Collective Unconscious and ASOIAF

What does /pol think of A Song of Ice and Fire.

Like it or hate it, it has had an undeniable cultural impact that seems to transcend peoples differences.

I'm currently studying Jung, who theorized that significant works of art and literature were expressions of the collective unconscious.

It has me thinking about what this, as well as many other major pieces of literature say about our current culture, and what themes may be communicated therein.

There are certainly intimations of the hero's journey myth throughout. But also the odd concepts of the noble savage, vengeful nature, the corrupt state, the revolutionary and religious zealot, and some of these seem to contradict the human endeavor that is necessary for a literary structure to have any level of universality.

Maybe this convo is better for /lit, but I'm really trying to make an examination from a cultural and sociopolitical perspective, that might be explored here, than the mushheads who are busy wanking off to Harry Potter.

Just thinking out loud anyway.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CyB3BxGrUvU
studiocleo.com/librarie/jung/essay.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

masochistic wank fantasy that would have no mass appeal if it wasn't made into a TV show

I think it is one of the biggest family red pills to date

Fair point about the mass appeal, but the underlying narrative structure is still there.

While the novelization is certainly far deeper, the fact of the matter is that the general public often can only consume low resolution interpretations of deeper works anyway.

can you elaborate on this?

your positions seems to be it's poignant because it contains archetypes but everything is archetypal so I'm not sure what to make of this

family genetic lines matter.

You're doing this for a paper, aren't you?

The pill is that your family isn't a bunch of asylum escapees and zealots you took it for, it's exactly like every other family.

Ah so loyalty to the Nuclear structure? Though I'd say that the shared narrative within the family unit is more important within the text as a whole than genetics.

I think specific traits appearing as superhuman feats that individuals of certain bloodlines possess is possibly more a literary hyperbole meant to communicate the heroic principles of the individual.

Theirs a level beyond quantum physics that we don't have the magnifications or equipment to fathom. I call it quantum2. In this domain the fabric of reality is all connected and relevant to each other in a non linear deterministic way instead of being linearly deterministic. The collective unconscious is alluding towards the quantum2, non linear psychic link we have with one another.

Nah, it was more just a thought that crossed my mind, while ruminating on a chapter of modern man in search of a soul.

>fat man writing about girls shitting
>expressing the collective unconscious

Pick one. If you want a myth that does it right look at Tolkien. The idiot who wrote game of thrones took at the wrong lessons and created a mess

Well that would be an objective theory about the matter, but not necessarily a true one. Narrative myth is manifested and understood not only across generations but in the moment as well. Nietzsche touched on this as well.

I've read Tolkien as well and I agree that as far as grand Myth goes it sets the bar much higher. I'm more wondering what the pervasiveness of this series in the here and now says about the culture.

Besides, even Tolkien's work is endemic to the time in which it was written.

That people are desperate for meaning. What is interesting about the TV version is how it quickly it has turned into typical fantasy tropes, which the fat man says he explicitly dislikes. The creators of the tv series are just responding to what people really want deep down. I am reminded of when Bowden speaks of how fascists elements are present in the stories of the common man because they are both powerful and because the elite look down on this type of entertainment.

Now I think you're touching on something. The collapse of the objective ethic in the Nietzschian sense.

I think this is also the underlying reason that The Last Jedi saw such a downward trend in sales after the first week.

I read all the books before the second season was released.

It opens people up to understanding tactics and false flags and CIA fuckery.

Now everyone knows the whole war was a lie and Lyanna consented to Rhaegars marriage.

Its a decent allegory in many ways... Just because there is brutality and degeneracy of certain charachters does not mean we are to hold those charachters in high regard.

Ned living his whole life after the war as a lie lead to his legacy to fall apart. He could have told the truth to Robert when he learned of his nephew but he was afraid to have to fight his friend who can not be reasoned with.

The show totally fucks the books over hardcore

What really hooked me on the series originally was the family drama and realistic characters. The influx of hero's journey trash as AGoT got more popular speaks more about the power of money and market research than about either the characters or the audience.

The Last Jedi was pure subversion of the hero archetype and the attempt to replace a classic European sense of morality with some sith/kike like morality as demonstrated by Ray. It is an evil movie down to its core and people reacted to that even if they don't know why. Although I am sure the kikes love to destroy our heros. It will be ok we will just have to fashion new ones

AGoT? More like "A Game of Titties, Rapes and Incest."

Great analysis of the subversion of the Archetypal themes in the Last Jedi

youtube.com/watch?v=CyB3BxGrUvU

I will agree with you on the family drama, it is a big draw, and there is nothing wrong with that. I would go so far as to say that with the destruction of the family people are desperate for that feeling even if it is backstabbing monarchs in a pretend war of the roses.

