/lit/ - Literature

>>15247401
It's real. Only bugmen would disagree.

>>15247424
There is no way you can provide evidence

>>15247401
Jung was extremely retarded. Both him and Freud. Listen to Alfred Adler instead, his books actually make sense instead of these pseuds

>>15247401
It's real but not in the Jungian sense. Jung was gimped by his Masonic heritage. His grandfather was a Mason so Jung got loaded with all the faggotry that having a Mason in the bloodline entails. Hence all of his deferrals to Kabbalah imagery.
First you must abolish the idea of modernity's 'man'. that is, the universal white european man as the one-good type and towards which all should be brought. recognize gender as something feral and atemporal. reactivate archetypes sinister and divine alike. casual topography needs to be detonated before you can understand sex and sexual metaphysics. the androgyn is not female and male together, but the root of such subjects. it is radical and pissed off atm. neither modernity nor postmodernity can construct the consciousnesses necessary to reach it.
it's time to start daring.

>>15247401
It's a theoretical framework for understanding the world, it doesn't need to be "real"

>>15247425
Not 3D evidence but I can show you a way if you're open-minded and not a bugman.

>>15247481
what do you mean? Things cant just not be real lol

>>15247483
enlighten me anon kun

>>15247495
Depends on your definition of "real". Lots of imaginary things are not material but they exist in our world, therefore, they're very real. Think of laws, borders, language, knowledge, math, etc. Same goes for Jung's theories.

law of gender

He was 60% retarded

>>15247522
>Think of laws, borders, language, knowledge, math, etc

That is VERY different from the criteria we should judge the validity of Jungs works kek

>>15247547
How come?

>>15247557
I mean laws and such are frameworks we implement to stabilize society. I think it would be different in Jungs case since he claims these are observational truths. Laws ain't truths its just common societal agreements

>>15247401
>A man willingly foregoes of science and evidence.
>Muh golden beetles.
It's beyond me how anyone even reads any of his shit.

>>15247581
Laws only work in certain contexts and societies. They change from country to country and even from state to state. If there was a place (be it a country, state, city) whose people closely followed Jung's theories, wouldn't that make them valid in that very context just like laws are valid?

>>15247603
Based

>urr durr empirical evidence BAD. me dont need that to be true

>>15247603
Science and evidence are for virgins. Jung was a Chad.

>>15247627
Jung was an empiricist, brainlet.

>>15247623
I mean I guess. When you put it that way

>>15247633
>Science and evidence are for virgins. Jung was a Chad. I love make belief

>>15247666

My dear Bennet, 22 May 1960

Thank you very much for your kind review of my Aion.

There is only one remark I do not quite understand.

Speaking of the hypothesis of archetypes, you say that there is no scientific proof of them yet.

A scientific hypothesis is never proved absolutely in so far as an improvement is always possible.

The only proof is its applicability.

You yourself attest that the idea of the archetype explains more than any other theory, which proves its applicability.

I wonder therefore which better proof you are envisaging.

When you assume the existence of an instinct of migration you can’t do better than to apply it f.i. to birds and demonstrate that there are actually birds which migrate.

The archetype points out that there are thought-formations of a parallel or identical nature distributed all over the world (f.i., holy communion in Europe and Teoqualo in ancient Mexico), and furthermore that they can be found in individuals who have neverheard of such parallels.

I have given ample evidence of such parallels and therewith have given evidence of the applicability of my viewpoint.

Somebody has to prove now that my idea is not applicable and to show which other viewpoint is more applicable. I wonder now, how you would proceed in providing evidence for the existence of archetypes other than their applicability?

What is better proof of a hypothesis than its applicability?

Or can you show that the idea of “archetype” is a nonsense in itself?

Please enlighten my darkness.

Yours cordially,
C.G. Jung

>>15247495
They aren't actual in-themselves entities that a neurologist could ever find, but they can still be useful ways of talking about real psychological phenomena. Such things are essentially convenient ways to talk about complex phenomena; it's a metaphysical concept that's useful as shorthand for a whole complex of physical stuff, and it should never be mistaken to be ultimately "real" but it could still be "real" in a softer sense.
I don't see much of value in these two particular metaphysical constructs, but I could be wrong.

>>15247666
Yes.

>>15247708
That actually made me think

>>15247708
Based

today is national law day, this cant be a coincidence you faggots love to talk about it so much

>>15247424
>It's real. Only bugmen would disagree.

>>15247666

Play Persona, it proves Jung right by letting you fucking high schoolers

>>15247708
>Please enlighten my darkness.
based. what a gentlemen.

>>15247794
>a bugman posting bugmen

>>15247838
>>a bugman posting bugmen

>>15247883
>>>a bugman posting bugmen

>>15247838
>>15247883
>>15247923

You're all retarded

>>15247458
Alfred Adler is based and Carl Jung was extraordinary, he wasn't extremely retarded, get your facts straight. Freud was just a shithead but a psychological shithead. Nevertheless, Freud was a crucial person in the development of psychology

>>15247458
What about Rodgers and Rank?

>>15247962
Carl Rogers is the final boss of psychology. I miss this nigga like you wouldnt believe

>>15247708
>A scientific hypothesis is never proved absolutely in so far as an improvement is always possible.
Did he actually write this? If so, what a fucking idiot.

>>15247974
is the humanistic psychology the end goal?

>>15247979
it's the gay goal

>>15247961
>>15247458
Freud's insight was ingenious.

>>15247979
Yes. The sooner people realize that, the better the world becomes

>>15247990
That's the current view, though. And the world is not any better.

>>15247923
>>>>a bugman posting bugmen

>>15247998
its still the best model. Until someone gives us something better I believe we should listen to Rogers

>>15247979
Yes. They try to fulfill the mother role. It's extremely difficult and much more impactful than the analyst- impartial wall that supposedly help you realize your truth.

>>15247401
Pretty real for me.

>>15247974
>>15247990
Rogers was great.

>>15248004
>>>>>a bugman posting bugmen

>>15248012
>They try to fulfill the mother role

what do you mean?

>>15248007
Jung works best for high IQ individuals. Rogers for low and mid IQ, like all things secular humanist.

>>15247974
>>15247990
what is his best book?

>>15248007
What is so special about Rogers, what is his fundamental starting point. What did he say?

>>15248031
Aion.

>>15248030
Intelectual elitism just proves you more retarded anon

>>15248031
pic

>>15248030
based

>>15247425
Evidence cannot be formulated in the sense of the scientific method precisely because the psyche is both the root and the crown. It must be accepted to some degree tautologically, at "their point of indifference", the I(Schopenhauer). Schopenhauer really is an interesting one in preceding Jung.

>>15248028
That they are attentive warm and engaging. They help you synthesize instead of coldly analyze.

>>15248046
nigga dont know how to be a person lmao nigga wtf white people be dumb

>>15247401
Really it is almost irrelevant to the point. As the only really central piece to Jung is the symbol, to cultivating a conscious care to a symbolic awareness. Because it is, if you will allow these terms temporarily, the inner subjective experience(again, no less real) where in one speaks of meaning. Before I proceed this is neither a relativistic or judging frame of beliefs/truths, but rather a real identification of experience, human(mostly), psychological; which can be rooted in any foregrounding one wishes, whether it be a Schopenhauerian recognition of "a moral meaning of the world"(Wagner) from the Will(if we were to get technical with Schopenhauer's system of course it would fall under psychological functions but of course that's not the point, and is irrelevant) or Heidegger's Being. So in speaking of Meaning as being the prime first of all things in Jungian psychology, the only really true psychology, there arises no question of the validity of Meaning, which it should be said Jung developed his own thoughts about in which he presented the possibility of an exterior basing of, well, Meaning such as a relation between archetypes and quantum physics(Pauli) however even far before he had some ideas of such a unique foregrounding he persisted to maintain the belief throughout his life that the psyche is real. That is, the Meaning as valid. It should also be noted that in relating to this Jung breached over any strict definitions of the subject/object difference.

But again returning to the point. The symbol("whose value quantum exceeds that of the cause", or almost so) is a representation(you could also call image but that devalues the Schopenhauerian influence) of, and by this directing of, psychic energy's which obviously finds its "base" so to speak in the unconscious, contrasting to a sign which attains meaning purely by conscious abstraction or projection. And we can further find the far more literal or stereotypical conception of the symbol as some mythological image from this. That is the symbol expresses psychic(not physiological though of course that may effect the psychic) phenomena . And so in this, you understand the symbol as the standing centre of all "Jungian" intention where in the scientific truth of something like archetypal theory merely follow from, and because of this as said, its exact scientific validity is not as necessary paleing before the mission of which Jung has decided upon in his genius. Knowing this, now it relates back to every inch of his work.

(On a side note, it should be mentioned that of course the scientific validity of his theory's still matters, just not in the sense of the whole; but as I have said and as Jung did too, the apparent tautological suspicion is nothing but a philosophical confirmation of his psychology.)

