The trickster god archetype in this political season.

So, some caveats before I post this.

• The blog post in question has a definite anti-Trump slant. For the record, I'm not voting for either candidate. My interest is more in the overall dynamics proposed than in focusing on any single candidate.
  
• Jung, like Freud, is considered quite outdated and inaccurate in modern psychiatry, and that should always be taken into account. However, some credence is still given to the concept of primal archetypes, as we still know comparatively little about the unconscious mind. So in that limited context, I think his work can still have some potential value, albeit on an extremely speculative level.
  
• Jung also has a questionable moral past, allegations regarding which are readily available online. However, I'm focusing here on a very specific premise posited by him that is still regarded as having some speculative value.
  
• I'm not endorsing this view, or asserting its veracity. I just find it extremely interesting, especially the postulated historical precedent re: Allen Dulles & Jung.
  
• Although not immediately clear from the text, bear in mind that the author is not talking about a literal god or entity, but rather a conceptual dynamic or motif - an archetype - emerging (in the literal sense of emergent behavior) from the collective unconscious of our society that is revealing itself most prominently currently in this unprecedented political season.
  
• Note also, that the author does take pains to point out other beliefs popular at the time that we would now treat with scorn and skepticism, which would be kept in mind when considering anything derived from Jung. For instance:
  

  
  
  The idea of a national characteristic, for instance, now strikes us as ridiculous and offensive.

  
  and
  

  
  Jung and his rival, Sigmund Freud, are now read as so antiquated that many have written them off as worthless. Certainly their sexist assumptions belong in the reject pile of intellectual history, along with some other remnants of quasi-mystical psychiatric guesswork.

  
  
  thebaffler.com...
  

So with that out of the way...

I came across an interesting (albeit not authoritative and extremely opinion based, hence the above caveats) and in my opinion well articulated blog post positing the somewhat insane sounding notion that the present political upheaval and unusual-ness may in fact be a manifestation of the Trickster god archetype. Specifically, in the facet of Loki. Some excerpts are included herein, but I recommend reading all of it for the full context. thebaffler.com...

The strangeness of the moment exceeds the descriptive capacity of what passes for civil discourse. Even the people who are right on the particulars are wrong on the whole. What’s worse, any attempt to explain Trump’s popular ascent is doomed because these events cannot be explained in the empirical fashion to which modern people are accustomed. The election is nothing less than a psychogenic storm. As such it can only be discussed in metaphysical terms that sober, prudent, smartphone-having people are unwilling to countenance.

...

The key to understanding this election cycle—and its energetic locus, Trump—is to accept that we are not dealing with an ordinary man, bound by the rules of decorum and the presupposition of coherence. I have another idea. I propose that Donald Trump is the personification of a Norse god named Loki.

thebaffler.com...

The author concedes - as I do - that this sounds absurd:

Bear with me. I know this may seem implausible. It is not very often that a thousand-year-old deity manifests in a foreign country in order to wreak havoc on an electoral contest, slaying taboos and causing spasms of cathartic rapture among his worshippers while sowing trepidation throughout the remainder of human civilization. Yet there is historical precedent for this line of thought.

thebaffler.com...

However, they go on to suggest that this may not be unprecedented. (And again here, I am nor endorsing comparisons to the historical example offered, mind you. My interest, rather, lies in the fact that such a historical precedent might exist at all, and the seriousness with which someone like Dulles considered it):

In the early 1940s, no less an authoritative figure than Allen Dulles, America’s chief wartime intelligence operative in Switzerland, recruited the famed psychoanalyst Carl Jung as “Agent 488.” Dulles, who a decade later became the first civilian director of the Central Intelligence Agency and was one of the architects of twentieth-century American hegemony, wanted Jung’s insights on the psyche of Adolf Hitler and the top Nazi cadre, as well as the German public that was believed to have been somehow mesmerized. According to biographers, Dulles passed Jung’s reports on to other top-level military commanders, including Dwight Eisenhower. “Nobody will probably ever know how much Prof. Jung contributed to the Allied cause during the war,” Dulles later wrote.

thebaffler.com...

That's a fairly significant endorsement in context, and Jung's thinking can be found in the paper about the particular Germanic god archetype he ascribed to Hitler, Wotan.

(Continued in next post...)

(Concluding from above...)