This is an interesting point, there's also pieces of subnarative dealing with redemption (see the Lannister brothers)

Interesting that the story itself also contains its own mythology that is often mirrored in the events that occur within the over narrative.

I could see the argument being made both ways. If the audience didn't value that then they wouldn't spend their money or glue their eyes to it.
But maybe that's just my pragmatism showing.

Ned promised his sister. And he knew that respecting that promise was the most important thing to do. Even tho it tarnished his name. Based Ned cares for white sister.

Jon is Azor Ahai and will stab dany with blade in order to bring forth lightbringer and defeat the night king. Jon with ride rheagal the dragon.

Well in that case I think Freud would have something quite valid to say to that.

How bored are you, Carmine?

I know that this isn't Preston; this place is way too far to the right for him. Tbf reddit probably is, too.

its hilarious how you virgins try to adopt great minds of the past who would have nothing to do with you losers.
you aren't a hero.
you are the bad guys.
you are the evil in this world.
greed and ego are not virtues.
if you want to do a noble act, kill yourself for the good of the world.

>tfw they will kill off remaining 2 dragons next season to save on cgi and fully establish Daenarys as strong woman who dont need no man or dragons

Agreed, and that's why I wonder if works like ASOIAF is a sort of uncoscious response to this.

Marxism cannot function in a world of heroism which embodies the shared objective ethic.

Jon's speech about telling the truth in the final episode of the latest season had an interesting intimation of this ethic. Gross aunt sex aside I don't think the case can be made that he's not portrayed as noble.

Nietzsche does have an objective ethic, that of improvement. If something collapsed it was never objective, just one small step towards something better. Nietzche recognized that modernity and technology were changing human nature. We have no idea what the new man is going to consider valuable or ethical. I hope that means the new man is going be an improvement on the original, and not something like a lich leading a bunch of zombies.
You can see the invading swarm in GoT as the onset of modernity and the destruction of traditional values and social order, without guarantee of something new and better coming out of it. The only difference is, leaders in GoT are painfully aware of climate change and how it affects society.

Brilliant contribution there, sonny.

Did you know that if you ask people a question like "What colour would a hole in time and space be?" (you might have to explain what that means in more detail), they will overwhelmingly and cross-culturally answer 'blue'. Even if they''ve never encountered sci-fi in their lives (try it, it works).

You'll also notice that most sci-fi uses blue at least for some of its FTL visuals.
- The stargates
- The Time Portal from Star Trek TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever
- Star Wars's hyperspace
- The 'inbound to real space' jump points from Babylon 5
- The Bajoran Wormhole from DS9.
- The colours of the warp nacelles in most ST series
- Slipstream from Andromeda
- There will be others.


And the really weird thing? An actual 'hole in space-time' (wormhole, Fry hole, whatever) would radiate Cherenkov radiation. Which is. You guessed it. Fucking blue in the visible spectrum.

t.very confused atheist

This.

GRRM is redpilled on Hollow earth Agartha and Ancient blood lines -Rh- Targaryens and Remote viewing - Warging


On race however he is blindfolded

Interesting if true, would need to do some independent research. Have to kinda wonder if there's an evolutionary basis, for the predisposition.

Even if so, doesn't quite answer the Cherenkov Radiation bit, but that's still HIGHLY theoretical.

Did they only interview cultures that have come in contact with pop culture? Because scifi works copy lots from each other intentionally and unintentionally, ''it just feels right''. I don't think some native shitskin could even imagine a hole in spacetime. The vastness of space brings to mind the vast seas.

I'm open to crackhead theories, but things are easier to come in terms with if we go with conservative approach.

>Hollow Earth
Where is any reference made to the world being hollow in GRRM?

>Bloodlines
Bloodlines in ASOIAF are viewed exactly as historically. This is not a reference to your pet conspiracy.

-Rh-
Eh?

>Warging
Not remote viewing, Possessing another being. Standard folklore from across the world.

>Blind on race
1) It is impossible to know the author's IRL views on something like race from reading the books/watching the shows.
2) Read Worlds of Ice and Fire. References are made to 'hybrid' and 'variant' (my terms) 'races'. The tempraments and cultures of the peoples of the world world are clearly different. So whether GRRM believes in race realism or not, the works embrace it in some form.

I despise Jon Snow. Every time he gets himself in danger or has to pay for his immaturity and retardation, luck or fate intervenes and he gets a get out of jail free card. And the divine interventions get progressively more extreme as he steps on more and bigger toes.
In a twisted way it devalues characters like Cersei or the Kingslayer, who went through real loss and real suffering.

