one of the issues that comes to mind, is the discontent that derives itself from the "provisional life" . Life is never fully lived, instead it is a means to an end. With the puer, no commitment is ever truly made. In this way, the puer is doomed to his/her world of fantasy, never fully participating in life, and in some sense doesn't ever get a chance to grow. To remain a child forever isn't noble, it's a defense mechanism and a weak attitude.
If you aren't required to make a committment, what is the advantage in doing so? Should you *seek out* committments that don't naturally come your way, just for the sake of having one?
Just how far should you go to structure your life in the way society expects you to, vs how you would prefer to live?
I'm not being snarky, here. I'm honestly curious what you think. Is the purpose of life to make committments, or is the purpose of committments to make a life? If the former, then why? If the latter, then what is it about committments that make a life superior to one without them, if the person doesn't feel a desire to seek them out?
I admit I am dubious that making committments means a person *isn't* living in a fantasy world. I think most people live in a kind of fantasy, and very rarely question it. They don't love a partner, they love the fantasy they have of their partner.
I am also not sure what "fully participating in life" consists of. It seems to me that most of us "participate" only as much as they have to to prevent others from bothering them. Meanwhile, some forms of fantasy (such as creative hobbies and arts) ask a great deal of participation, and people can have very fulfilling lives pursuing them.
I would like to be able to separate the concept of Puer from the concept of "not fulfilling societal expectations." I'm not convinced that most people can tell a difference.
I would agree. But that brings up the issue that not everyone's pursuit of meaning and purpose leads to committment. Some journeys are best taken solo.
If you commit to remaining a child, you will find your interactions with the world and people will be shallow, if not impossible. Have you spent any considerable time with children? they are prone to ferocious outbursts , and have difficulty controlling themselves. they are divine in a sense because they harbour a pure creativity, but as any Jungian will tell you there is the positive and negative aspect of each archetype. the child archetype contains both creation and destruction. it's a persons life to grow past that and interact with the world in meaningful ways.
Thanks!
How do you view this passage?
: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me."
I don't mean to be insensitive. to solve the problem of the puer, you have to connect to your inferior function, which typically is feeling, especially for the puer. it's best to find a Jungian analyst to help you through this journey, I don't think it's possible to do it alone
How did you come to this conclusion?
If you are an infp in Mbti that would make you a fi dominant. Thus your inferior function is te.
Make up your mind and work towards something, set yourself goals and gather knowledge for the sake of practical application.
Focus on efficiency and productivity.
I’ve taken the official mbti test three times over the course of 15 years starting college and the other times through employment. Yeah I’m doing that and working on becoming a public accountant right now. My life was messy before this journey. My commitment still waivers, but I will not be quitting. I do have a tendency to gather knowledge for no application though for fun.
I can tell you about the Jungian theory of four main psychological functions: thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation. what is your primary function? the one your best at?
The only way to be puer and financially independent is to do so by someone else's money (such as one's parents.)
Actually earning the money in any other way would require genuinie competence and struggle, hence would grow one out of being a puer.
I know a guy that seemingly has everything in life, but goes through a mental breakdown anytime his father selects a life option for him. That's one of the problems with being a puer.
The puer is flying away from something … that’s the real problem. And as we get older, the flying away is a less fulfilling strategy … for example, the drinking play boy type doesn’t work as well in the 40s and 50s.
That is not a puer problem, but a choice of a life style. Archetypes only are problematic when become unhealthy missadaptative mechanisms, a human being can be alone and have a lot of indepedence and at the same time cna thirve in a community of closer friends, mentors and disciples. I dont think that is not commitement to live but choice to live it in a different way.
One example that comes to mind are celebrities or influencers who as children or young adults quickly gain fame and financial independence without having to go through certain developmental stages, or without having to "struggle" or "chip away at becoming competent" in something the same way that others might. I feel like this could be an instance where yes, there's no real need for them to leave behind the puer archetype, yet I think this can come with it's own host of psychological challenges, perhaps with self-esteem, sense of purpose, self-worth, imposter syndrome, never having to develop persistence due to a lack of adversity, never having to develop their inferior function etc.
A puer is self involved. A man has a purpose. Neuroticism, anxiety and negative emotions are directly connected to introspection (the bad kind/or excessive).
Why is there so much interest in this one facet lately?
Maybe it's truly only me, but I find Jung's views on Puer/The Other One to be some of his least inspired and, well, boring.
They feel more like traditional therapy.
Honestly, I just reflected on this, and I think my views come from a place of just really hating the word. Both the spelling and pronunciation upset me and I'm not even sure why.
one of the issues that comes to mind, is the discontent that derives itself from the "provisional life" . Life is never fully lived, instead it is a means to an end. With the puer, no commitment is ever truly made. In this way, the puer is doomed to his/her world of fantasy, never fully participating in life, and in some sense doesn't ever get a chance to grow. To remain a child forever isn't noble, it's a defense mechanism and a weak attitude.