And while acknowledging the outmoded flaws of Jung's thinking, the author goes on to stress that, at least as a non-literal, conceptual way of considering mass behavior and conflict in a society, this might not be quite as crazy as it initially sounds:

...we should not dismiss their insights regarding the power of the unconscious mind. This is the vital lesson. It is a lesson that may have been lost on several generations of journalists, economists and public policymakers, but the mysterious alchemy of the unconscious mind remains fundamental to the one profession that is indispensable to the American political process: advertising.

thebaffler.com...

... before going on to offer a good example of how ritual, story, and pageantry still exact a powerful persuasive effect on the human psyche, both conscious and unconscious (something both parties have become increasingly adept at in my view): How To Win An Election

Why Loki? Why the Trickster?

...Trump’s stump speeches do not call to mind “storm and frenzy.” Trump is no Wotan, no berserker—he is a wisecracker, adept in the cool medium of television. He represents an entirely different Jungian archetype—namely, the pan-cultural mythological figure of “the trickster,” who arrives at moments of uncertainty to bring change...

The author then also posits that the character of the Trickster may in fact be quintessentially American, even if we have become accustomed to its absence due to relative peace and tranquility since WW2:

The trickster god has visited this young nation before, in the person of P.T. Barnum and in the character of Tom Sawyer. Even the foundational myth of George Washington and the cherry tree bears Loki’s mark.

thebaffler.com...

And so it goes.

Now, as stated, the blog post in question has a decidedly anti-Trump slant. However, personally I am more inclined to consider the possibility that while Trump - as certainly the largest disruptor and spanner in the established political works this election - may be, as the author puts it, the "energetic locus" (or if you prefer, the emotional focus by those on both the left and the right, whether positive or negative depending on your point of view,) he is only one part of the equation.

In other words, I don't see one dark and sinister manifestation of this archetype if indeed this is the case, but rather the entirety of our society psychically convulsing, and Trump's emergence - whether you believe it to be a good or a bad thing - simply being the inevitable consequence of that unconcious and concious, invisible and visible, internal and external, spasm.

And while I am skeptical of these sort of mass hysteria like shared psychodynamics to some extent, I also recognize that they are not necessarily quite as "woo" as they sound, and no magic or paranormal truths are necessary for such a scenario to be a realistic expression of human behavior and psychology, because of the nature of complex systems and emergent behavior.

Take the following fairly widely accepted truths and consider their implications for instance:

• We understand, relatively speaking, little about conciousness in general, and the unconcious mind in particular.
  
• Complex systems can and do give rise to emergent properties and behaviors which seem to be "more than the sum of their parts."
  
• Because we lack a complete and comprehensive understanding of how neurology and neurological function result in what we subjectively experience as conciousness, we use conceptual approximations - supported by research and statistics to the extent possible, but it's far from a perfect knowledge base - to stand in for some of those complex systems in trying to assess and understand psychology.
  

So while the particular angle from which Jung et al attacked the notion of archetypes might not be sound by today's standards, there's nothing that persuasively locks the door on the concept of archetypes, nor on complex dynamics arising from large populations of people in unexpected but systemic ways.

While I might regard the idea of our present political season being specifically a manifestation of the trickster as interesting yet questionable... I am open to the notion of "something like that" being involved, on some level, in what the author - in my opinion aptly - called a "psychogenic storm."

The author also points out that in many respects, elections are like rituals in the sense that there are roles played out, and intense emotional focus and shared intent by different groups. So the notion of something primal and fundamental being drawn out of people's collective psyches during situations like this doesn't sound entirely far fetched to me.

Anyhow, I just found it intriguing, and I thought some here might as well. Again, I'm not endorsing the theory, just sharing and discussing it.

Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04
This brings to mind something I remember reading about an increase in extropy, or novelty, in the reality we're in right now. Donald Trump running for president, people winning the lottery 2-3 times, strange coincidences and synchronicity everywhere. Extropy here being the opposite of entropy, in a philosophical sense.

a reply to: AceWombat04

Well-written.

Great OP!

Not to get all "woo" in my response but I have had a deep nagging feeling that there was something unusual in the undercurrents of all that is transpiring in this election. Everything from the election itself, to the Hillary criminal investigation mess, to Wikileaks, to the potential foreign "actors" involved in our process, etc.

In other words, I've felt that there was something below the surface of all of these things, most related - some not, that was contributing to or even driving things forward.

The notion of an unconscious archetype being involved is exactly what I've been searching for but couldn't quite crystallize my thoughts around.

I really need to look into this further as I think you've found something that very well may have some validity.

Again - terrific find and even better job of presenting the info.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

If referring to the author, I wholeheartedly agree. If you included me as well, thank-you!

a reply to: underwerks

Interesting, do you have any links to that? I'd love to read it.

a reply to: Riffrafter

By all means, "woo" away lol.