>>15247401

Unfalsifiable nonsense. Broadly defined enough you can project anything into and have it back "sense". Total, total bullshit. Google "Barnum Statement"

>>15248030
You can appreciate Jung and Rodgers.

>>15248083
>nigga dont know how to be a person lmao nigga wtf white people be dumb

>>15248095
Definitely, never said you couldn't. They work on different registers, though.

>>15247708

I'm sure many of this boards dimwit will be impressed by the big words here, and they'll calm down because they don't have to think about whether their beloved Jordan Peterson is wrong, but if you're not a fucking brainlet this is so, so, so, outrageously fucking stupid

>>15248109
True. I use Rodgers for connecting with other people and Jung for connecting with myself.

>>15248094
>human nature doesn't exist

>>15248111
the post your responding to has no "big words" and is written in extremely plain language that a literal 8th grader could understand. the only brainlet here is you.

>>15248120
That's a nice way to put it, I agree.

>>15247495
literally nothing we discuss is real you absolute fucktard - all we have is models and abstractions of what we think is reality. They cannot be 1:1 correspondent to reality because they exist in a realm orthogonal to reality - the conscious. Is the color "blue" real in any meaningful sense? No, the conscious created its definition, and granted it some license of objectivity by use of a invented mathematical abstraction called wavelength. It is a subjective wrapped in an objective, although your conscious may perceive it as "objective knowledge" and thereby "reality" by its mathematical wrappings, once you crack it open, it's still a plain old abstract invention - not reality.

>>15248192
>all we have is models and abstractions of what we think is reality

jesus fuck how retarded are you? So there isnt objective truth? 1+1 does not equal 2? Faggot

>>15248192
Cringe explanation. Jung never said that our reality can't be known(like you're saying), but that the reality he was describing deeply involved the subjective truth.

>>15248121
Yes

>>15248229
No, what he's saying is that 1, 2, +, and = are human inventions which cannot be perfect representations of the concepts for which they stand

>>15248090
Bro can u tl;dr this? I'm interested but my iq is low

>>15248256
>the subjective experience doesn't exist

BRO YOU ALL retarded BRO U A LEGOOOO

>>15248325
whoa, slow down man

>>15247401
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8_vuwAgnQ4

>>15247495
It's a model for understanding an abstract concept. Because of how fundamentally separated the conscious mind is from the forces of the unconscious, Jung eventually came to believe it was more practical and accurate to personify some of these functions as if they were completely separate individuals. It's much easier to wrap your head around your own anima/animus and react to it productively if you think of it in this way, as it prevents you from falling into to the erroneous trap of thinking your unconscious is "you." In this sense, Jungian concepts are functionally real, far more consequentially real than if you were to deal with the concepts abstractly. This is also the manner in which the unconscious tends to speak anyway, so it's only natural learning this language in return would help.

>>15248283
Jung is not a vacuum, you should know figures like Schopenhauer or Kierkegaard but none the less I shall tl;dr my post. The subjective phenomena is best understood through the concepts of psyche, both through its applicality as well as its scientific truth, and a cultivation for a care of this psychic phenomena in so far as it is specific subjective phenomena.

This isn't all entirely true for example it should be noted that when I use the term subjective it is just to express something specific and not related to the subject/object dichotomy, rather Jung didn't adhere to it strictly.

>>15248283
>>15248534
*in so far as it is specific subjective phenomena is symbolic.

>>15247401
He was pretty intelligent, but he just made it up as he went along, same as freud. You can't blame them though, they were pioneers, no one had gone where they had before so they had no choice but to invent new ideas even if they were wrong.

>>15248576

Finally someone who approaches this topic rationally, I have the feeling that most of them have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and misinterpreted Jung's works, it's not easy I guess. No idea what the reason for this hatred is, apparently it's just arrogance and ignorance but it's ok.
These people seem to have completely different problems and smoke way too much grass. Suddenly people claim that they know so much little zoomers hahaha.

>>15247401
its no more real than emotion

>>15248645
emotion is real

>>15248653
then you have your answer

my pp is completely retarded lmao

>>15248576
he didn't exactly make it up, he was taking a ton of shit from eastern thought and applying to whyte pipo

>>15248576
Which ideas are wrong?

https://soundcloud.com/lilblovesthebasedgod/love-yourself-based-freestyle

LIL B - LOVE YOURSELF

>>15248250
I am saying reality can only be described subjectively moron. I'm not responding to Jung.

>>15248229
Find me a perfect circle in reality. Go ahead, I'll wait.

>>15247401
It’s absolutely real.

>>15248192
Wavelength is a human invention?

>>15248795
Did some other species conceive of it?

>>15248795
Yes.

>>15248822
No but it exists independent of us

>>15248842
No it doesn't - we defined it.

>>15248842
Nature knows no concepts. We observed it and define it in our own terms. Therefore it is a human conception.

I wrote something regarding the anima/animus, I would appreciate feedback from you guys.

https://midnightcoffeesite.wordpress.com/2020/04/29/reflection-on-the-anima/

>>15248842
>>15248851
>>15248911
We defined wave, we defined length, we defined the concatenation. I suppose you think because it's something we measure - i.e. because it has mathematical wrappings - that it is not just a subjective representation of reality? That it exists somewhere out there it in the universe? No - we contrived the concept because it relates tautologies we have constructed. Let's go further. Suppose you measure a wavelength - how precise is it? The fact about measurement is all weights, masses, wavelength in reality go out to infinitely many decimal places - so have you measured reality or just approximated it? The latter. Did you find truth? No. You found a guess. Further more you did so in units you invented - more subjectivity ensues. Mathematics has the funny property of making people believe because something has been quantified that is reality itself and they confuse it with reality. Reality is and will always be out of reach.

>>15248111
Explain to us dimwits pls

>>15248969
Then it's real for us. Is this a wordgame where we place the real out of reach and pretend we can't communicate?

>>15249051
This

>>15249051
Isn't that what you just did?

To your point, I've been thinking about whether abstractions are real in the sense man will act on them and thus they produce an effect in physical reality, which would give them the necessary quality of being real.

>>15248969
So if you fall from a fuckin ladder or bridge, isn't reality then not gonna strike you faggot?

>>15249250
the physical part of reality, perhaps. not even him btw.

>>15249250
Sure - and you can explain why I died using such terms as "distance", "gravity", or "coefficient of restitution". But none of those caused my death - reality did.

>>15247633

Based.

>>15248913
Faggot

>>15248913
I suppose it is alright, but you're just kind of summarizing Jung in a superficial way. Also your first post is not conjugating 'thou' properly. It's 'thou art' not 'thou are'. And you switch to 'you' mid sentence, and you don't conjugate the other verbs.

>>15247976
>>15248111
>extremely simple challenge and request for response
>receive non-arguments
Come on now. You can do better than that.

Carl Jung's conceptualization of the collective unconscious, while interesting, is not based on any scientific method or fact.

The anima/animus is real in the sense that we all have ideal forms of the opposite gender, wittingly or unwittingly. In the same sense that ideas can be real, even though they are nothing more than ideas.

I wonder what Carl Jung would say about the anima/animus of trannies.

>>15249683
Why is everyone so obsessed with trannies? Are you attracted to them?

>>15247425
>muh science

>>15248111
enlighten our darkness, anon

>>15249089
Finally someone gets it ITT. I was starting to despair. Of course fucking archetypes are real, since they are solely a language-type description of mental phenomena. The word archetype is as real as any other. Furthermore, the concept of the archetype has had profound impacts on the world so the concept possesses some amount of reality. Now people will say that it can only possess reality inside of the human brain, but that is no problem since it is a concept describing the human brain. Are they a perfect model for our every inner movement? No. Are they a far more advanced and subtle tool to understand humanity than any before or since? With the exception of the angels, probably.

I think what has happened here is that Jung is researching and providing empirical theories about the inner phenomena. But the bugmen of today have been so focused on the external world that they have completely forgotten about their inner representations, so much so that they would sooner claim it doesn't exist. Literally the nature of psychology impels you to work with the inner sense. Otherwise you would have modern psychology and its attempt to apply positivist method of natural sciences to the mind, which always lags two steps behind: that's because the means doesn't suit the material. Why would you try to learn about psyche from *solely* the external world when you have the valuable source of inner sense as well? What matters here is that as Jung says, the theory works or not, just like any other empirical theory. I would advise reading Kant if one wishes not to be so illiterate about their inner sense.

>>15247458
HIs theory of children was proven wrong... what other theories did he have that mattered?

>>15248111
Who said anything about Jordan Peterson? Jung is completely right here though, please enlighten our darkness as to why you think he isn't buddy

>>15248842
nothing 'exists' independent of us

>>15249683
>I wonder what Carl Jung would say about the anima/animus of trannies.
I think he would say they are not integrating theirs properly.

>>15249656
Thank you very much for your feedback man. I was trying to make Jung understandable for people outside of his audience so to make his ideas less complicated, but it seems I could make something better in that area. Regarding the other text, I am surprised you read it, it was a poem I tried to write after feeling nostalgic with the idea of the mother, perhaps it would benefit from better wording since I made it on a cinch.

