{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03018867924528302, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005031446540880503, 'mean_word_length': 4.378378378378378, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From Freudian narcissism to the Buddhist notion of anatman, via Jung's idea of identity.

Starting from the question the youthful Carl Gustav pondered as he sat on 'his' stone - 'Am I he who sits on the stone, or am I the stone on which he sits?' - the author has attempted to show that, for Jung, the idea of identity is founded on a wilful non-determination. This stance results in ethical and methodological repercussions that differentiate it both from the Freudian project and from Hindu and Buddhist thought, while at the same time having much in common with them. The paper refers to the notions of emergence and (Varela et al. 1992) enaction and argues that the concept of the archetype, especially in relation to the self, merits a re-evaluation in light of the new scientific paradigm.