I have two sides to me. One is my objective side, where I'm careful to delineate between assertions and mere beliefs, known empirical facts and mere feelings. As such, when straying into the latter, I try to carefully use those words (beliefs, feelings, "in my opinion" etc.) And the rest of the time I try to take great pains to present things as skeptically as I can.

But on a personal level, I absolutely have my beliefs, suspicions, and inklings. And you are far from alone in that sense. I definitely have felt the same things. I just can't assert what that means for anyone else.

Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04

I've posted in my personal blog about related topics recently. If you haven't read
them, they might be interesting to you. (maybe 'Who Infected Whom First").

I wish that i was better with the topic of the "archetypical unconscious mind"..
I don't have it all figured out. So i love these topics.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Will check your blog out. Thank-you.

Peace

We've seen a dramatic increase in television ratings and primary elections involving Mr. Trump. This is an indicator that he has awakened a political fervor in a huge portion of our country that had been dormant for several decades.

You are on to something saying the trickster is quintessentially American, and Trump being the trickster god. Americans certainly are known for showing up in other peoples' countries in moments of uncertainty in order to bring change, often the bad kind. First thing that comes to mind is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Vietnam, etc. However, it's not entirely fair to call Trump a trickster god, as that has an inherently negative connotation. I have another suggestion.

I don't think we have to go back 1000 years to find a suitable archetype. I think there is another more recent and American archetype that Trump fits, and it is that of the American cowboy. I think a huge population of the country subconsciously sees Trump as the reincarnation of the American cowboy. The American cowboy was glorified in the late 19th century, and then channeled by presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. This cowboy mentality represents that of unapologetic American superiority, self-sufficiency, and moral high ground.

The trickster and cowboy archetypes are similar, but the cowboy archetype is like a trickster archetype with a positive, American spin.

originally posted by: AceWombat04
bear in mind that the author is not talking about a literal god or entity, but rather a conceptual dynamic or motif - an archetype

Plato claimed that the world of ideals (thought/mind) is a deeper layer of reality than our material world. From what I gathered, he believed that the material world was like a shadow being cast by this higher level of reality. These deeper layers of reality manifest on the material plane and I think there is a degree of truth to the assertions presented in the OP.

These higher dimensional forms in the realm of thought take vehicle in people who have chosen such thought-forms and manifest them through their behaviors. There is a temple awaiting those who choose the path of Love, Righteousness, and Truth... whereas those who allow destructive thoughts to occupy their vehicle are steered towards death.

a reply to: Wang Tang

That's the intriguing thing about archetypes. Although in theory shared, ostensibly universal, and therefore to some extent fixed, they are also very amorphous in terms of their facets. So while the trickster might be right on the money potentially, Loki might not be as congruently American a manifestation as the cowboy.

And even within that, there are different possible facets one could look at. Do we refer to the self-reliant outdoorsman and ranch hand in the literal sense? Or the more iconic, pop culture, swaggering gunslinger Hollywood has given us? For one, the emotional - and thus psychic - timbre would seem to me to be oneness with nature coupled with hope for progress, and an independent, strong capacity for survival and bounty. Whereas the other, at least to me, seems to carry a greater emphasis on the pageantry of shootouts, vengeance, and some degree of artifice given the fictionalized portrayal vs the reality.

a reply to: cooperton

That's very interesting, I've never seen Plato's Theory of Forms applied to something akin to Jungian archetypes, but I think that's a very astute parallel to draw.

It's always a bit of a question in my mind: are archetypes higher dimensional forms that actually exist? Or are the concepts in Plato's thinking simply a classical indication of psychological archetypes that Plato and others naturally intuited and placed within their own framework of understanding?

I'm not opposed to the former, and as I told Riffrafter, I've had inklings and "gut feelings" (which in my opinion are precisely the kinds of approximations we use when we're talking about the subconscious which we can't otherwise quantify) that something like that is at play. Of course, it might feel that way subjectively to me (us?) even if it were purely a collective emergent psychological dynamic at work, too.

I'm certainly not scornful or dismissive of it though. I have my own spiritual beliefs and am thus open to those of others, and would never say, "No, you can't believe that because X." I just try to walk the line between knowledge and belief carefully, hence the skepticism that seems inherent to my choices of words. But yes, I do think it's not unfathomable that there's something to that.

To both of you: this is the kind of discussion I hoped this topic might spur. (Not to diminish previous contributions.)

