About the song from Wikipedia:
The title (46 and 2) references an idea first conceived by Carl Jung and later expounded upon by Drunvalo Melchizedek concerning the possibility of reaching a state of evolution at which the body would have two more than the normal 46 total chromosomes and leave a currently disharmonious state. The premise is that humans would deviate from the current state of human DNA which contains 44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes. The next step of evolution would likely result in human DNA being reorganized into 46 and 2 chromosomes, according to Melchizedek.
Furthermore, the song references a wish to experience change through the "shadow"; an idea which represents the parts of one's identity that one hates, fears, and represses, this exists as a recurring theme in the work of Carl Jung.



My shadow's

Shedding skin and
I've been picking
Scabs again.
I'm down
Digging through
My old muscles
Looking for a clue.

I've been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could've been.
I've been wallowing in my own confused
And insecure delusions
For a piece to cross me over
Or a word to guide me in.
I wanna feel the changes coming down.
I wanna know what I've been hiding in

My shadow.
Change is coming through my shadow.
My shadow's shedding skin
I've been picking
My scabs again.

I've been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could've been.
I've been wallowing in my own chaotic
And insecure delusions.

I wanna feel the change consume me,
Feel the outside turning in.
I wanna feel the metamorphosis and
Cleansing I've endured within

My shadow
Change is coming.
Now is my time.
Listen to my muscle memory.
Contemplate what I've been clinging to.
Forty-six and two ahead of me.

I choose to live and to
Grow, take and give and to
Move, learn and love and to
Cry, kill and die and to
Be paranoid and to
Lie, hate and fear and to
Do what it takes to move through.

I choose to live and to
Lie, kill and give and to
Die, learn and love and to
Do what it takes to step through.

See my shadow changing,
Stretching up and over me.
Soften this old armor.
Hoping I can clear the way
By stepping through my shadow,
Coming out the other side.
Step into the shadow.
Forty six and two are just ahead of me.

Famous Aspergerino's include Gary Numan :

"Here in my car,
I feel safest of all
I can lock all my doors
It's the only way to live in cars.
Here in my car
I can only receive
I can listen to you
It keeps me stable for days in cars.

ANNNND,
Dan Aykroyd,Carl Jung, Beethoven, Michelangelo and Nikola Tesla!!


Oh, and a few folks know to frequent the sift in days past and present we must say!!

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by enoch.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^enoch:

this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.
i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?

It's really difficult for me to grasp the fact that anyone still argues such moot subjects, like it's somehow the truth of reality.. possibly.. maybe.
Lemme give an example.
You spend your entire life searching for noah's ark. As a result, one day you uncover the ruins of a previously unknown civilization.
Great, your research has embiggened world culture & history. Nevertheless it's still based in a dumb premise.
It's dumb because of our understanding that floods leave evidence.
No evidence of a global flood = no ark = issue resolved.
No need to .. ahem.. "push the envelope" any further on that one. =]
Jung may have contributed to the understanding of consciousness thru his search for the divine. But it's still stupid to say he was "edgy" for investigating questions for which we already have the answers.
I.E.
Q. Is there divine life after death?
A. No, your mind & personality is dependent on your physical brain.
Understanding all of that.
Rationalize to me how it's intellectually dishonest or lazy to avoid asking questions about a subject that is of little or no practical value or meaning?
Sayin' shit like "would you have the courage.. or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?" just makes you sound like a nutter/zealot..
[Are you willing to live in the relative safety of your certitude that flying hot pink unicorns DON"T exist.. you lazy mainstream conformist, you. ire ]
..and forces you out of the discussion.
Cause in all practical circumstances we can assert:
Gravity exists. Divine consciousness after physical death does not.

