Except therein lies the fail at logic:
An individual's shadow is an unconscious region of the psyche formed by the conscious contents of the ego.
Becoming conscious only creates more shadow.
So we are stuck looking behind the contents to the unseen which there is no method to get to, the logic follows this sequence who/what/where/when/why/how
We went through the whole part almost, but have never reached a how. Instead it's circular logic all around: Seek the shadow you cannot see but which upon seeing creates more shadow to seek. Contents create the shadow, Seeing the shadow creates Contents, creating more shadow.
Seeing the why: to work on parts of yourself, and no how.
there's no logic fails, just a misunderstanding in words. in Jung speech, some conscious contents may create unconscious links and contents. making those link conscious doesn't necessarily create more unconscious contents.
about the "how" making those link conscious, the answer is obviously the
psychoanalysis work on ourselves.
that's a theory, of course
yes. where is the fallacy in this process?
You are not saying that Achilles never reaches the turtle, are you? ^^
If "Becoming conscious only creates more shadow" were true, Jung would have been the creepiest man in history. I assure you, from studying his work for 25 years, he was not. In fact, he was one of the most balanced and insightful people in history. Sadly, you have missed the point catastrophically.
"Who/what/where/when/why/how" is the logic of journalism, not of Jung. Jung spent his entire professional life teaching us the "how." The circular logic is yours, not his.
You offer no explanation as to why consciousness creates shadow.
"Is there special content that doesn't create a shadow?"
Knowledge of the shadow does not create shadow; it lessens it. This is the only critical feedback I have at this point for your responses.