Peace.

a reply to: AceWombat04

This video:

www.youtube.com...

Is surprisingly on-topic.

There is a brave, new field forming right now.. basically "the information theory
of consciousness" and it is not particularly "substrate-based" (it's functionally
Platonic).

Some of the "occult scientists" who are poking at "ultimate reality" and "UFOs"
are working to develop this science. I'm not saying Tegmark is.. I don't know
him yet.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Now that's intriguing and exciting. Especially the substrate-independent element. It becomes sort of analogous to the question, "What is the medium in which the wave behavior of particles propagate?" And when you answer "space," that leads to, "what is space, though?" and from there if you subscribe to something like membranes you get to, "but what are the membranes comprised of?" etc. etc. But what he's saying is that the medium isn't as important necessarily for our purposes as the patterns and behaviors of the systems that emerge from substrates.

I think I can look at that in one of two ways.

1) Even something as seemingly ethereal as consciousness can be explained purely through a mathematical model of what is still a purely material reality. Or...

2) There could be something beyond our ability to ever quantify that is either an "ultimate/fundamental substrate" or a boundary of this reality beyond which we simply can't perceive (e.g. if it's membranes for instance, what's beyond our membrane? Since everything here is comprised of or emerging from that substrate, how can we ever peer beyond it when anything we'd use to do so is essentially consubstantial with it,) but that doesn't necessarily matter, because we have access through consciousness (and hopefully the quantification thereof, if possible someday) to something emerging from - yet to some extent independent of - that medium.

Now we're really getting into complex stuff that I think requires real academics to delve into. Of which I am definitely not one lol. I didn't graduate high school.

But as a layperson just speculating, I would say, intuitively, I would not be shocked if they were to develop a model of the emergent pattern that is consciousness, and find some sort of shared "patterns within the pattern" that could be accounted for by what we today call archetypes.

So, I do find that potentially relevant. Thanks.

Peace.

originally posted by: AceWombat04

Now we're really getting into complex stuff that I think requires real academics to delve into. Of which I am definitely not one lol. I didn't graduate high school.

You're probably better off - especially since it appears as though you read a lot on your own. It has taken a while for me to deprogram the layer of falsehood that is taught in schools and replace it with my own critical analysis of the empirical evidence.

It's always a bit of a question in my mind: are archetypes higher dimensional forms that actually exist? Or are the concepts in Plato's thinking simply a classical indication of psychological archetypes that Plato and others naturally intuited and placed within their own framework of understanding?

The idea of thoughts/words/consciousness being a deeper layer of reality is expressed in Judeo-Christian metaphysics - The Word of the Most High is considered to be the foundation of matter and the higher planes:

"The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35)

This is what many philosophers referred to as the Logos - The Reasonable Word. The very idea of Truth and Love incarnated in material form to teach the people how to assimilate into the higher realms of thought. This is the mystery of the Word becoming flesh.

Plato's Cave Allegory predicted this occurrence 300-400 years before it happened - which is a testament to what you said regarding the intuitive gut feeling of which is the basis of prophetic vision. Those who are companions of Truth will have inclinations of what is to come.

I look forward to where this thread is headed

originally posted by: AceWombat04

That's the intriguing thing about archetypes. Although in theory shared, ostensibly universal, and therefore to some extent fixed, they are also very amorphous in terms of their facets. So while the trickster might be right on the money potentially, Loki might not be as congruently American a manifestation as the cowboy.

And even within that, there are different possible facets one could look at. Do we refer to the self-reliant outdoorsman and ranch hand in the literal sense? Or the more iconic, pop culture, swaggering gunslinger Hollywood has given us? For one, the emotional - and thus psychic - timbre would seem to me to be oneness with nature coupled with hope for progress, and an independent, strong capacity for survival and bounty. Whereas the other, at least to me, seems to carry a greater emphasis on the pageantry of shootouts, vengeance, and some degree of artifice given the fictionalized portrayal vs the reality.

With Trump being a New York businessman, it's safe to say he is not literally a manifestation of the outdoor ranch hand cowboy archetype. However, it's fascinating to note that his popularity seems to be highest among these outdoors ranch hand types. It seems the Hollywood swaggering gunslinger cowboy and the cool ranch hand cowboy have somehow merged into a single American cowboy archetype. Watching his debates, it was impossible for me to ignore his similarity to a Hollywood gunslinger cowboy, firing zingers at nearby candidates with no regard for his own safety, and seemingly invincible to the attacks made on him. As you said, he has also demonstrated in his campaign "an independent, strong capacity for survival and bounty."

