Giles

The Jungian Shadow Theory: Practical Applications

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

I would be happy to read about  Giles' theory  on Shadow Dance .  :)

 

But not Giles' theory  of Shadow Dance being described as  '  Jungian  Shadow Dance  Theory ' . 

 

 

Oh dear...🙁  You’re unhappy because you disagree with my opinions about Jung’s Shadow theory and you believe that you’re going to feel happy if you can either force me to change the title of the thread to Giles’ Shadow Theory: Practical Applications or run this thread off topic by continuing to heckle?
That’s really sad. 😔 I can but hope that I’ve misunderstood. 🤞🏻
Only time will tell...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Back on topic to Rex's recommendation of Charlie Morley as a source of practical advice on the Shadow (while we’re waiting to find out if Nungali's managed to move beyond his current theoretical issues).
I was sufficiently intrigued by the first 5 minutes of Rex's video that I picked up Morley’s books in the hope that I’d find something useful in them for the purposes of this this thread and I wasn’t disappointed. As soon as I reached Chapter 2 of his Dreaming Through Darkness, I discovered where he'd found the quote he attributed to Jung. 👇🏻
 

Quote

The truth of the matter is that the shadow is ninety percent pure gold.

 

C.G. Jung*

 


I was a bit surprised to hear this asserted in Morley's video because I don’t recall reading it in Jung (but then again it’s been a few decades since I read his works) and in my experience 100% of the Shadow is pure gold. I also found that by accessing and reclaiming** the Shadow, people become Self-actualised and some even go on to discover the transcendent aspects of this work.
 
* C.G. Jung, quoted in D. Patrick Miller, ‘What the Shadow Knows: An Interview with John A. Sanford’ in Meeting the Shadow: Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature, eds Connie Zweig and Jeremiah Abrams, Jeremy P. Tarcher, 1990, p.21


** Using an adaptation of the Internal Family System. Exiles obviously correspond to the dark Shadow, while the Self corresponds to the golden Shadow. At this point, it’s probably also worth pointing out that those who are able to “hang on for the ride" discover that everything is Self and everything is golden. But that’s for another day. :ph34r:

 

Edited by Giles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Giles said:

 

Oh dear...🙁  You’re unhappy because you disagree with my opinions about Jung’s Shadow theory and you believe that you’re going to feel happy if you can either force me to change the title of the thread to Giles’ Shadow Theory: Practical Applications or run this thread off topic by continuing to heckle?
That’s really sad. 😔 I can but hope that I’ve misunderstood. 🤞🏻
Only time will tell...

 

 

Your hope has been fulfilled   -   you did misunderstand .

 

You are 'really sad' because you projected your own meaning into what I was saying .  It is actually that , myself and others who pointed out to you  ( they gave up after trying once ) that it isnt a  difference of opinion, it is a mistake  on your part . I will try again ;

 

You say 'shadow; is what you hide from others'.

 

Jung says 'shadow' is what is hidden from yourself ' .

 

Now, if you want to argue that someone's theory isnt what they are declaring, even though its got their name on it  and was clearly ( not complexly )  outlined and stated , that isnt an opinion about their theory , that's getting their theory wrong .

 

Also wrong about me being happy if I force you to change the thread title  .... ummmm   what  ! ?  :D      My happiness does not depend on such  .......   'unusual forcings '  .

 

You are also wrong about 'heckling' .  I am not heckling , heckling is  " to interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.'

 

May I suggest that these misinterpretations you have come up with are  reflections you have seen of yourself in me ?    :) 

 

I mean , thats your theory isnt it , to identify traits of yourself you see in others  ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Practically speaking, when I was growing up my dad would put it like this, “what you hate most in others tends to be what you fail to see in yourself, so if you find yourself emotionally reactive to someone it is generally a pretty good indicator that it is time to do a personal assessment.” The shorthand version became a look with the simple phrase, “what you hate most in others...” left as an unfinished sentence fragment.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Your hope has been fulfilled   -   you did misunderstand .