Thank you very much!

>>15249089
>>15249837
>>15249844

I wish more people understood this. It filters so many brainlets

>>15249702
>>15249683

The recent surge in the number of 'trannies' is not something that should be taken lightly.
Gender is very real - not just in the biological sense, but also in the psychological.
In fact, I would argue that the psychological side of gender is even more 'real' than the biological.
When men start transitioning en masse, it means there has been some kind of shift in the collective unconcious.
I don't know what the cause of this shift is, but I would wager that it is as the result of the sexual revolution, and the breakdown of traditional marriage.

>>15247425
>you have to spoon feed me proof or else I wont believe you
who cares? Go live an unfulfilling life then, that'll show me

>>15247424
based

>>15250222
My conception is that transgenderism is the animus and the anima being conserved - women behaving more masculine creates men behaving more feminine.

>>15250425
That actually makes a lot of sense.

>>15250452
How?

>>15250425
Interesting observation. I think it may also have to do with porn. Boys are, from a young age, taught to derive sexual pleasure not from action (through penetrative sex) but from passive observation (porn). This makes them sexually passive, which is inherently feminine, and more likely to develop female sexual desires, such as the desires to be penetrated, dominated, wear lingerie, etc.

>>15247401
Jung was a bit of a schizoid, but then again, which philosopher isn't.

>>15250495
kek this guy is onto something.

>>15250495
Sure, but simultaneously woman are less feminine and maternal than previous generations and instead career-oriented and interested in things like having an athletic physique and competing with men in a lot more arenas than before.

>>15250539
>>15250495

I would add that just observing my nephews, the women in his life are constantly trying to neuter his masculine impulses and breed a female controlled individual. So the porn watching may derive from the inhibition of masculine approaches to women by a cultural motif enforced by women - think about the #metoo movement and women who think even nonconsensual touching is rape.

>>15250539
What do you think will be the ultimate consequence of all this considering we currently have a proliferation in transexuals?

>>15250560
Save the poor boys.

>>15248969

I find this discussion fascinating, and was wondering if there's anything you'd recommend reading along similar lines?

>>15248631
The problem is the approach bugmen skepticicists have with how they learn at all. They don’t understand how to make sense of deep meta workings, so they stave it off because it simply won’t compile well in their minds.

It’s a bit similar to playing a video game and learning how to read it’s master file coding. Reading comprehension especially for philosophy is a technical skill which requires practice and caution, the fear is to be overwhelmed by a conclusion that is thought right owing to the weakness of the subject’s bias but actually wrong. Human experiencing is it’s own game with set rules we can gain access to with enough work put into it, and I suppose psychotic schizophrenia is the equivalent of electronic CTDs and blue screens.

>>15250463
I think it's an interesting idea.
As a result of the sexual revolution and breakdown of sex as part of marriage, women have become more masculine in the pattern of their sexuality. The birth control pill has also severed sexuality from procreation, resulting in the outcomes and risks of sex aligning more to the masculine. In a sense, their animus has become more dominant.

If both the animus and anima are conserved, then the anima in man must have become more dominant in response to this. But by what means?
I would say this masculinity has been taken from the men who now find themselves at the bottom of the sexual hierarchy. In them, the anima has become more dominant. If you notice, most male-to-female trans people exhibit a number of similarities. Most are low status, lonely, depressed, exhibit mental illness, and are usually unsuccessful in the sexual hierarchy. The absence of sexual success among these men has created a vacuum that is drawing their anima to a dominant state.

>>15250568
I believe science and capitalism will collaborate to accommodate those who wish to be a biological woman or a man, either through head transplants or otherwise. In essence, the animus and anima will flow more fluidly.

>>15249844
when jung talks about "personality types", he is trying to explain that people can develop quite different approaches in the way they understand and experience reality. on the one side, you have the introversive type, on the other the extraversive. at a fundamental level, they are in a kind of opposition to one another, the first one understands reality ultimately as a world of abstraction and representation; to the second one, reality is ultimately material in the most literal sense of the word (nothing exists beyond the material)
in a sense, the "bugman" you are talking about have not "forgotten" anything. they never saw reality by the same principles you might do. this state of circumstances, according to jung, is conditional to the way our psyche has developed. its not that one way is better than the other or the other way around, they are only irreconcilably different.

>>15250495
I would argue that porn is primarily a visual stimulation, and men are more sexually motivated by visual cues than women.
I don't really agree with porn being passive (men seek it out). However, I do agree that female sexual desires are passed on via porn, but by what means I am not sure

Big brain answer:
we are all completley retarded that strives to make real their will upon the world.

It wont be too long before we start establishing virgil and sophoclese as the first psychologists.n

>>15250638
cringe

>>15250604
Just to add to this, there is also a fair amount of fetishism and autogynephilia involved.
A large number of men are so lonely and starved of female attention, that dressing up in tights is very sexually exciting to them.
Literally the only way they can be emotionally or sexually close to a woman is by becoming one.

>>15250577
I did today, we had a water fight with the hoses. Good aggressive fun.

>>15250591
Anything about epistemology. Kant's critique of pure reason is good, Popper is good, but you don't really need to start that heavy. Just read about epistemology and go down a little Wikipedia/Youtube hole and you'll find some gold.

>>15250629
>However, I do agree that female sexual desires are passed on via porn, but by what means I am not sure
By watching mighty cocks fuck a woman you find attractive, perhaps?

>>15247401
He was a schizophrenic and made up new shit on the fly like a schizo. Don't take him seriously. I mean have you heard some of the stories Jung told about his time with patients? The guy is a total hallucinating madman.

>>15250670
you are making him sound impossibly based, please be quiet, my backlog can only get so big.

>>15250668
I would guess it does depend on who the subject identifies with in the pornography.
Most men self insert as the man, however some men end up inserting as the woman. What isn't clear to me is why this happens.

>>15250690
Perhaps in the absence of real sexual experience, (which most boys lack when they begin watching porn), their assocation of sexual pleasure to the action of the man rather than the woman has not fully developed yet, especially if they are prepubertal.

>>15250690
Well, the women always seems to be the ones who enjoy it the most. Their pleasure is louder. Porn rarely even shows the faces of the men. So porn watchers are jacking off to this and they're feeling pleasure so at the end of the day they end up identifyting with the women getting fucked, who's also faking/feeling pleasure. Repeat dozens/hundreds of times and you have a man with a feminine sexual mentality.

>>15250160
You did a fine job introducing Jung from what I can tell, but what is the audience you're intending for it for? Are you planning a series on him where you'll go more into depth?

>YOU NEED EVIDENCE YOU HAVE TO MEET MY STANDARDS WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DONT CARE? NOOOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO DO THINGS MY WAYYYYYYYY

>>15250612
I like your explanation, but I think there is one thing to consider, and that is, psychological profiles don't have much to do with empirical truths. I remember reading Jung analyzing Schopenhauer's psychology, and saying an insight such as his is so bizzare, looking at the world like a picture-book, that it is not much different from how a madman might look at the world. This explanation puzzled me, especially since it equally applies to Jung himself. Was he calling himself a madman as well? But then I realized he was discussing the *psychology* of Schopenhauer, not his ideas. The insight might very well have been a result of having an inwardly directed intuition, but it is furthermore supported by logical argumentation. That is to say, the personality type might have given him the clue of where to look for his truths, but he then arrived at these truths by reason, not his intuition. The same here applies to our discussion. It is true that I (and Kant) might be inwardly inclined, but I nevertheless acknowledge both the inner and outer senses exist (perhaps by necessity). These people, however, completely ignore the inner sense, which again might partly do with their disposition, but also equally so with their ignorance. Had they, as I suggested, studied at least the basics of Kant (or any other major philosopher on the topic), they could have overcome their natural disposition since the existence of inner sense is a empirical truth of the world and so a coherent account of it could be given and understood by anyone.

I feel like Jung was on the right path, but someone need to take his concepts further. The answers lie somewhere beyond his ideas

I've read a fair amount of Jung's work, and I think the answer is "technically yes." The problem that Jung faces in the light of modern science is that he was essentially doing phenomenology, and the scientific method either doesn't apply there at all, or we haven't made enough progress in the field to do so well. Thus I don't really find the appeal made by him and some of his followers that the potency of the concept precedes its objective reality to be in error. They're mapping unexplored territory, and there hasn't been much of an advance since the time Jung was writing. There has been almost zero scientific research into the mind. Much in neuroscience and behavior, but little to none in the mind. The behaviorists saw to that, and now psychology rarely concerns itself with the non-neurological. This has allowed them to make great strides in pharmapsychiatry, but the mind itself remains an unbroken wilderness. Thus, to the degree that any theory can be said to be valid on the basis of efficacy, I think there is something to the idea of the anima. That there is some sort of subconscious is not actually in question by all except the most hardline in certain circles of philosophy of mind, but they're pariahs both from the philosophical and scientific consensus in that belief. Further, the subconscious does appear to take on a gendered nature that tends to reflect the opposite of the ego. Strip away the poetic language (which is 50% of the reason Jung isn't taken seriously) and you're left with the assertion that the role of the subconscious is to compensate for the conscious ego, and that as a result to the degree that it takes on a gendered nature that nature will be reversed. I find this to be a reasonable and testable claim, and as firm an endorsement of the reality of the anima as Jung himself ever made.

