Carl Jung and Right in Two

[tangent]

"Today humanity, as never before, is split into two apparently irreconcilable halves.

The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate.

That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner contradictions, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposite halves."

- Carl G. Jung, 1959

So as we were once Jambi, we have become torn into opposite halves... I know it has probably been said, but I thought Jung put it quite well...

[ArizonaBay]

What was his description of these two irreconcilable halves? Sounds kinda Marx like to me.
Or is he talking about the inner conflict between the shadow and persona? Anima and animus? Anyone know?

[implandnoises]

What was his description of these two irreconcilable halves? Sounds kinda Marx like to me.
Or is he talking about the inner conflict between the shadow and persona? Anima and animus? Anyone know?
I don't really know what he is talking about, but here is my take on it:

We create conflict in our minds because of many things. It is often due to belief, which comes from fear, we believe something so that we feel secure. But true security does not exist, it is an illusion. This creates conflict, the belief in something that does not exist. Of course, as long as we believe it, we are not conscious of the conflict, yet we act it out in everything we do. We try to make the world fit this belief, this idea making us think we are in control. Hence, we divide the world. We are in conflict with it, with each other.

If we become conscious of this inner conflict, if we can be totally aware of it, watch it and see how it affects the choices we make, then we would be rid of it.

[A Tad Bit Catatonic]

Jung is all over everything Maynard writes. He is certainly a disciple. And I have sorta become one too, through it all. This is a cool find. He was a wise and extraordinary person.

Very cool, very cool - offers a little more insight, and sounds like a pretty accurate possible influence for the tune. Is it just me or is Right in Two the most reminescent song of Aenema on the album, and it's also placed in nearly the same spot on the album.

[T3rdEyeVisual]

these are the posts which make me keep coming back.

Excellent thoughts....keep going

[carhartt]

"The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate."

I like this take on the influence for the song, but I'm not sure I agree with this statement. It seems as though philosophy is being substituted for psychology with the addition of fate. Maybe this "psychological rule" is one of his own, but a mysterious outside force governing our outside actions? Do you have to believe in fate for this to apply to you? He's taking a big leap here with the addition of fate.

Also very intersting is the idea that our inner conflicts force the world to divide. It's hard to believe that our mental capacity we aren't even aware of has influence on the outside world, so I assume he is referring to our subjective view of the world that is changing, not objects outside us.

What he's going for is a consistancy of values, but now I'm skeptical of our ability to find them all within ourselves. I'm assuming Jung is implying the ability for us to "make" inner situations conscious, although I'm not sure how to do this. We're talking about Freud's sub-conscious, right? I guess I have some searching to do. Someone who knows something about Jung tell me I'm wrong.

[Happyfunball]

But wait. If these lyrics resemble the opinions and teachings of Carl Jung, how can they also be proof of Maynard's acceptance of the Bible and the embrassing of Christianity?

I feel a Scanners moment coming on... Not for me personally, but for people determined to pigeon-hole Maynard into a pre-disposed set of beliefs by way of his own lyrics.

[Inner_Eulogy]

I don't really know what he is talking about, but here is my take on it:

We create conflict in our minds because of many things. It is often due to belief, which comes from fear, we believe something so that we feel secure. But true security does not exist, it is an illusion. This creates conflict, the belief in something that does not exist. Of course, as long as we believe it, we are not conscious of the conflict, yet we act it out in everything we do. We try to make the world fit this belief, this idea making us think we are in control. Hence, we divide the world. We are in conflict with it, with each other.

If we become conscious of this inner conflict, if we can be totally aware of it, watch it and see how it affects the choices we make, then we would be rid of it.

This totally reminds me of the movie "Instinct" with Cuba Gooding and Anthony Hopkins during the scene where Cuba's interviewing him and then Hopkins jumps up, grabs him in a rear naked choke and tells him to write down what he just took from him....his initial guess is control, Hopkins retorts "No, you only had the illusion that you ever had control"...eventully he guesses right that he had only had his illusion taken away.

[Inner_Eulogy]

Jung is all over everything Maynard writes. He is certainly a disciple. And I have sorta become one too, through it all. This is a cool find. He was a wise and extraordinary person.

Very cool, very cool - offers a little more insight, and sounds like a pretty accurate possible influence for the tune. Is it just me or is Right in Two the most reminescent song of Aenema on the album, and it's also placed in nearly the same spot on the album.