 

You are 'really sad' because you projected your own meaning into what I was saying .  It is actually that , myself and others who pointed out to you  ( they gave up after trying once ) that it isnt a  difference of opinion, it is a mistake  on your part . I will try again ;

 

You say 'shadow; is what you hide from others'.

 

Jung says 'shadow' is what is hidden from yourself ' .

 

Now, if you want to argue that someone's theory isnt what they are declaring, even though its got their name on it  and was clearly ( not complexly )  outlined and stated , that isnt an opinion about their theory , that's getting their theory wrong .

 

Also wrong about me being happy if I force you to change the thread title  .... ummmm   what  ! ?  :D      My happiness does not depend on such  .......   'unusual forcings '  .

 

You are also wrong about 'heckling' .  I am not heckling , heckling is  " to interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.'

 

May I suggest that these misinterpretations you have come up with are  reflections you have seen of yourself in me ?    :) 

 

I mean , thats your theory isnt it , to identify traits of yourself you see in others  ?

 

Spoiler

We meet ourselves time and again in a thousand disguises on the path of life.
C. G. Jung

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Practically speaking, when I was growing up my dad would put it like this, “what you hate most in others tends to be what you fail to see in yourself, so if you find yourself emotionally reactive to someone it is generally a pretty good indicator that it is time to do a personal assessment.” The shorthand version became a look with the simple phrase, “what you hate most in others...” left as an unfinished sentence fragment.

 

It is also what you love most in others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Giles said:

 

It is also what you love most in others.

 


That part was left out of my upbringing, and took longer to discover..

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

You say 'shadow; is what you hide from others'.

 

Jung says 'shadow' is what is hidden from yourself ' .

 

Now, if you want to argue that someone's theory isnt what they are declaring, even though its got their name on it  and was clearly ( not complexly )  outlined and stated , that isnt an opinion about their theory , that's getting their theory wrong .


Let me first preface this with the knowledge I am not well versed in Jung, and may easily be missing pertinent information, or simply misunderstanding what sparse information I do have.

 

But....

 

Isn’t the act of hiding “the unsavory” aspects of ourselves (first) from others how the “long bag” is formed? For acceptance, approval, whatnot, we hide thoughts, emotions, leanings, and whatever from those whose approval and acceptance we seek, and over time they become hidden to (and fragmented from) ourselves?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, ilumairen said:


That part was left out of my upbringing, and took longer to discover..

 


 

Spoiler

 

Returning to Morley, I’ve just reached Chapter 4 and read some advice with which I concur. Essentially, what it boils down to is that if you wish to work with your own Shadow you first need to cultivate [your golden Shadow's innate] acceptance, friendliness and kindness.
This holds especially true for parents hoping to work constructively with their children’s Shadows. However, the only really effective way for parents to work with the dark Shadow they created in the first place is to reclaim their own dark Shadow and then give their children the unconditional positive regard they were originally unable to provide.


 

 

Edited by Giles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ilumairen said:


Let me first preface this with the knowledge I am not well versed in Jung, and may easily be missing pertinent information, or simply misunderstanding what sparse information I do have.

 

But....

 

Isn’t the act of hiding “the unsavory” aspects of ourselves (first) from others how the “long bag” is formed? For acceptance, approval, whatnot, we hide thoughts, emotions, leanings, and whatever from those whose approval and acceptance we seek, and over time they become hidden to (and fragmented from) ourselves?

 

Perhaps ....  that  can be a process of 'long bagging '   but I was referring to Jung's definition of shadow as things hidden from us .

 

Now, if Mum says dont hate your brother and you learn to suppress and hide that hate in a 'long bag' , is that something  hidden from ourselves ?  I take your point that over time it may become so .

 

  But for clarity, I would reference back to Taomeow's post on p. 2 .

.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Perhaps ....  that  can be a process of 'long bagging '   but I was referring to Jung's definition of shadow as things hidden from us .


