arc, coming from the spine... the r-r-r-reflex, doesn't need to go anywhere near the brain...) such as "hide if something of this shape flies over you!" could very much be encoded in DNA that produces a series of instructions that produce that behaviour.

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 14:55 (twenty years ago)

Humans like to think that, because we've achieved consciousness, that there's something magical in the process

Amazing! So genetic memory really IS a collective unconscious! Thank you for clarifying this for me.

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 14:57 (twenty years ago)

It's not collective unconscious! Unconscious is a psychological, Freudian term, not an actual scientifc entity!

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 14:59 (twenty years ago)

But you just used the term. Was that a Freudian slip?

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 15:01 (twenty years ago)

Also: science has not proven unconsciousness yet? What a piece of shit science is! I knocked myself out on New Year's.

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 15:02 (twenty years ago)

Power Dynamics and Creative Archetypes within bands (was Radiohead vs. Beatles)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 17 March 2006 15:05 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, I have now checked, and the proper term is SUBCONSCIOUS. Not unconscious.

Jung believed in a collective SUBconscious. There is, scientifically, no such thing as a subconscious.

And now my BRANE has imploded into a calabai-yau knot.

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 15:15 (twenty years ago)

You have checked wrongly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

It's "unconscious!"

Egads! What now?!

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 15:20 (twenty years ago)

http://ilx.wh3rd.net/newanswers.php?board=21

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 15:42 (twenty years ago)

You big buttknobs: the cat was probably just reacting to the fact that a nearby creature suddenly got "bigger."

See also: those lizards with the fanned-out throats.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 17 March 2006 16:12 (twenty years ago)

So dull and literal, ruining our fun. :-(

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 16:14 (twenty years ago)

wrapped blanket around self

the popular image of the character "dracula" is often seen with a cape, or "blanket" wrapped around him

getting in the kitty's face like this seemingly frightened the cat though not enough to make it run off

THEREFORE:

cats have been programmed to recognize and fear the popular image of the character "dracula"

it's science fact, people.

― andrew m. (andrewmorgan), Friday, 17 March 2006 16:21 (twenty years ago)

Other theories:

- Cat watches too much TV
- Cat remembers what happened last time dude dressed up as Dracula and made his girlfriend pretend to be Mina
- Thread-starter is actually James Howe, author of Bunnicula

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 17 March 2006 16:29 (twenty years ago)

PHEAR BUNNICULA

http://www.puppetkit.com/images/Bunnicula%207.jpg

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 17 March 2006 16:31 (twenty years ago)

Another theory:
SJG was naked under that blanket.

― dr lulu (dr lulu), Friday, 17 March 2006 16:32 (twenty years ago)

My theory: Cat just playing along so as not to hurt owner's feelings

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Friday, 17 March 2006 16:34 (twenty years ago)

Hahahahah! Last theory = best (and cutest!)

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 16:53 (twenty years ago)

can we keep kate & nude spock trapped in this thread & shoot it into the sun?

― ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Friday, 17 March 2006 16:58 (twenty years ago)

http://www.fanzing.com/images/imgs19/jorel.jpg

― ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Friday, 17 March 2006 16:59 (twenty years ago)

Jésus Christos, Commaboy! Stop trying to thwart everyone's fun. I guess you're a supervillain, not the vigilante hero you imagine yourself to be.

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 17:04 (twenty years ago)

2nd Elder: Jor-El, be reasonable...
Jor-El: My friend, I've never been otherwise. This madness is yours.

― ,,,,,,,,,,,,, Friday, 17 March 2006 17:08 (twenty years ago)

'But I don’t want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can’t help that,' said the Cat. 'We’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.'
'How do you know I’m mad?' said Alice.
'You must be,” said the Cat. 'or you wouldn’t have come here.'

― Some Jung Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 17:13 (twenty years ago)

(pwned)

― Some Other Gi, Friday, 17 March 2006 17:18 (twenty years ago)

That was the funny.

― The Boring Machine (kate), Friday, 17 March 2006 17:22 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.