This is true...although in Right in Two, he plays hommage to Third Eye at 6:44...I can only think that in the songs that they play hommage to an older one that we are supposed to find some sort of connection.

[Inner_Eulogy]

But wait. If these lyrics resemble the opinions and teachings of Carl Jung, how can they also be proof of Maynard's acceptance of the Bible and the embrassing of Christianity?

I feel a Scanners moment coming on... Not for me personally, but for people determined to pigeon-hole Maynard into a pre-disposed set of beliefs by way of his own lyrics.

I really don't think Maynard was in any way embracing (embrassing - as you put it) the bible or christianity. I've seen some people state this in other posts and I don't see where they get it. In singing the song for his mother he embraced her ideals and beliefs, not his own.

[walkerw8]

This is true...although in Right in Two, he plays hommage to Third Eye at 6:44...I can only think that in the songs that they play hommage to an older one that we are supposed to find some sort of connection.

Pays hommage to what??? On my album at 6:44 he isn't saying anything, so how could he be paying homage to it? I'm a bit confused on this one, although I will admit that in this album I'm hearing all kinds of hommage to earlier instrumental motifs from previous albums (Is there a thread anywhere that delves into these moments, I'd like to know where, if so).

[implandnoises]

This totally reminds me of the movie "Instinct" with Cuba Gooding and Anthony Hopkins during the scene where Cuba's interviewing him and then Hopkins jumps up, grabs him in a rear naked choke and tells him to write down what he just took from him....his initial guess is control, Hopkins retorts "No, you only had the illusion that you ever had control"...eventully he guesses right that he had only had his illusion taken away.
Interesting. I will have to check it out.

[sprucemoose3311]

i started reading Jung cause of Aenema... guess i need to brush up again

[Inner_Eulogy]

Pays hommage to what??? On my album at 6:44 he isn't saying anything, so how could he be paying homage to it? I'm a bit confused on this one, although I will admit that in this album I'm hearing all kinds of hommage to earlier instrumental motifs from previous albums (Is there a thread anywhere that delves into these moments, I'd like to know where, if so).

I never said he says anything. (sigh), at 6:44 into Right In Two you can the guitars and drum line mix in the riff from Third Eye at a slightly faster pace. Quite a few songs do this where they play hommage to a song of a previous record, mostly Undetow and Aenima and I guess Viginti Tres pays hommage to Faaip from Lateralus. Again, what I'm saying is they must be doing that for some sort of reason. There's got to be something we are supposed to look for in the songs they do this for clues on how to correctly make an omlet....er', you know what I mean.

[walkerw8]

You said: This is true...although in Right in Two, he plays hommage to Third Eye at 6:44...I can only think that in the songs that they play hommage to an older one that we are supposed to find some sort of connection.

you were commenting on something someone said about Jung Jung is all over everything Maynard writes

That you said "he pays hommage" led me to believe you were talking about Maynard, as Maynard sings the songs and for all I know writes the lyrics. It's possible Maynard MAY be involved with other aspects of the songwriting, I cannot confirm or deny it, but even IF he is, how are we to know who specifically came up with specific parts. Now I think I believe when you said "he plays hommage" you actually meant "Tool pays hommage".

And for what it's worth, I would argue that: no, they don't have to be doing that for some sort of reason, there doesn't have to be something we are supposed to look for in the songs, they don't do this for clues on how to correctly make an omlet. My speculation is that unless they have come out and stated to the contrary, I would hazard an educated guess that everything Tool has written and released from Opiate to the current, and even things they haven't released is to be considered part of their repertoire that they may use and use again as they see fit. If some motif in Reflection fits good, in a slightly alterned or even unaltered form, in Rosetta Stoned, they'd use it, I would guess without there really having to be any kind of deeper meaning other than "if the piece fits, use it." (In that light, they wouldn't really be paying hommage, rather just using part of their full arsenal so to speak)

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that at least musically, I would believe there is a seperation between the music and the lyrics. Now if Maynard vocally presents a concept in one song on a previous album and again explores it on 10,000 days, maybe in a different light, I would say ABSOLUTELY, the songs are tied together based upon a common theme in the lyrics, but I don't believe that the presence of a common musical motif in seperate songs would necessarily indicate a commonality of lyrical concepts.

[EulogyCallinMe]

Jung is all over everything Maynard writes. He is certainly a disciple. And I have sorta become one too, through it all. This is a cool find. He was a wise and extraordinary person.