>>15250723
maybe what i wrote is not clear enough: what i think jung was discussing in most of his papers on these subjects is the very fact that what constitutes "truth" for an individual relies on a fundamental level on the "direction" (inward/outward) of his personality. you, like a proper introvert, believe that there is "one" truth, something akin an ideal (you call it "empirical", but names don't matter, the fact is that you believe in something you can say is definitive truth). someone with an extrovert inclination would believe otherwise, that there are no ideals, but only multiple material THINGS (with no meaning, in a teleological sense)

>>15250743
this

>>15250962
Do you mean to assert an extroverted person who reads an idealist philosophy would not understand it (or would necessarily reject it), simply by virtue of being externally oriented? My view was that psychological orientation determines our initial inclination, but further reasoning and investigation could override that.

>>15247633
Based

>>15247708
>Please enlighten my darkness.
This should become a meme on lit.

>>15251300
It's funny since Jung clearly takes the guy to be a complete retard. Reminds me of Socrates.

>>15247401
Jung is good

>>15247974
amen bro

I immediately discard the opinion of anyone who uses a wojak variant in lieu of an argument.

>>15250716
Yeah, I am planning to develop some writings regarding Jung and specifically the archetypes, for I have been quite interested in ancient literature and I feel that there´s a huge space for archetypal interpretation.

>>15250743
>ideas without empirical measurements
not in current society

>>15251701
Good

>>15250611
>In essence, the animus and anima will flow more fluidly.
That's the key misunderstanding of animus/anima.
The point is not in succumbing to the dictatorship of whims of animus and anima, even less when you realise that they have a possessive tendency, so you are either possessed or integrated (very broadly speaking). If you become possessed, like tranies have become, animus/anima doesn't flow more fluidly.

>>15250602
based af

>>15252142
Is there a way to know if you're possessed by anima?

>>15252404
basically when you're projecting your mothers qualities on your gf

>>15252404
Yes
this is wrong >>15252422

It's when the feminine qualities of the anima overtake you. For example, you become whiny and weak and gossipy, that sort of stuff. If you want to see a practical example of a woman being possessed by her animus, watch Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman interview. She's overtaken by her argumentative and principled animus, thinking she has an actual opinion on things, while it's the animus possessing her.

>>15250743
Neuman?

>>15248764
>I am saying reality can only be described subjectively moron.
I know, moron. That's what I was refuting.

>>15248442
death is like "imagine the smell"

peanut brain: anima

galaxy brain: sophia

Jung is an even more pseudoscientific and mysticism version of Freud which is a hard feat

>>15252447
so how do you cure it aka retake the masculinity?

>>15254850
Could you explain sophia? I´ve heard about that concept but cannot find any resources.

>>15255600

I can't.

>>15255523
Aggression and violence. That is the essence of the animus.

>>15254446
Okay well I'm not gonna argue - you are entitled to your own subjective opinion.

>>15255523
This is wrong again >>15255771

Broadly speaking, you have to try to relate to women. Then you will see you anima more clearly. It's not looking for a cure. Anima will exist in your psyche and will also exist somewhat independently. The question is more in how you integrate it. Observe your anima in dreams and try to relate to women on a thinking and feeling level.
If you're up for reading, check out Jung's Aspects of Masculine - series of essays.

>>15252142
I wasn't referring to their flow within an individual, but topologically across the aggregate of culture and society.

>>15255822
Yeah, right.
I don't think you're that far. It's pointless to discuss this.

>>15255818
Not wrong - and you are not the authority you arrogant prick.

I have just subsumed Jung's concepts to my own interpretation and framework for understanding the world - maybe wrong in the Jungian worldview though, but who cares, I am not Jung.

>>15255843
You must have an exceptionally overlarge ego.

>>15255818
>you have to try to relate to women
im trying to avoid other women as much as possible except my mom.

>>15255853
>and you are not the authority you arrogant prick
Who said anything about authority?

> have just subsumed Jung's concepts to my own interpretation and framework for understanding the world
Good, and you are wrong.

>>15255885
Yeah, maybe that's why the anima overtakes you more often.

>>15255868
Why do you think so?

>>15255895
im still somewhat having a hard time understanding why would relating to other women would help me to integrate anima better

>>15255935
Because anima is asking you to let her express herself. If you don't let her nicely, she'll become possessive.
Relating to other women is in big part helping to relate to your own anima.

>>15255965
That's interesting take. I usually dream her but we never talk.

>>15255974
I find it's very hard to find out more from this point on without an assistance or supervision of sorts.

>>15247401
It's completely retarded

t. wasted 10 years reading his entire works

I like the anima animus thing but it is a tad archaic. I wish there were better systems. I think it is too simplistic to say that gays and lesbians and trans people are misunderstanding their anima or animus -- or rather that such complex phenomena show us the limits of the simplistic theories of animus and anima...

I am not gay but have some gay friends. I think that they are the way they are through a combination of nurture and nature. I dislike this whole notion of false-consciousness -- I believe the Marxists invented it. Pretty sure most fags are mentally divergent in ways that make them relate different than straight people even if they insist that they are not ill. I do not think my gay friends need to become straight. Nor do they think I need to become gay. It reminds me somewhat of Lacan's awful formulation (worse than no such thing as women) that god exists in the subconscious. So I guess atheists just lack self-awareness? Fuck that. Let people be unique.

>>15256005
Philemon is the true teacher tho.

>>15256083
>I think it is too simplistic to say that gays and lesbians and trans people are misunderstanding their anima or animus
It's interesting that Jung mentioned that homosexuality is a form of immaturity. You can be stuck at homosexual stage before moving onto forming heterosexual relationships.
Sauce: Jung - On the Psychology of the Unconscious

The key question that no one wants to ask here would be "Have we come so far in our society as to accommodate homosexuality (a developmental phase) instead of helping people to move forward with their psychological development?"

>notion of false-consciousness
Not sure what you're referring to here.

>Let people be unique.
On a personal level, I somewhat agree. However, I don't think it's homosexuality that is the problem. It's that homosexual couples are now getting married (religious institution) and adopt children (compensation for not being able to have them naturally). And so naturally you can ask why would you want to compensate with marriage and having children if all was well in the unique nature of the gay relationship. Maybe it ain't so unique..
(I know there are gay couples that do not marry and do not want children. I suppose you get the psychological point though)

>>15256124
I'm not on a search for teachers..

>>15247623
No you fucking relativist. If Jung's theories are valid for one group of people, why wouldn't they be valid for all other groups? While different cultures have their psychological differences, Jung's theory of the collective unconscious is that human psyches are all connected in some way.

If in those theories that are valid for that specific group of people is this theory of the collective unconscious, and within the collective unconscious are these collective archetypes of the anima and animus, then it follows that the theory of the anima and animus are also valid for all people.

>>15256005
oh, i see. i guess it's related with my problems concerning being afraid of sexuality in general.

>>15255600
Its a Gnostic term denoting a metaphysical feminine aspect and an early emanation of God

>>15256180
>haha homos dumb
Yes. Jung's theories are rather idiotic.
>marriage, a religious institution
That is up to religion itself. I am simply a libertarian regarding the state.
>children
Worse than single mothers? Worse than communal parenting like tribes? Your theories sound reasonable but there really is little empirical data.

I think Freud and Lacan handle the question better myself. Been meaning to get around to Butler.

>immature development
That's the thing. I see some straight people married with children and no sense and homosexuals of much enlightenment. The theory simply does not explain well enough. It would be simple to say that hey this is not universal but simply the majority of the mass's psyche which he sadly only does in Red Book...

>>15255600
Bohme
Swedenborg
Solovyov
Bulgakov
Tomberg

>>15255808
This is what I meant, this is where the problems start, that is NOT what subjective means.

>>15256226
well the obvious connection between different minds isn't some transcendental object like the "collective unconscious" - it's biology. The archetypes and commonalities are deductively based on the common configuration of the seats of the conscious - the brain structure itself. No idea why he couldn't make that conclusion - trapped in a world of his own construction no doubt.

>>15256287
It's originally a philosophical pagan term

>>15256083
>trans and faggots don't inevitably fall like every other gendered species between ideas of masculine and feminine

>>15256318
that is not what your definition of subjective means - you mean.

>>15256319
And therefore their can be different racial or genetic archetypes

>>15256328
I'm just saying telling gays and trans they're mentally ill isn't constructive. The better questions is, are they living eudaimonically?

Some people take insulin, some take antipsychotics, and still others listen to sissyhypno and take black cocks.

Who am I to judge so long as they harm none?