 

 

What the “long bag” refers to are those fragmented and hidden aspects imo.

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

Now, if Mum says dont hate your brother and you learn to suppress and hide that hate in a 'long bag' , is that something  hidden from ourselves ?  I take your point that over time it may become so .


 

 

In this my preference is to look at how it comes/came to be the definition, and further (and more pointedly) understand the process leading to an experience of what the definition points toward - personally finding it more dynamic and useful when such experience has come to light in my own life than some dry definition.

 

Quote

  But for clarity, I would reference back to Taomeow's post on p. 2 .

.


I went back and reread Taomeow’s post (twice), and do not feel my shared words are in contradiction to hers. And suspect if you feel they are then you have likely misunderstood me, or are simply in “argument mode.”

 

Thanks for the reply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Perhaps ....  that  can be a process of 'long bagging '   but I was referring to Jung's definition of shadow as things hidden from us .

 

Now, if Mum says dont hate your brother and you learn to suppress and hide that hate in a 'long bag' , is that something  hidden from ourselves ?  I take your point that over time it may become so .


Jung on the shadow (as shared by Yueya in another thread):

 

Quote

The inferior part of the personality; sum of all personal and collective psychic elements which, because of their incompatibility with the chosen conscious attitude, are denied expression in life and therefore coalesce into a relatively autonomous "splinter personality" with contrary tendencies in the unconscious.

 

 


The following post in the linked thread continues with more on the shadow..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilumairen said:

 

What the “long bag” refers to are those fragmented and hidden aspects imo.

 

 

In this my preference is to look at how it comes/came to be the definition, and further (and more pointedly) understand the process leading to an experience of what the definition points toward - personally finding it more dynamic and useful when such experience has come to light in my own life than some dry definition.

 


I went back and reread Taomeow’s post (twice), and do not feel my shared words are in contradiction to hers. And suspect if you feel they are then you have likely misunderstood me, or are simply in “argument mode.”

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

:D   I am never  simply  in 'argument mode' .

 

The misunderstanding might be that I interpreted this ;

 

10 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

Isn’t the act of hiding “the unsavory” aspects of ourselves (first) from others how the “long bag” is formed? For acceptance, approval, whatnot, we hide thoughts, emotions, leanings, and whatever from those whose approval and acceptance we seek, and over time they become hidden to (and fragmented from) ourselves?

 

as a conscious voluntary  'hiding'  ( and this is the type of 'cover up' , conforming, etc. may   well benefit from the practice of 'seeing oneself in others') .   Perhaps I misinterpreted  being   ' hidden from oneself '  as not including 'hiding it by one's self '  ?   I see them as two different things  ( depending on how one defines the self , of course .)  

 

I see Jung as describing a much deeper process , inferred by  ' hidden from the self '  and not 'hidden by the self ' .  In the case of bad  trauma , I dont think suppressed memory, in this case  is a conscious act , its more of a psychological reaction .  And if it is hidden from you , not by conscious choice , how can one then identify it in  the self from observing  others ?

 

As I said above, I take your point that over time it may become so .  BUT ,  is the passing of time and the fragmentation of these selves and their nature becoming hidden a conscious choice of hiding , or is it that 'they are being hidden' ?

 

I can affirm that yes I do have reactions when I see someone exhibiting reactions  that I am aware I have repressed in myself or 'hidden it by myself' , and it does help to  see myself in that person , but if it is hidden from myself , how am I  going to  identify it ? 

 

Thats where psychoanalysis comes in, we need someone experienced in such matters  to reveal what is hidden from us .

 

It might sound like these  are argumentative questions  but they are really self expressed postulations , some fuelled by others responses and questions to me .   It all boils down to  ( for me )   

 

Who is running this 'show' anyway !   ( or , who is doing this hiding ? )

 

Sometimes I think  I have a handle on it and then other times its elusive . As you probably realise, I have studied many models  ( religions, philosophies, etc ) of these self dynamics  (and posted about them ) .  Eg.  In exo-psychology ,  the self is defined as 8 mini-brains, one is  (or should be )  a type of  master control circuit , some can function from that .  The lower circuits are more instinctual, they are needed but should not be running or programming the other ones.  