Very cool, very cool - offers a little more insight, and sounds like a pretty accurate possible influence for the tune. Is it just me or is Right in Two the most reminescent song of Aenema on the album, and it's also placed in nearly the same spot on the album.
as far as the Jung quote my take on it is that if we have a problem within ourselves that we are not aware of, that problem will be directly reflected what we do and how we think. if we are made aware of this problem then its influence will no longer hide in our actions a decisions because we acknowledge the existence of said problem. and with that in mind we can consciously avoid the outcome being affected by this problem if we can see it, once its influence is noticed in a particular action or thought we can and simply subtract it from the equation and think around it.

And this song, at least sonically, to me sounded like it could be right off of Ænima. Maybe thats why this sung stuck out to me so much from the get go. it was at lest familiar sounding territory. the whole album sounds so much different to me than the rest of theirs and even if there are a few recycled riffs, they are in no way used in the same manner. listening to this album almost made feel weird at first because i felt kind of estranged and alienated by it, but i loved this song right from the start, and probably because it made me feel so comfortable because it has kind of a call back sound to the good old days of Ænima. not that i dont like this album...i love it, i just wasnt prepared to hear what i did at first, once i got acclimatedi felt much better about everything. but i do truly love this song.

[Inner_Eulogy]

You said:

you were commenting on something someone said about Jung

That you said "he pays hommage" led me to believe you were talking about Maynard, as Maynard sings the songs and for all I know writes the lyrics. It's possible Maynard MAY be involved with other aspects of the songwriting, I cannot confirm or deny it, but even IF he is, how are we to know who specifically came up with specific parts. Now I think I believe when you said "he plays hommage" you actually meant "Tool pays hommage".

And for what it's worth, I would argue that: no, they don't have to be doing that for some sort of reason, there doesn't have to be something we are supposed to look for in the songs, they don't do this for clues on how to correctly make an omlet. My speculation is that unless they have come out and stated to the contrary, I would hazard an educated guess that everything Tool has written and released from Opiate to the current, and even things they haven't released is to be considered part of their repertoire that they may use and use again as they see fit. If some motif in Reflection fits good, in a slightly alterned or even unaltered form, in Rosetta Stoned, they'd use it, I would guess without there really having to be any kind of deeper meaning other than "if the piece fits, use it." (In that light, they wouldn't really be paying hommage, rather just using part of their full arsenal so to speak)

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that at least musically, I would believe there is a seperation between the music and the lyrics. Now if Maynard vocally presents a concept in one song on a previous album and again explores it on 10,000 days, maybe in a different light, I would say ABSOLUTELY, the songs are tied together based upon a common theme in the lyrics, but I don't believe that the presence of a common musical motif in seperate songs would necessarily indicate a commonality of lyrical concepts.

Wow, you're awfully anal man. I suppose I have to speak in perfectly articulated proper english for you to catch my drift. When I said there must some type of connection to find in what "the band" pays hommage to from previous songs. I did not mean there MUST be something, simply it's a hypothesis and a smidget of wishful thinking. Secondly, if you were unable to pick up on the intentional slapstick humor of my "making an omlet" statement, you're surely one lost individual. I agree, there doesn't HAVE to be something to look for in the songs, but any Tool fan knows there's always more to their music than what meets the eye. If none of us were inquisitive creatures to begin with, nobody without a strong background on Carl Jung would've ever even made the connection to his lyrics. They are intentionally written multi-layered for us fans to kind of sytematically decipher in some way or "to think for yourself" if you will. Although 10,000 Days has been in contrary being that it is much more straighforward. I'm saying this in hopes that you won't try to bend your mind around it so much as to suffocate your brain from the necessary oxygen and hopefully will not need to resort to using your ass as you did in the post above.

[walkerw8]

defensive one are we? ;)

To be honest, why I initially called you out on the question of the connection to 3rd Eye is because I was actually confused by the connection you were making in conjuction with using the word "he". So difficult is it to convey proper emotions in typing up words on a screen. No need to call names here. You were stating your opinion and I was responding to it with mine. I do not speak as if I know the truth or have all the facts, and I had hoped I conveyed that. Let's not wed ourselves to our ideas, for they are just that, lest they become idealogies. :)

[No one and nobody]

Can I getta Hallelujah...thank you Jesus.