The one Jung work I’ve managed to retain is his “Synchronicity,” which strikes me as a book cutting to an issue under the issues we commonly worry about as humans. I think he would appreciate the relativity argument, which is that the two define each other. This explains also how when one or the other term gets bastardized, it influences its opposite to be more like it. Think of a tug-of-war over a middle-line; when one side contracts, it pulls the other over into its territory.

Because I drank the whole pot of coffee, I fired off another one on this topic. It seems to me one of the more vital arguments currently in the “manosphere” and one we shouldn’t slight.

I like the addition you came up with, though if we go much farther in this direction we may get a little too Jungian. I thought about name dropping him when I wrote the word “shadow,” but then we get into the whole man-inside-every-woman-and-woman-inside-every-man scenario that gets instantly overstated and misunderstood (and is aesthetically distasteful). Your push and pull, wrestling perspective here reminds me a bit of Paglia, which is not a bad thing.

This

“Complementary opposites are a product of a relative universe. To know what is hot, you must know what is cold, because without the other to define it in contrast, neither term means anything. If you lived in a climate where the temperature was 80 F year-round, you probably would not think of hot and cold as terms to describe a day.”

is well put.