 

I think in most of us the self is a concept   that sort of floats around between these levels and is centred wherever,  depending on circumstance, experience programming and development .   I also realise I have 'strange magical' concepts about what constitutes 'self'    .  :) 

 

 

Regarding the Jung quote ;   " The inferior part of the personality; sum of all personal and collective psychic elements which, because of their incompatibility with the chosen conscious attitude, are denied expression in life and therefore coalesce into a relatively autonomous "splinter personality" with contrary tendencies in the unconscious. "

 

Yes, he does acknowledge this particular input to create shadow , but it is not the only one or the whole of it , it also includes ;

 

" the most part inferior and guilt-laden personality whose ultimate ramifications reach back into the realm of our animal ancestors and so comprise the whole historical aspect of the unconscious. "  and other inputs . This is a far cry from seeing the Shadow as just something that contains the bad aspects of others we cant see in ourselves .

 

Thats why I dont think the relatively simple process of seeing others  faults in ourself is the simplistic resolution for problems with the 'Shadow' .  And thats why I do not agree with Giles that  " Shadow work is really simple "   and  " whatever you are able to see in others but unable to see in yourself is your Shadow"   .

 

These realms that ' reach back into the realm of our animal ancestors ' are addressed by Exo-psychology , they are deep rooted and  just by seeing what  bad aspects are  in others and not ourself as the constituent of the Shadow is not going to address such deep seated imbalances of the psyche .

 

I am not sure how cohesive  even the above post is    :D  .

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the shadow as both dark and light. It includes everything that we want to hide from others and ourselves,  as well as forces that we're completely unaware of,  but make themselves known to us at crisis points or certain critical moments in our lives. At these critical moments of crisis there can be an awareness of how the personal shadow is linked to the 'collective unconscious'. They are moments of great opportunity and also risk:

 

"According to Jung, the shadow is experienced by the subject's ego as the infer­ior, base and primitive side of the personality – one's own dark side. As he points out, however, this is not the whole picture, as contained in the shadow are potentialities of the greatest dynamism. It depends on the preparedness and attitude of the conscious mind whether the ideas and images connected with them will be experienced as constructive or catastrophic."
Ann Casement

 

This thread has spurred me to reopen these two books on this theme:

https://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Daimon-Healing-Psychology-Feminine/dp/1939812038/
https://www.amazon.com/Lilith-Historical-Psychological-Aspects-Feminine-ebook/dp/B007LPK07U/

 

I think we can get too bogged down in intellectual terminology, Jung uses the term sparingly and advocated the use of poetic language for navigating through the work of shadow assimiliation:

 

. . . the ‘realization of the shadow’, the growing awareness of the inferior part of the personality, which should not be twisted into an intellectual activity, for it has far more the meaning of a suffering and a passion that implicate the whole man. The essence of that which has to be realized and assimilated has been expressed so trenchantly and so plastically in poetic language by the word ‘shadow’ that it would be almost presumptuous not to avail oneself of this linguistic heritage.

 

In Jungian work integration of the shadow is the first stage in the work of individuation and lays the ground for recognition of the anima/animus.

 

Whatever terminology one wants to use the essential theme is integrating energies of great dynamism and vitality to assist in spiritual integration and transformation.  I'll end with some favourite quotes which describe this outlook, shadow isn't even mentioned and the first quote I find quite poetic:

 

“Holy places are dark places. It is life and strength, not knowledge and words, that we get in them. Holy wisdom is not clear and thin like water, but thick and dark like blood.”
C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces

"Our roots are in the dark; the earth is our country. Why did we look up for blessing — instead of around, and down? What hope we have lies there. Not in the sky full of orbiting spy-eyes and weaponry, but in the earth we have looked down upon. Not from above, but from below. Not in the light that blinds, but in the dark that nourishes, where human beings grow human souls."
Ursula K. Le Guin

 

“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
C. G. Jung

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

Quote

Thats why I dont think the relatively simple process of seeing others  faults in ourself is the simplistic resolution for problems with the 'Shadow' .