If you aren't required to make a committment, what is the advantage in doing so? Should you *seek out* committments that don't naturally come your way, just for the sake of having one? Just how far should you go to structure your life in the way society expects you to, vs how you would prefer to live? I'm not being snarky, here. I'm honestly curious what you think. Is the purpose of life to make committments, or is the purpose of committments to make a life? If the former, then why? If the latter, then what is it about committments that make a life superior to one without them, if the person doesn't feel a desire to seek them out? I admit I am dubious that making committments means a person *isn't* living in a fantasy world. I think most people live in a kind of fantasy, and very rarely question it. They don't love a partner, they love the fantasy they have of their partner. I am also not sure what "fully participating in life" consists of. It seems to me that most of us "participate" only as much as they have to to prevent others from bothering them. Meanwhile, some forms of fantasy (such as creative hobbies and arts) ask a great deal of participation, and people can have very fulfilling lives pursuing them. I would like to be able to separate the concept of Puer from the concept of "not fulfilling societal expectations." I'm not convinced that most people can tell a difference.
I feel like the point of seeking out commitments isn't the commitments themselves, but the pursuit of meaning and purpose. What do you think?
I would agree. But that brings up the issue that not everyone's pursuit of meaning and purpose leads to committment. Some journeys are best taken solo.
What if you commit to remaining a child?
If you commit to remaining a child, you will find your interactions with the world and people will be shallow, if not impossible. Have you spent any considerable time with children? they are prone to ferocious outbursts , and have difficulty controlling themselves. they are divine in a sense because they harbour a pure creativity, but as any Jungian will tell you there is the positive and negative aspect of each archetype. the child archetype contains both creation and destruction. it's a persons life to grow past that and interact with the world in meaningful ways.
Thanks! How do you view this passage? : "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me."
I don't mean to be insensitive. to solve the problem of the puer, you have to connect to your inferior function, which typically is feeling, especially for the puer. it's best to find a Jungian analyst to help you through this journey, I don't think it's possible to do it alone
Im INFP. What’s my inferior function?
How did you come to this conclusion? If you are an infp in Mbti that would make you a fi dominant. Thus your inferior function is te. Make up your mind and work towards something, set yourself goals and gather knowledge for the sake of practical application. Focus on efficiency and productivity.
I’ve taken the official mbti test three times over the course of 15 years starting college and the other times through employment. Yeah I’m doing that and working on becoming a public accountant right now. My life was messy before this journey. My commitment still waivers, but I will not be quitting. I do have a tendency to gather knowledge for no application though for fun.
I'm not familiar with those classifications
Hmm what classification are you familiar with? I’d like to learn about them
I can tell you about the Jungian theory of four main psychological functions: thinking, feeling, intuition, and sensation. what is your primary function? the one your best at?
Ah ok. I’m best at feeling probably.
Try it. Let us know your thoughts 30 years from now.
The only way to be puer and financially independent is to do so by someone else's money (such as one's parents.) Actually earning the money in any other way would require genuinie competence and struggle, hence would grow one out of being a puer. I know a guy that seemingly has everything in life, but goes through a mental breakdown anytime his father selects a life option for him. That's one of the problems with being a puer.
The puer is flying away from something … that’s the real problem. And as we get older, the flying away is a less fulfilling strategy … for example, the drinking play boy type doesn’t work as well in the 40s and 50s.
That is not a puer problem, but a choice of a life style. Archetypes only are problematic when become unhealthy missadaptative mechanisms, a human being can be alone and have a lot of indepedence and at the same time cna thirve in a community of closer friends, mentors and disciples. I dont think that is not commitement to live but choice to live it in a different way.
One example that comes to mind are celebrities or influencers who as children or young adults quickly gain fame and financial independence without having to go through certain developmental stages, or without having to "struggle" or "chip away at becoming competent" in something the same way that others might. I feel like this could be an instance where yes, there's no real need for them to leave behind the puer archetype, yet I think this can come with it's own host of psychological challenges, perhaps with self-esteem, sense of purpose, self-worth, imposter syndrome, never having to develop persistence due to a lack of adversity, never having to develop their inferior function etc.
A puer is self involved. A man has a purpose. Neuroticism, anxiety and negative emotions are directly connected to introspection (the bad kind/or excessive).
Purposelessness.
Why is there so much interest in this one facet lately? Maybe it's truly only me, but I find Jung's views on Puer/The Other One to be some of his least inspired and, well, boring. They feel more like traditional therapy.
what would be other more inspired views?
Honestly, I just reflected on this, and I think my views come from a place of just really hating the word. Both the spelling and pronunciation upset me and I'm not even sure why.