>>15247401
It's real and you can tell by the differences in the way men and women argue

>>15256313
Are these authors I should follow?

>>15256287
Sounds interesting, similar to the perfect integration of all feminine traits en a vessel?

>>15256319
You're missing the fact of Unus Mundus. There is no seperation from the ultimate structure of reality and the human mind. The unconscious is based on the raw ontological form of reality before it is interpreted and processed in the human conscious. So in a sense, yes it is biology, but also much more than that.
>>15256327
Yes. I mean its just the greek word for wisdom so it has tons of usages.

>>15256297
>Jung's theories are rather idiotic.
No, but keep it.

>Worse than single mothers? Worse than communal parenting like tribes?
Well, we are talking two different levels here. You are, if I take it correctly, looking at it from a utilitarian perspective. As in what is actually better for the children, as far as their well-being and environment goes.
I was mentioning (and paraphrasing Jung to a degree) that if gay couples are unique and fine, why do they compensate by having children? They can't have them naturally, so exactly why do those who want them, want them..?

>Your theories sound reasonable but there really is little empirical data.
That's because I don't care about empirical data. It means nothing to me because I derive no experience from it. Worst case scenario is when empirical data lies to you. Assuming that not every case of empirical data presentation is designed to lie to me, I still do not see how empirical data is telling me anything at all. Only experience can tell me and I live by experience, not by reading empirical data. We have gone so far as to not listen to our experience but instead vehemently argue about what has and what doesn't have empirical evidence. I don't play that game.

>homosexuals of much enlightenment
Jung was referring to emotional development and ability to form heterosexual relationship, AKA relating to the opposite sex in not only sexual but also intimately emotional way. If you're not capable of that, Jung says, you're stuck in that phase.
I also don't think Jung simply made this up. There's notion of Eros that he explains in another essay and which can be related to this as well. Sadly, I'm not very educated on Eros and its related mythology. Suffice to say, it is still controversial if the highest level of intimacy and emotional development lies in being able to fully develop a heterosexual relationship. And that question, as far as I'm concerned, has not been answered.

>>15256328
>>15256375
>>15256404
Like perhaps the anima and animus perform different functions in the homosex as in other diseased minds malfunctioning normal circuitry. It is not worthwhile to fix the circuitry were it even possible so why not map that out?

I understand that you however went through an immature homo phase yourself before becoming straight (is that how you confirmed?) but some people do the opposite.

Idk.

One size fits all is bs.

Jung the scientist is a fakir. But he is a good swami in the redbook.

Eros is platonic which brings up new issues to the boypussy debate which Jung contributed little to.

>>15256393
>authors
Sophiology
>>15256395
Respond to: >>15256342

>>15256431
>>15256342
Genetic archetypes kinda brings things together

Perhaps we need a new meyer briggs with het and homo as the first duality

>>15256431
>It is not worthwhile to fix the circuitry were it even possible so why not map that out?
Well, how? Relation of the opposites and consequently relationship of the opposite sexes will remain paramount. You get into a homosexual relationship and pretend all is fine and well, but ... why?

>I understand that you however went through an immature homo phase yourself before becoming straight (is that how you confirmed?)
Well, it wasn't a linear path for me. Plus homosexual phase doesn't mean disinterest in the opposite sex.
To answer your question, though, yes.

>One size fits all is bs.
There's no one size fits all. There's stages of development. If you get a stuck at age 12 because of a specific medical condition, I'm not here to celebrate your uniqueness. I can rightly point to your problem in development.

>Jung the scientist is a fakir.
I never cared for science as far as psychoanalysis is concerned.

>>15250495
on active/passive dichtomy:

in schools, boys are told to be calm, constantly stifled, while girls are encouraged to be more active.

interesting.

>>15256448
Wow just read it, thanks for the rec, I hadn't seen anything as extensive as those. Will read it.

>>15250495
Damn this guy punctured something interesting. I would add that the way of upbringing regarding fathers around the American continent also prizes the feeling of adventure and path forging since a young age. The fact that this is not as readily available at this generation has developed in the stagnation of healthy father-son relationships regarding pride, as the social image of a father now does not derive from a proud man resting his tired shoulder on his son, but of a late bloomer son deriving his needs from his father. In my opinion this has lead to 2 things, the downfall of a great amount of paternal relationships and sons seeking comfort in the ways of sexual deprecation and incorporation of fantasy as a way to fulfill the dopamine void.

>>15256395
Its basis is the biological structure of the seat of the mind i.e. the brain, its manifestation is obviously epiphenomenal as is all behavior in its relation to its biology.

>>15256486
Some people like white girls or brown girls or yellow girls or short girls or tall girls or tits or ass or brunette or blonde or whatever and some people like the same sex. I think he is confusing his own straight confusion with a universal confusion. Cause I think he's honestly the confused one with his mistresses and leeching off his wife to make a pseudo-gnostic cult.

>>15256679
>white girls or brown girls or yellow girls or short girls or tall girls or tits or ass or brunette or blonde or whatever and some people like the same sex
That's an invalid comparison.
That's like saying some people like driving BMW, some Mercedes, some Volvo, and some people like sitting. It's a categorical error.

> I think he is confusing his own straight confusion with a universal confusion.
Your writing doesn't sound more convincing that his, I'm afraid.

>>15256716
Sexuality is not a phase. Yes, there is >>15256543 but also like men self-insert into the penetrator role while watching. There are a few gay shows on the internet? So what. You don't have to see them unless you look for them. And it's not gonna turn you gay unless you're more bisexual than you realize. I find the Kinsey scale more convincing. Sometimes you see a little nigga like 3yo and you know he's gay! Nothing wrong with either parent. They may have other straight kids. How does a 12 year old phase explain that?

>>15256716
>gay sex versus straight sex is like riding a car versus not moving
But some people come better to certain stuff bro!
>the point of sex is children?
Nigga u hella gay if you only into women for reproduction
> bbbut jung
nigga u hella gay

>>15256543
The problem you describe is something I only see getting worse with time. My generation had inadequate male role models, but soon there won't be any at all. The idea that there is a way a man should behave is regarded as sexist, patriarchal, and "problematic". I think that if SJW's got there way, every young boy would be taught to wear dresses and get fucked up the ass by a strap on. On the other hand I don't think that this anti-male mentality is as pervasive as the fringe leftist groups on the internet make it seem. Many people, even liberal people, are beginning to see through the bullshit, so maybe a cultural realignment of gender is forthcoming.

>>15250709
>>15250629
interesting

>>15256803
>Sexuality is not a phase.
I didn't say that, unless you have some sort of different idea of what sexuality is.
Direction of sexual energy and interest can be a phase. That's also what Freud talked about when he mentioned mother as the first sexual object of the son. Object is probably not the right word here, but I don't know what else to use now.

>Yes, there is >>15256543
I don't really agree with the quoted post.

>How does a 12 year old phase explain that?
This wasn't a reference to Jung. I meant a specific neurological condition, or whatever it is, whereby someone is literary stuck at a specific age. A form of retardation maybe. I used it as an analogy.

>>15256813
>Nigga u hella gay if you only into women for reproduction
No, I just refuse to acknowledge the main fact that sex between male and female can end up in childbirth. That's a natural course of things. Gay people cannot have this natural course of things. Why would they want children?

>But some people come better to certain stuff bro!
Explain

>nigga u hella gay
Not no more, brah

>>15256431
You sound immature compared to the guy you're responding to. Maybe the stages of sexuality corresponding to life development checks out.

>>15256342
You are not an archetype, instead you are made of all the archetypes. I suppose races and genetics can be a manifestation of something deeper in the Unus Mundus, which is a common ancestor to the mental archetypes, but they are not in themselves archetypes.

All the archetypes are in your mind though. Its how you interact with them and are attuned to them.

>>15256652
I think it is important to point out (and this is going to get a bit mystical, like all of Jungian ideas, but bare with me) that the distinction between biology and physics, and physics and what we might call metaphysics, is all a human-made distinction that exists within the linguistic object-processing mind. In reality there is no separation between neurology or psychology or physics or mathematics or anything like that. So the real mystical idea here is that the unconscious mind, which exists before objects are separated by the conscious mind, is an ocean where the archetypes are born and sort of bubble up into the conscious as myths, symbols, dreams, and such, but in the unconscious realm they are connected to ontological processes as there is no distinguishing the brain from its ontological essence.

>>15256404
Based Jung poster

>>15256827
I believe that what you describe is true in one sense; however, I do not feel power emanating from SJW groups, I feel said power comes from the weakness of masculinity nowadays, it is not that it is seen as bad to have masculine traits, it is that males are not rewarded as easily by feeling pride in their ways. In earlier days, a male would derive pride from earning his father's respect or his fellow friends; on the other hand, nowadays fathers are not doing an efficient job since it is too hard to provide a sense of accomplishment.