It’s not a resolution, simplistic or otherwise. It's merely the first step on the path to personal Hell. The resolution is quite difficult  because most lack even the ability to take the first step.

 

Quote

And thats why I do not agree with Giles that  " Shadow work is really simple "  


As I’ve just pointed out, he’s conflated simple with easy.

 

Quote

and  " whatever you are able to see in others but unable to see in yourself is your Shadow"   .


Thereby 👆🏻 demonstrating that Epictetus is correct 👇🏻. 😂
 

Quote

 

Don’t just say you have read books. Show that through them you have learned to think better, to be a more discriminating and reflective person. Books are the training weights of the mind. They are very helpful, but it would be a bad mistake to suppose that one has made progress simply by having internalized their contents.


~ Epictetus ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Giles said:
  Reveal hidden contents

 


It’s not a resolution, simplistic or otherwise. It's merely the first step on the path to personal Hell. The resolution is quite difficult  because most lack even the ability to take the first step.

 


As I’ve just pointed out, he’s conflated simple with easy.

 


Thereby 👆🏻 demonstrating that Epictetus is correct 👇🏻. 😂
 

 

 

 

 

 

Hiding your shadow side  Giles ?    :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 7:04 PM, Giles said:

 

Basically, whatever you are able to see in others but unable to see in yourself is your Shadow. There are two aspects to that Shadow, the "bad" stuff and the "good" stuff.

The golden Shadow is the "good" stuff that you see in others but not in yourself.


I am using your post as a touch-point for considerations.

 

Two individuals are in some form of relationship. One lies, the other believes. A third party (witness to the dynamic) suggests the believing individual stop being so naive. And the lying party in response (when this is brought forth by the believing party) accuses the believing party of being distrustful.

 

What are your thoughts in relation to such a dynamic and shadow work?

 

Does the inability (and/or unwillingness) to recognize a lie indicate something of the believing parties shadow?

 

Is the outside party (in your opinion) indicating something of their own shadow and/or projecting when they bring up naivety?

 

And where would you assign/delegate the accusation of distrustfulness?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

 I'll PM you about that later. 👆🏻

 

There seems to be a synchronicity about our posting as, once again, I'd written something offline and when I login to post it, you've just beaten me to it. Here is what I'd just written. 👇🏻

Back to practical applications.
You can’t hide a Shadow because a Shadow is just the absence of light. It’s an illusion that dissipates when you turn on the light and which reappears when the light’s obscured.

 

 

To start to reclaim your Shadow safely it’s helpful to soften your perspective by combining Loving Kindness (Metta) with the previous instructions and to view the villainous Shadow as the antihero Shadow.
What is an antihero? The antihero has some qualities of vulnerability and humanity, which the villain apparently lacks.
The Legend of Jeff may be a useful illustration.

 


You can always return to viewing your projected Shadow as villainous and thereby continue to project it onto others if you don’t want to own it yourself.

 

collage-11.jpg


Loving Kindness will probably also help you to avoid the possibility of falling into the same trap as Jung. See Jung’s long-suppressed Red Book for details of his extensive psychotic break. A brief synopsis can be found here, https://thebedlamfiles.com/commentary/the-red-book-of-carl-jung/

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/10/2020 at 3:51 PM, ilumairen said:

What are your thoughts in relation to such a dynamic and shadow work?

 

 

My initial thought is to ask a few questions to clarify the (hypothetical?) situation.

 

The first question is to ask if this is a purely hypothetical situation or if it's grounded in reality?

 

The second is to ask about the specifics details of the lie.