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: AceWombat04

Now we're really getting into complex stuff that I think requires real academics to delve into. Of which I am definitely not one lol. I didn't graduate high school.

You're probably better off - especially since it appears as though you read a lot on your own. It has taken a while for me to deprogram the layer of falsehood that is taught in schools and replace it with my own critical analysis of the empirical evidence.

It's always a bit of a question in my mind: are archetypes higher dimensional forms that actually exist? Or are the concepts in Plato's thinking simply a classical indication of psychological archetypes that Plato and others naturally intuited and placed within their own framework of understanding?

The idea of thoughts/words/consciousness being a deeper layer of reality is expressed in Judeo-Christian metaphysics - The Word of the Most High is considered to be the foundation of matter and the higher planes:

"The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35)

This is what many philosophers referred to as the Logos - The Reasonable Word. The very idea of Truth and Love incarnated in material form to teach the people how to assimilate into the higher realms of thought. This is the mystery of the Word becoming flesh.

I have always been keenly interested in the overlap of religions and spiritual beliefs related to things like this. The Word or Logos references have always fascinated me.

Here's another reference from the Bible:

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

originally posted by: Riffrafter

I have always been keenly interested in the overlap of religions and spiritual beliefs related to things like this. The Word or Logos references have always fascinated me.

Here's another reference from the Bible:

John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Yes good call. Consciousness is more fundamental to reality than is matter. Quantum physics indicates this is the case, and the big names of this field of science have some big things to say:

"And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom... we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter." -Max Planck

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." -Max Planck

In the Gospel of Thomas verse 29 Jesus also addresses this dichotomy of consciousness (spirit) and matter:

Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit, that is a marvel, but if spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels.

When you start thinking like this - consciousness/spirit as fundamental - you begin to pioneer the deeper facets of reality. You no longer study shadows, rather you study the light that creates the shadows. To relate this back to the OP, there exist forces that work through the elites of this world - they work through the subject's pride, greed, lust, etc.. and thereon are able to entice them into doing their bidding.

a reply to: cooperton

"And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom... we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter." -Max Planck

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." -Max Planck

I develop AI systems for a living. Not commercial stuff...

As a part of that experience, I received 2 grad degrees from Stanford courtesy of my client (SRI), in different areas of Quantum Physics.

The more we learn about the quantum model, and how the mind (not the biological brain) is a quantum device, the closer hard physics comes to smashing headlong into metaphysics.

We're close....really close.

Proof is elusive though..

And Max Planck is dead-on.

originally posted by: Riffrafter

The more we learn about the quantum model, and how the mind (not the biological brain) is a quantum device, the closer hard physics comes to smashing headlong into metaphysics.

We're close....really close.

Proof is elusive though..

And Max Planck is dead-on.

That's awesome. Considering your experience I may send you some direct messages about some questions of quantum physics. Here's an example I found regarding instant manifestation through belief, would this exemplify the quantum model? :

... a man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death...

The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.”

“Go,” Jesus replied, “your son will live.”

The man took Jesus at his word and departed. While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.”

Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.”


If Mind truly is fundamental in metaphysics, then belief/certainty itself can facilitate major changes in the system. In this case above, the boy was healed the moment the man believed Jesus's Word - a sort of quantum entanglement maybe? We all have this same potential, but we were raised in a system of programming that gave us limitations and doubt. How can the spirit of Truth be with anyone who is doubting?

a reply to: cooperton

There are numerous examples of quantum reality relating back to biblical or other religious stories.

That's awesome. Considering your experience I may send you some direct messages about some questions of quantum physics. Here's an example I found regarding instant manifestation through belief, would this exemplify the quantum model? :

... a man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death... The royal official said, “Sir, come down before my child dies.” “Go,” Jesus replied, “your son will live.” The man took Jesus at his word and departed. While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living. When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, “Yesterday, at one in the afternoon, the fever left him.”

Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.”

I can think of a few quantum theory explanations, but the one that comes to mind most quickly especially after the last sentence, would be quantum entanglement. It states there are particles in this universe that are quantumly connected and the instant something affects one of the particles it also instantly affects the other - regardless of distance. Even light years...

Off the top of my head here are a few things of a quantum nature that relate very much to this thread:

1 - The Observer effect

2 - Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

3 - Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment

4 - Collapsing states of probability into what becomes your reality. Closely related to the others above.

Google/Wiki are your friend for info on the above.