Does that clear up some people's general dismissal of jung's theories here?


genji,
your first sentence says it all.
there is no need to delve further.
the only thing you have managed to convey is your ability to think in two dimensions.
*isdupe=http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death

Aw nuts. Dammit, why can't we merge comments when we dupeof? @lucky760, I'm looking at you.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by gwiz665. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

dupeof="http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death"

>> ^Stormsinger:

I couldn't have said it better myself, gwiz665. I see this as a perfect case for applying the statement we all grew up hearing, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus, I don't think Jung was nearly as bad as Freud. Freud was a flat-out obsessive nut. While Jung at least can retreat into the meaningless shadows of philosophy and pose as a playful game of "what if".


bingo!
finally got some commentary going.
usually it is only qwiz coming out to play.
let me preface this a bit so my words wont be misconstrued based on prejudices.
1.i am not a "god of gaps" person (lookin at you qwiz),i do not hide behind unknowns and claim that this is proof positive of a creators existence.
2.i find it intellectually dishonest to dismiss a persons entire lifes work based on either personal opinion or other arbitrary factors i.e:he was a paranoid coke-addled obsessive.so?he also was able to define,correctly i might add,a large part of our collective consciousness.carl jung believed in the divine,the spirit, does this belief negate ALL of his work and observations based on a single belief he had?one that you may disagree with?
think about that..i have talked to every one of you who has commented on this post and "stupid" is not a word i would use to define any of you.
3.give rougy a bit of slack.while i do not wish to speak for him..i am going to anyways.
while his statement "If you don't get it, there's no use explaining.

It's...wasted breath." may seem a bit like a slight or derogatory..it is not..it just comes across that way.
at its heart he is correct.if you dont understand or see things this way, any attempt to convey or explain will only lead to confusion or worse.
a good example is having a woman explain childbirth to a man.while the man may make a noble attempt to understand the intricacies of childbirth he will ultimately always fall short.
why?..he does not have a uterus.

and this leads me to why i respect jung and also my perplexion at why others here do not.jung questioned the unquantifiable.he searched and poked and prodded into a part of us he strongly suspected existed yet there is no actual evidence.what he found was strong coincidental evidence which shaped his thoughts and ideas concerning the divine/spirit/soul.let us add to this mans struggle the fact that he was dealing with a public which was still heavily influenced by theocracy and his ideas were actually pointing in a direction which would make theocracy not only definatively wrong but irrelevent.

this of course leads me to ask something that i am curious about.i understand you all may disagree with jung and that is your right.i also fully understand your dismissal of the spirit/divine/soul.here is what i do not understand:carl jung asked the hard questions and spent his life trying to not only to find the answers but understand the question better.
where are YOUR questions?
because i always see the dismissal.
i see the disagreement and many (thanks qwiz) actually post the reasons.
but WHERE ARE YOUR QUESTIONS?
at least jung had the balls to ask them.disagree with his conclusions all you wish but even he understood that at the end of the day...he could be wrong.
this is why i admire him so much,because while i may believe and feel my paradigm is correct i HAVE to leave room that not only may i be incorrect on some points,i may be totally wrong.i have to accept the fact that there may come a day when all that i think i know,believe, may have to be flushed down the toilet.

i do not see anyone here asking the questions.i see many residing safely in their preconceived ideologies that were propagated by others.(i am speaking in general,not directly at you guys).it is real easy to sit in such a safe corner and feel that your understanding of things is embedded in stone.a solid ground paved by others where everybody is all sitting in their armchairs looking down at those who question the established norms.this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.

i love discussing with qwiz.
why?he is an atheist..a rabid atheist.
i do the same with dag.
why?well if you ask both of them and others i have conversed with you would know that i have never attempted to convert,co-opt or coerce him into feeling believing anything other than who they are.
jung pushed the envelope.he pushed against barriers and asked the QUESTIONS.
r.d. lang did also but even i found lang a bit...out there.but i respected lang for pushing barriers and ignoring precedent.

i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?

ask yourself.
WHO are YOU?
WHY are YOU here?
i do not care the answer because it is the question that reveals so much more.
and that my friends,is where poetry resides.

>> ^rebuilder:

The things people take seriously...


yeah..
carl jung.
pfffft what would he know.....

>> ^Trancecoach:
"We are born at a given moment in a given place and like vintage years of wine we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything else." - C.G.Jung


Ah, so I am 365 days long, cold, and a bit oaky. Thanks Carl!