 

The third is to ask whether the "liar" is consciously lying (in case this answer didn't emerge from the answer to the second question).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Giles said:

 

My initial thought is to ask a few questions to clarify the (hypothetical?) situation.

 

The first question is to ask if this is a purely hypothetical situation or if it's grounded in reality?

 

The second is to ask about the specifics details of the lie.

 

The third is to ask whether the "liar" is consciously lying (in case this answer didn't emerge from the answer to the second question).

 


It is based on a number of observed dynamics and situations.
 

Detailing ”the lie” would be to misunderstand the dynamic(s) in which one party has shown a propensity for lying - with numerous lies having been expressed.

 

Yes, in most of the dynamics used as a reference point for my questions and considerations the individual was aware they were being less than truthful or directly lying.

 

In my understanding, “less than truthful” can be deception in which the individual doesn’t directly (or outright) lie (as in speak an untruth), but chooses what information to present and the manner in which it is presented with the understanding the receiving individual will process it in such a way which is rather contrary to the manner in which things actually happened or played out.

 

Edited by ilumairen
clarity
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

I find this hybrid hypothetical situation too generalised and obscure to make practically useful assessments or comments other than that for practical Shadow working purposes all mythology should be recognised as the author/reader being all of the characters.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Giles said:

 

The first question is to ask if this is a purely hypothetical situation or if it's grounded in reality?

perhaps off topic due to level of consideration but...

 

Awareness wonders...

 

who is claiming to be the Arbiter of 'what is real'?

 

who determines such?

 

and if such an Arbiter is found...

are they ever unanimously agreed with?

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, silent thunder said:

perhaps off topic due to level of consideration but...

 

Awareness wonders...

 

who is claiming to be the Arbiter of 'what is real'?

 

who determines such?

 

and if such an Arbiter is found...

are they ever unanimously agreed with?

 

 

A case from person experience  ( not even a 'lie'  but the 'patients'  experience' )  ;

 

I am doing night shift (years back) at a  Community  Youth 'Drop In' Centre  . This young woman comes in and smirks and declares   "I am going to kill myself ."

 

Me  ;  " Knives are in the top draw in kitchen ."   That stopped her , she looks at me and re accesses.

 

After some banter she says  ; "That was a good response , as I was just teasing you . However  it was a risky ploy ." and she pulls her sleeves back and her wrists have bad scars on them ... not across the wrist, but down them .... a serious attempt  ( tendons and stuff can interfere with a full arteries and   veins sever ) .     We talk, she has been messed up by years of  (bad ) psychiatry and psych drugs .

 

How did it all start ?    One night as a young teen  she felt herself float out of her body up into the room and could look down and see her sleeping self in the bed beneath her .  Startled ,  she told her parents but they said she was imagining and dreaming . She kept having the experience , vividly .  So her parents took her to a psychiatrist . 

 

My  working companion and I looked at each other  . . .  :o.   

 

Her  ( my work companion ) ;  " Have you ever heard of astral projection ? "   She had not  ( this was back in the 80s) .  So we suggested she read up on it .   Next week she is back, with the book she got on it and she was glowing !   Aside from her frustration about the past she said her life had now totally changed     "I am not crazy any more ! "  she joked with us .

 

In her case , her parents did not seem to be able to arbitrate what 'was real ' so  they sent her to someone who  could   ...  I mean   would .

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

19 hours ago, silent thunder said:

perhaps off topic due to level of consideration but...

 

Awareness wonders...

 

who is claiming to be the Arbiter of 'what is real'?

 

who determines such?

 

The Self.

 

19 hours ago, silent thunder said:

and if such an Arbiter is found...

are they ever unanimously agreed with?

 

 

From that relative perspective..?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoiler

 

A visualisation of the inner landscape prior to reclaiming the Shadow.

 

IFS%2Bdiagram.jpg&key=a220bed97e74a0b8ec

 

A visualisation of the inner landscape after reclaiming the Shadow.

 

?format=1000w&key=74395828ca6fc38f872190

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites