the inertia of animation of Narcissus...
  the water that becomes ice
of a fixation...
in visage...
           if only Narcissus found
himself...
     fixating on his shadow...
then again...
whatever Jung proposed,
in schematic,
and without mythological
imagery...
              to propose a counter...
has been lost
to the vague attempts of
countering mythology with
mystification of the shadow...
borrowing from Kant...
a shadow is something deemed
cold...
  i say... a shadow is something
deemed animate...
Narcissus fell in love with
an inanimate reflection of himself...
and this is why Jung
failed to explain the shadow...
   in that...
  his explanation does little
justice to mythology...
  and serves nothing more than
mysticism...
how can mythology not be treated
seriously...
when the current contest
of lived to recorded time
is exponentially comical...
    myth is time with the logic
of said myth, being kept as...
what coincides with
whatever happens
                    now to happen later,
having borrowed from
what happened in the past,
a past, that... mediates the impeccable
intricacy of scientific prodding...
to disavow a humanism of
the, "grand explanatory project"...
as if... that will not be countered
by an irrational tomorrow...
to the rationalism of...
oh... say... 3 billions year, give or take.
the shadow is too mystical in
Jungian terms...
my explanation of the shadow is...
counter to Narcissus...
the demigod who...
looking at his shadow...
                      made a more subliminal
fascination...
  the mere form,
   and how thought somehow
contradicted consciousness (dasein)...
Jung took the mystical,
   archetypical route...
i took the mythological,
archaic route;
i guess we both returned to the same
conclusion...
        only that...
there wouldn't be a Narcissus
without a lake,
since there would be no Narcissistic
observation on either sea
or river...
   but i sure as hell can cast
a shadow onto the sea,
as i can, onto a river.