"We are born at a given moment in a given place and like vintage years of wine we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything else." - C.G.Jung

berticus,
whats with the adversarial tone bud?
all i was saying is that you cannot prove or disprove either argument concerning the validity and nature,or even existence of a soul.
your counter was,lets just say,less than creative.
and then you admonish me for making the conflation of jung being the father of humanism,well...i have the textbook right in front of me and the title of the chapter is.../drum roll
carl jung, father of humanism
if you disagree with that title take it up with the authors,all i was suggesting
was some reading,which i gather you have already done.
i also gather you found freud and jungs work ill-thought and crazy.
ok..thats your right..i dont.i guess psychoanalysis really IS dead,and the super ego was just a "fad".
i find neitzche nihilistic and depressing,but thats my opinion.i do like hegel though,you may not.
psychology is NOT an exact science,and anybody who says it is,is talking out their collective ass.
but all this is not the point,the point of my comment,one you conveniently ignored...is that arguing about the existence of a soul is a dead end argument.
you are free to feel and believe what you wish my friend,i am not your enemy,and my comment was not of a antagonistic flavor.it was just a statement,and an accurate one at that.even richard dawkins will concede the point i made.
but i do thank you for your contributions to this topic.
and BTW..
the answer is:socrates,kung fu tzu

>> ^enoch:
prove that the soul does not exist.
cant?
then chalk it up to the "i dont know" factor,and dont even try the "prove it DOES exist" because i cant either.to even attempt that futile argument is an exercise in wasted time.
i will suggest reading about the father of "humanism" the collective unconcious,carl jung.if you have taken any psychology courses you have heard of him.

prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist.
prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
prove that the orbiting teacup does not exist.
prove that god does not exist.

prove, prove, prove.

i've taken plenty of psychology courses, actually, and if you had too, you would know that you learn very early on that jung (and freud) had some fun ideas... but they were just that. they are not science. they are ideas, and unfortunately some of them have been quite damaging. they are outdated and the fact that people still give credit to either freud or jung's untestable unprovable psychobabble is scary.

how you came to the conclusion that jung of all people was the founder of humanism boggles the mind. if you take 2 minutes to look at what jung espoused and then compare that to what humanism is... quite different.

>> ^berticus:
WTF.... WTF IS GOING ON
VIDEOSIFT?
HELLO?
>> ^rougy:
The scientists will never explain the soul.


prove that the soul does not exist.
cant?
then chalk it up to the "i dont know" factor,and dont even try the "prove it DOES exist" because i cant either.to even attempt that futile argument is an exercise in wasted time.
i will suggest reading about the father of "humanism" the collective unconcious,carl jung.if you have taken any psychology courses you have heard of him.
http://www.nndb.com/people/910/000031817/

well well well,i really didnt think this vid would get sifted,not only DID it get sifted,but seems we have a discussion going.
good.
every person is in part a product of their enviroment and experiences,and each is different in their own right,people who purport to be of a spiritual nature are dismissed by both religious AND atheist as being weak-minded and wrong.
yet neither side can prove or disprove.
and that suits me just fine.
a religious person will use dogma and doctrine to make their point,oddly enough,so will the atheist.doctrine and dogma are based on tangible text,i can come up with a counter argument everytime using the VERY same doctrine.
but to disprove someones experience?
thats far trickier,and i am not so arrogant to believe i know everything.
i cannot discount this mans experience,and honestly,would drugging him up into a medicated zombie be prefferable to his way of dealing with his perceived existence?
just a thought.

me too.thats why i tagged it kaballistic,many parallels.in addition many of carl jung and R.D laing's work refer to the randomness quotient.
quantum theory fascinates me,the applicable math i find impossible,but the theory part absolutely rivets me to my seat.
and in all honesty,how much do we REALLY know?
einstein proved that time is relative and there is no travel faster than light,but BECAUSE of E=MC(2) quantum physics was born,and BOOM...
seems there can be travel faster than light,but only in theory.
ah...time travel..NEAT.
hell,quantum mechanics gave us the very computer's we are playing on.
thanks for the vote sir schmawy =)
In reply to this comment by schmawy:
I'll vote for it too, because it's intriguing. Although if any of this were true, science would have to eat itself.