That said, I wouldn't mind expansion of the conversation into modern literature in the broader sense either.
I do just genuinely enjoy the series and think its probably the most clearly deep and complex in its narrative while also having a broad appeal.

That's the thing. Even if you limit yourself to interviewing old people and non english speakers, everyone's got a tv and had probably had one for a while.

I don't really object to Jungs theories, however i think you are slighlty over stretching Jungs theories. An archetype for all of humanity or all of the animal kingdom would be much more vague and general. Take for example the universal expressions of humans like laughing or anger, it's there but it's contextualised very different and sometimes almost means the opposite in some instances.
>ice and fier
It's a fairly mediocre song and even rather bad if compared to the classics like Bach, Mozart or Haydn.

agreed. kingslayer is a far more nobel character simply due to his real suffering for his real actions which he undertook for his real principles. Jon lucks out of everything (including death) despite his sufferings being just deserts for his actions.

I'm starting to suspect you're a bot or using some sort of bot.
What's it like holding the hand of the one you love INTERLINKED??
INTERLINKED!

Try it yourselves. When I first heard about it, I was skeptical, and happened to be working in an office with a shitload of Africans and Indians/Pakistanis, a lot of whom I knew well enough to experiment on.

Most of them weren't sci-fi fans, and I've specifically asked White non sci-fi fans the question, too.

I'd say around 80% came back with blue. I seem to remember green and yellow also being popular.

Obviously not a rigorous study in any way, but food for thought.

>crackhead theories
Didn't mean to sound like a tinfoil hatter, just think that this is pretty interesting. It's like when Jordan Peterson talks about dragons being 'fire-breathing cat-snake-birds' that appear in almost very culture. Fire, cats, snakes, and birds were the main predators of our early tree-dwelling ancestors. Could be a total coincidence, but it's a cool thought either way.

Well I mean one could say that the theme communicated there is that noble faith begets divine intervention. However hamhandedly its communicated.
I think the show is more clumsy in this regard.

Jung would regard the artist as a vehicle for ideas, themes, concepts expressed metaphorically, so asking the author what he actually believes may not yield a proper interpretation from the psychological standpoint.

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

ACTION:
TERMINATE!!!

kek

Well the Archetype is more like the the underlying concept expressed symbolically. The concept stays the same, but the symbols can evolve.

At least from my understanding.

You should give the following essay by Jung a read. It is about poetry but it could be applied to any artist endeavor.
>That is the secret of great art, and of its effect upon us. The creative process, so far as we are able to follow it at all, consists in the unconscious activation of an archetypal image, and in elaborating and shaping this image into the finished work. By giving it shape, the artist translates it into the language of the present, and so makes it possible for us to find our way back to the deepest springs of life. Therein lies the social significance of art: it is constantly at work educating the spirit of the age, conjuring up the forms in which the age is most lacking. The unsatisfied yearning of the artist reaches back to the primordial image in the unconscious which is best fitted to compensate the inadequacy and one-sidedness of the present. The artist seizes on this image, and in raising it from deepest unconsciousness he brings it into relation with conscious values, thereby transforming it until it can be accepted by the minds of his contemporaries according to their powers.
studiocleo.com/librarie/jung/essay.html

>Cersei
>went through real loss and real suffering.
Everything that's happened to her was her own doing.

Well I always though a hole was utterly black, since no light can escape from within the radius. Well technically there's two jets on the poles you can use for navigation or ranging, but those aren't visible light.

>studiocleo.com/librarie/jung/essay.html

Thanks for that user. I'll be sure to take a look when I can. Jung generally tends to the poets first and then the writers anyway, from what I've seen.

Dragons are literally a metaphor for empires and their authority.

Just like griffon are the western equivalent (Front of a eagle = courageous, bold and ready to strike from highfar and lion =nobility, respect and authority) while Unicorn are actually a metaphor for Casanovas who would take naive girls from their hovel only to dispose of them after they had their fun, Basilisk a metaphor for Machiavellian conspiracies that were kind of the norm for royalty back then (if your eyes cross one another then it know you saw ''it'', which is pretty much a mark of death upon you and the ''odor'' of a weasel (sneaky bastard you can't ever put your hand on) scare them because they know it mean a weaselly fellow is in his den and could force the beast into the light for all to see), etc etc.

Its sad to see how fiction and fantasy has become a childish playground as of late, for the crushing majority of the original versions were far more truthful and serious while albeit being a bit crude, but still would be for the best since you can't warn someone against danger with niceties.

So much truth hidden right under our noses. And just look who is to blame for this absurd and childish depiction of these old tales, who is the one that point them in a derogatory light and you'll find familiar names.