To describe better my argument, nowadays, not all fathers feel pride as their son reaches a higher level of education, since their upbringing had them being a family pillar from a young age. This feeling of uselessness only allows young males to feel as if they had failed their holy mission and now they must look for that pride in machinations of their imagination, such as having a girlfriend, working a substandard minimum wage while studying, or resorting to fantasies.

This derives from the rise in weight of responsibility, the lack of compensation for it, and the general rejection of said conservative thoughts.

>>15247534
you're being too harsh, he was more like 20% totally retarded, 30% somewhat retarded

that's still better than 100% of Freud and modern psychologists

>>15256955
>that's still better than 100% of Freud and modern psychologists
how so?

>>15256993
I believe he is speaking in regards of Jung's validation of the subconscious while also seeking to provide an answer to said problems, something that most modern psychologists tend to avoid, as they are mostly focused on finding the problem or solving it, not encountering the value that classification may bring them.

Not that I agree with him, since I have had the pleasure of attending with a psychologist who did not accept all of my interpretations but offered me a fresh view on my mind, which I greatly appreciated.

Has anyone here found a scan of his "death of humanity" dream drawing? Or further info? I just have the von Franz interview.

>>15257052
>I have had the pleasure of attending with a psychologist who did not accept all of my interpretations but offered me a fresh view on my mind, which I greatly appreciated.
Different anon but care to share more?
I have an experience of being in therapy as well, so interested to know what kind of therapy you had, if you're up for sharing.

>>15257066
I don't know
Here's the Forever Jung folder though
https://mega.nz/folder/P0MwyYII#kbEpQ5CXCl5hAhWzxsqWPQ
I saw that interview as well but I'm not sure if his message about death of humanity is to be found anywhere.

>>15256871
I ain't gonna effortpost on a phone when all I'm gonna get back is regurgitated Jung that I've already read.
>>15256847
Should infertile people not take drugs? It is the way of things nature etc -- why the fuck wouldn't anyone want a child? I have a dog even tho I can't give birth to one, same concept
>>15256875
Yawn. Sounds like boring advaita. I like the alchemical elements of Jung better.
>>15256955
Wrong

>>15257100
>Should infertile people not take drugs?
It's not a question of should and I'm not interested in shoulds.
I'm saying that if you do so, you are compensating. Now, if I say that if you are infertile and you take drugs, I assume most will agree that you are compensating for the fact that you cannot have children.
If you are gay though, how does it sound when I say that you are compensating for not being able to have children naturally?

>I have a dog even tho I can't give birth to one, same concept
It isn't and your programming logic is starting to get on my nerves.
Wanting to have a dog and wanting to give birth to child are not the same things. I'm really not going to bother to explain this further.

>>15257131
Compensating seems too general to be of use at that point. You could say dogs are compensating too. In which case there seems no moral component or valuation and one might say so what of compensation? It is my path in life to forge and I'd prefer to compensate for this over compensating with frustrating my homolust for the same sex.

Why can't some people have two Animas or two Animus or so on or so forth. Lacan's diagrams are more fun cause they get more complex.
>not gonna bother
Me neither.
>>15256875
>metaphysics
I find some of these ideas fascinating and have studied them but have come to the conclusion that matter is an imperfect receptacle of spirit and thus no one -- not jung nor I nor you -- really has access to the pure forms in and of themselves
>inb4 mathematics
Incompleteness and undefinability

>>15257197
I was referring to the connotation that it is not generally accepted that gay people are compensating for their lack in development.
Again, compensation for the problem in development is not the same as compensation for the dog.
This is probably the third time in a row that you make this kind of categorical error.

>In which case there seems no moral component or valuation and one might say so what of compensation?
Well, then the premise would be that the ultimate goal is to be oneself and you cannot fully be yourself if you're not developed. Now, I haven't made a judgement on that so far. I'm posing that to say that to say that gay people are developed emotionally and intimately in the same way as heterosexual people is not clear at all. I suspect I know what you're gonna answer to this, so please don't do it. It's tiring, as much as I like Jung threads.

>It is my path in life to forge
To forge what? How?

>I'd prefer to compensate for this over compensating with frustrating my homolust for the same sex.
4th categorical error. This is not a coincidence anymore, brah.

>Why can't some people have two Animas or two Animus or so on or so forth.
Animus and Anima is not something you 'have'. They are universal archetypes independent of you. You have no right to them. They just are. It makes me think of this post >>15256875
I really hope you didn't write that shit.

Jung's conception of archetypes is based on their universality as well as importance of the opposites. So, no, don't bastardise them. Two yangs will not make a ying yang symbol.

>>15257344
That's not my post and that's like just your opinion man etc

>yin yang
More a dialetheism, disjunctive synthesis, and tetralemma man myself
>anima, animus
Reeks of anthroprocentrism

>>15257404
Google a bit more.
I actually know words.

>>15257414
I am unconvinced. I think empirically we could determine ways to falsify whether all people are jungian bisexuals who must become repressed of their homosexuality and usher children into to the world to be individuated.
>forge what?
Your individuation. Which is necessarily unique. And perhaps never complete: What Jung talks about in the Red Book. Talking to your higher self and trusting in it. I think Jung is too prescriptive and outdated in his categories of sex and gender according to modern research.
>I actually know words
Lucky you, I only know I know nothing

>>15257078
bless u anon

>>15257069
Yeah no problem. My psychologist attended me regarding issues that lead me to feel unaccomplished, I am 21 years old and am studying international business while reading psychology on the side. I was feeling stupid since I did not had any tactile achievements to my name and my father's disappointment was a tremendous weight on me, even once hearing him sadly affirm "My children will never amount to anything greater that I have done". Big words for someone who didn't even study. But that's another topic.

So backstory aside, I came to her to relieve my tensions regarding that, I told her that I experienced the symptoms of BPD; however I did not want to tag myself as anything while I didn't know for sure.

Long story short, she completely ignored the whole pillars of information I dumped around her and tackled the main topic, my relationship with my parents, from a completely basic point of view. However, instead of it being a sad attempt to push her views, I saw it as her attempt at guiding me through a realist way of pushing me aside from the weight of my parent's judgement, not invalidating it, not offering me an escape, but simply making me realize how little of an impact it had on the actual real life structure since I am living away from them (I decided to leave my home state).

I have to admit that it did not end up as great as it should. She always offered me the comfort of remaining the same and not pushing myself to the limit of my body. However, I got a 6 hour shift job in a tech firm and started a business, I ended up doing exactly as my parents wanted to and stopped attending her sessions due to lack of compatible schedules.

The great thing about this is, I did understand her talks, and finally took up the job offer and started a business not because of my parents, but because of my own drive and motivation to become that which I admire.

Now I am still 21, working on the same tech firm, left that business after making it work (with my fair share of earnings) and leaving it with my partner. I am happy about how it turned out regardless of my parent's feelings.

The thing is, I am still not enough for them, but I do not let it affect me, I have strayed from their path to find happiness in my own and I feel better.

I hope I did not over extend myself, but I did want to share all of the story.

>>15257197
>matter is an imperfect receptacle of spirit
In truth, matter is spirit, or rather there is only spirit. Essentially the process in your conscious mind that distinguishes the two is the demiurge. You entirely create the material world the moment you perceive it to be separated from its spirit. Cause and effect are one and the same. Your mind, if honed, is capable of epistemological connection of subject and object because it is already ontologically connected.

>>15257560
Sounds like some bs to me. Otherwise you could influence reality more with thoughts. Try curing cancer with your mind -- lol. He was wrong about gays and he was wrong about idealism.


Also:
>jung couldn't cure schizos but meds do
Case closed

>>15249683
All people reflectively believe in some form of collective unconscious, in the form of universal drives like hunger, lust, anger. Jung extends these engraved instincts to include notions of masculine and feminine, higher and lower, and so on.
Far from being mystical fluff, this seems self-evidently true. The modern notion that humans are the products of their culture blinds us to the fact that culture is far more dependent on humans than the other way around.

>>15257618
*Reflexively

>>15247401
Jesus fuck I made this thread just to troll Jung cucks and now its on fire lmao

>>15257628
gay

>>15247458
Jung is holistic.
You are the retarded for not perceiving his real intentions.

>>15257608
>Otherwise you could influence reality more with thoughts
Here you are thinking materialistically. You can't "influence reality with your thoughts" because your brain is on the same conveyor belt as the rest on the world. Your mind is spirit within spirit, and so the brain that you call yourself doesn't have a monopoly on the whole system. Its simply a system within a larger system, a mirror image of itself. The point is, if you did not perceive "this" to be separate from "that", then "this and that" would be unnamed and would be one. You actually do this all the time. You think "I am walking on two legs," not "There is a vast collection of cells made of a vast collection of atoms moving in relation to a planet of even more atoms". This thinking can be extrapolated infinitely to both unify and separate the universe on all levels.

Your brain is essentially a stage for certain neurological configurations, but these can be thought of as ontological configurations as well, since as I said there is no real distinction between biology and its ontology (like the relation between an ocean and a wave). The archetypes (or really the ontological process that becomes them when made conscious) construct reality, but also construct your neurology. This is why mental illnesses used to be called demons and spirits. Ancient people saw things more universally, whereas moderns and westerners tend to think in particulars, and so when they saw an illness they thought of all illness and then thought of an archetypal symbol of illness.

>jung couldn't cure schizos but meds do
Meds don't cure schizos. They are a temporary suppression of its symptoms.

>>15257618
Yes. It is not incorrect to see ever-more-universal patterns. In fact, it something that is far too diminished. Pattern-recognition is one of mankind's most powerful tools. Jung just saw that the mind is made of patterns. Jungian thinking is holistic and universal, and this clearly upsets many people who would rather think reductively and atomically.

>>15257993
Why male and female archetypes? Why not order and chaos? Surely amoebas and asexual life are in dna as much if not more than animal sexuality and human gender... and all the other life! You believe in a neoplatonic chain of being too?

Why not a neutral monism that generates matter and mind from matter but participates in both?

As Lacan says it's all mirrors. Mirrored monads. Split between light and shadow. Most ultimately we have Others rather than Animi and Animae.

>>15258226
>Why male and female archetypes? Why not order and chaos
That's the same thing. Light and dark, order and chaos, active and passive, positive and negative, male and female, gold and silver, sun and moon, fire and water, the womb of the world (Anima Mundus) and the seed of God (Animus Dei), etc. etc. I could go on forever.
It makes it much more simple to just say yin and yang.

I think of it like this: in the fundament of reality there is a code that is activated when a singularity divides into a duality of complimentary poles. This code generates the principles of yin and yang from the neutral substance. One becomes yin and the other yang because if they are to be separated qualities, yet also derived from the same source, one must exist as a perfect mirror image to the other and thus a perfect compliment. This is the yin in the yang and the yang in the yin.

When organisms evolved from the neutral class into the sexually dimorphic one, the easiest and cleanest way to do so was to divide into perfect complimentary parts: an active male and a passive female. I think of reality as being generated according to perfect principles almost like computer code (but really infinitely more efficient) so its easy to see male and female as being generated by the yin and yang principles and thus aligning to them. I don't think its anthropocentric since, like you said, its all mirrors anyway.

>>15258226
I'm not familiar with lacan. When you say "it's all mirrors" do you mean that the world we see reflects us because the meaning we read in things is something we ourselves project onto them?

>>15258432
But surely our experience of the absolute is predicated on prehuman modalities and thus gays and autists and normies might have different paths to individuation from each other. That is my theory..

>>15258617
Sure, they might. However, I think it would always be wise to understand the archetypes and unconscious qualities they are dealing with and the psychological consequences of them. Male + female is a nice tried and true method for balance in life, at least on a theoretical level disregarding other variables like class status and such. Which gay relationships it is harder to see how things work together and the archetypes become more arcane and obscured. Male on female is theoretically a safe bet in life, but a gay autistic schizo brony relationship must require more caution.

>>15258461
The subject can only be conceptualized as an object
>how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real? -lacan

>>15248737
Holy based..

Bump

>>15257465
Thanks, a lot of this resonates with me as I'm in therapy now as well.

>However, instead of it being a sad attempt to push her views, I saw it as her attempt at guiding me through a realist way of pushing me aside from the weight of my parent's judgement, not invalidating it, not offering me an escape, but simply making me realize how little of an impact it had on the actual real life structure since I am living away from them (I decided to leave my home state).
Especially this resonates a lot. I assume she had a non-directive approach? As in, not telling you directly what you should or should not do, given your situation but that you examine the feelings and tendencies that you have and then make the conclusions yourself?

This is in part reason why I don't like Jordan Peterson, from a therapeutic point of view. He's so damn prescriptive and preaching, never letting you figure out anything on your own.

>The great thing about this is, I did understand her talks, and finally took up the job offer and started a business not because of my parents, but because of my own drive and motivation to become that which I admire.
Something similar happened to me, and I think Rogers would have a lot to say about this. It's great that it went well for you. It did for me too.

>I hope I did not over extend myself, but I did want to share all of the story.
It's all good. As I said, I really identify with a lot of what you have said.

>>15258617
Holy.. I went to sleep and this happens?
More seriously, I don't think it can be disregarded that everyone has a different path to individuation. However, I don't think you can discard certain standards.

>normies
I don't think anyone is a normie..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih4aEYm5yac

>>15247708
>What is better proof of a hypothesis than its applicability?
Absolutely embarrassing

>>15250658
This makes perfect sense and I think that you really hit the nail on the head

>>15257993
>They are a temporary suppression of its symptoms
That counts as curing since they can live their lives normally. Also, what's with "temporary"? If the medication is effective, the person takes it until the end of his/her life and that's it. Why would the suppression be temporary?

>>15247424
FPBP, the soul is real, animus is real, Jung was a genius and also a genuinely cool dude, not like that pervert Freud

>>15260963
>>15261458
I think that is a normie hypothesis from subjective experience and lack of experience or empathy for the differently abled. I have been suicidal before but never thought about putting on dresses and getting fucked in the ass to cope. Why not accept it as a neurodivergent type like schizoid or autism? Same with being gay. I don't fuck my bros when I don't have a girlfriend. Not even tempted.
>no such thing as normies
Normie saying.

>>15262432
>I have been suicidal before but never thought about putting on dresses and getting fucked in the ass to cope
>I don't fuck my bros when I don't have a girlfriend.
It depends on individual characters, e.g. someone will be more horny than someone else, and he has to channel it somewhere
This would also explain why trans people and gays are more promiscuous in the first place, it's all about that horniness
>Why not accept it as a neurodivergent type like schizoid or autism
Why would you do this? The situation differs vastly from schizoid stuff and autism.

could a based Jung-bro explain archetypes to me? I get that they're universal psychic patterns but how does that translate to everyday reality? do we "think" in archetypes? do they affect how we act in or perceive reality?

>>15261486
The medicine could run out, or they could go off their meds, or the rising dependence on medication could lead mankind to grow so comfortable with the idea of chemical restructuring of the mind that society chemically lobotomizes itself to achieve a 0.8% increase in efficiency.

>>15262572
>The medicine could run out
No, except in a sense that the patient won't have the money to buy it for any reason, which is a flaw, I agree, but this is related to economics, not the medication itself
>or the rising dependence on medication could lead mankind to grow so comfortable with the idea of chemical restructuring of the mind that society chemically lobotomizes itself to achieve a 0.8% increase in efficiency
Nice slippery slope you got there

>>15262535

The psyche is comprised of many various parts, most of which are unknown to us. The unknown parts are often represented by various archetypes. Anima archetype corresponds to man's ability to relate emotionally to women and to discover intimacy. If you are overtaken by an anima archetype, you become a feminine guy without much awareness of it. Being overtaken by Shadow archetype can mean you will become a violent criminal, if you let the archetype possess you.

We do not think in archetypes. They are beyond us and interact more or less independently. It's like our psyche is full of ghost with which we have to learn our way around. Some will be nice and some will be not so nice. Various archetypes also have various different forms. So, you can see positive anima figures and negative anima figures. It is important to note that archetype is not a personification of psychic patterns, but rather the patterns themselves. We cannot see them for what they are most of the time though, so personification helps.

Various psychic patterns can be observed in dreams or free associations. This is best done with a psychoanalyst as it is very difficult to interpret things on one's own.

I once contemplated starting a healthier lifestyle and diet. An anima figure in my dream literally threw an apple on me. I have a habit of buying apples and bananas now. You'll connect with them well only if you make a certain effort.

>>15262700
thanks, that makes more sense now. have a frog.

>>15262486
Idk. I like his idea of Christ archetype. I think he needs more Hermetic archetype. I am an Orphic archetype myself.
>why would you do this?
Giving people the benefit of the doubt.

>>15262187
Jung is just sanitized Freud.

>>15247401
All psychoanalytic offshots are pseudoscience. What Freud got right wasn't new, what he was the first to state, he got wrong.

Jung should've knew better, as he rebelled against Freud after he realised that his therapies simply didn't fucking work(in particular he tracked down Anna O. I think), but instead of asking himself "if Freud was wrong on his therapy, maybe I should rethink the approach the psychoanalytic method used to explain psychology", he went into literally mysticism. If you're interested in hermeneutics or some kind of literary analysis then he's probably interesting but you can basically bet that none of what he says is evident actually exists.

>>15262650
>>15262486
>>15262572
>>15262824
After speaking of his using material from “milder, still fluid cases and of latent psychoses,” Jung (1958) noted: “Consequently, I must leave the possibility open that there may also be schizophrenia for which a psychogenic aetiology can be considered only in minimal degree or perhaps not at all”

Could also be cases of homos and trans that aren't just archetype possession or psychogenic aetiology....

>>15262869
Do you think philosophical therapy is superior? Alas western philosophers tend not to perform this function. Though I suppose priests and others still do somewhat albeit dying out. The east offers few answers IMO as well.

>>15262535
Just watch Inside Out

>>15262945
Generally speaking "placebo therapy", that is talking about your problems with person of disposition of priest or a close friend is about as effective as psychoanalysis, furthermore the length of training and experience of psychoanalytic doesn't increase the chances of successful therapy significantly. This indicates that what's particular to psychoanalysis isn't helping the patient, but the presence of another person he can talk to(and disposition of this person towards the patient, Freud's Dora definitely didn't get better) is. So yeah, catholic confession for instance is known to be therapeutic.

Behavioural therapy works very well, but there's no framework that's readily applicable to every single problem you can come up with, however despite of what all the psychoanalytics warned about doesn't produce syndrome substitution nor increase anxiety in patients.

The reason why psychoanalysis became popular for a while is simply because it's universal framework that you can use to explain everything from anxiety through homosexuality to ulcers(now that being said basically every school of psychology had explanation for that, and they were all wrong). Behaviourists have to figure out methods to condition(bed wetting) or decondition(OCD) the patient, which are often not that straightforward. Also I guess the fact that humans just want to believe they're not trained animals and psychoanalysis gives you a proposition of how it's supposed to happen, without relying on pure hermeneutics.

>>15263074
Behavioral therapy seemed fake to me. Maybe I am lazy. I had some breakthroughs with psychodynamic stuff. Interested in studying Lacan and Deleuze. What else is there?

>>15263103
Behavioural therapists don't care about "seem" they have empirical data to back their methods.

>>15263140
Empirical data that proves it is better? I thought CBT was about equal to other forms? Ie they are all placebo therapies

>>15263074
>>15263172
>anti-universalist
Damn. So CBT is the real schizoanalysis? Is american philosophy always superior in applicability and understandability to continental philosophy?

>>15263172
Found this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3584580/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5797481/

I withdraw my foolish questions

>>15263172
Here's what Hans Eysenck had to say about a sort of metastudy by Smith et all "The Benefits of Psychotherapy". ES means effect size, it's kind of abstracted measurement of effectiveness of given therapy. The book I've taken this from is "Decline and Fall of Freudian Empire" by said Eysenck, later on he mentions that "placebo treatment" which is defined as(excuse me the formatting I'm copying and pasting from pdf):

"As explained earlier, ‘placebo treatment’ is a pseudo-
treatment which has no rationale or meaning, and is not
intended to benefit the patient; it is simply instituted to make
him believe that he is being treated, while in actual fact he is
receiving no kind of effective treatment whatsoever. A placebo
treatment is a control for non-specific effects, such as a patient’s
going to see a therapist, believing that something is being done
for him, and possibly talking to the psychiatrist or psychologist.
It should therefore be a control, and it is interesting to see that
its ES is 0.56, i.e. very close to that of psychodynamic therapy."

And mind you that the studies they've picked are often quite honestly horrible methodically, so it may just be that the practice of psychotherapists to only accept patients that are young, rich, intelligent and attractive, thus their particular issues may just get drowned by their future life successes regardless of therapy causes the difference between their efficiency and the efficiency of "placebo". For TL;DR effect size of therapy effectiveness:
>placebo 0,56
>psychotherapy/psychodynamic therapies 0,69
>behavioural therapy 1,05

>>15263270
CBT isn't that antiuniversalist(I don't even know what would be the implications of that), but the difference basically is, where Freud for instance(since he's well known I'll use him), thinks that all psychological issues are caused by some childhood erotic experiences being suppressed in a wrong way(perhaps as a result of cultural norms), he also thinks his "cure" that is resolving conflicts between the ID, ego and super-ego by rationalising and framing the issue to the patient will help him. Now that can be done with all sorts of illnesses and the method is always the same. Behavioural therapy on the other hand looks like that:

>kid wets himself at night when he's old enough that he shouldn't shouldn't
>send him to urologist to confirm it's not medical problem
>put detector in his pants when he goes to sleep to trigger small electric shock when it detects moisture, it will wake the kid up
>brain will now start associating the feeling of full bladder during sleep with waking up, thus preventing bed wetting

This is like 1960's method and it works like a charm. Now the obvious thing is, putting moisture detector in patients pants is not a way of curing anxiety of some kind while applying psychoanalytic therapy offers that possibility - that's the universalism of it, for every illness, roughly the same therapy. Obviously psychoanalytic of any kind(there's about 100 schools of it and they all believe they're correct) when encountering bed-wetting patient would out of the gate tell that he can't help him nowadays because they've tried hard in the past and always failed(just like OCD which I've also mentioned).

>>15263074
>"placebo therapy"
Did you just made this up?
You display no understanding of psychoanalytical therapy.
Rogers and Yalom had something to say about issues of psychoanalysis, but not you. You're just rambling.

> Also I guess the fact that humans just want to believe they're not trained animals
Yes, because they are not.

>>15263397
>Yes, because they are not.
Then explain why behavioural therapy works better than psychoanalytic and doesn't suffer from relapses or syndrome substitution.

>>15263382
not that anon but cbt is soulless

>>15263445
Surgery is soulless too.

>>15263421
>Then explain why behavioural therapy works better than psychoanalytic and doesn't suffer from relapses or syndrome substitution.
The question makes no sense because the answer to it does not, in parallel, give answer to whether humans are just trained animals.

Irregardless, there's nothing that suggests behavioural therapy working better. Yeah, get that "empirical research" out now. The biggest signifying factor in any therapy is the therapist themselves.
Psychoanalysis is not there to cure anything. This is the American ego you are displaying. You think you can just toy with your body and mould it anyway you want. You can't.
In some way, you may be destined to have certain symptoms, neurosis, and other issues. Question isn't if you can eradicate them. It's about living your life with what you have the best way you can. Typical American response here is that you shouldn't just accept things and that you should change that which you don't like. Go ahead, child.
Behaviourism has failed on many fronts because it equates humans to rats and upon realising it doesn't work that way, they still insist on it being so.

>>15263457
true, it feels like you're just a cattle.

>>15263445
Cbt is great. It helped me a lot

>>15263469
As always when confronted with evidence psychoanalytic reacts with trying to argue against therapy as a whole or goes to ad hominems.

The reality is, for 50 years or so, countless people wasted lots of money and years of their life on psychoanalytic quackery that helped them jack shit, CBT can solve their problems in matter of months. You can philosophy as much as you want but either you think therapists should be there, thus CBT should reign supreme, or you assume that psychology should be purely academic, in which case we're just arguing on heuristics vs. naturalism, which is where you're trying to turn the discussion into.

>>15263469
I don't understand this, you're saying there is no evidence that any type of therapy works? Wtf are we still teaching it for then or paying therapists?

>>15263519
>CBT can solve their problems in matter of months.
Bullshit :)

>thus CBT should reign supreme
"Thus" does not follow the previous sentence.

>or you assume that psychology should be purely academic
No, you fail to address what I labelled as American ego. You think you are God of your body and psyche. I'm saying you're not.
CBT has a very limited use. Be glad you never had issues that go beyond anxiety that can be "cured" in a month.

>>15263553
>I don't understand this, you're saying there is no evidence that any type of therapy works?
Of course there isn't. It's all about experience. There is no point arguing who can find a better sounding article or nicer number in a tab. That's what most here don't get.
You 'experience' therapy. Period. If you experience great benefits from CBT, it's all good. If you do experience benefits from other forms of therapy, also good. There is nothing to suggest that one mode of therapy is better over the other.
I like bashing behaviourists because they are oddly mostly American and do not get that we are not rats in a lab.

> Wtf are we still teaching it for then or paying therapists?
Because psychology is art, not a science. Sometimes you grossly overpay for it, sometimes you underpay, and sometimes you get it for free.

>>15263519
>thus CBT should reign supreme

Based and cbtpilled

>>15263555
>CBT has a very limited use.
Still wider than psychoanalysis. And I've mentioned that difficulty in my posts, translating the method into particular therapeutic routine is just not as simple as sitting on a couch and telling the patient that his problems are caused by his poorly repressed childhood complexes. However the fact that you can apply any chosen psychoanalytic therapy to illnesses that don't have CBT worked out for it
>>15263569
>You 'experience' therapy. Period. If you experience great benefits from CBT, it's all good. If you do experience benefits from other forms of therapy, also good. There is nothing to suggest that one mode of therapy is better over the other.
Assuming experiences are relatively randomised, which in high enough sample should be correct, it literally doesn't matter. Again you can argue against this mindset but in this case don't be surprised that your ideas are being called pseudo-science and you're being treated on par with homeopathy(which sadly isn't true).
>I like bashing behaviourists because they are oddly mostly American and do not get that we are not rats in a lab.
I like bashing psychodynamists because their methods don't work. Huff and puff all you want but assuming that we're rats or dogs in a lab seemingly works, while thinking we're more complex than that quite evidently doesn't.

And don't get me started on psychoanalytic ideas on how does brain work because that's like the best example where "what's new isn't true and what's true isn't new" in their theories.

>>15263671
>Still wider than psychoanalysis. And I've mentioned that difficulty in my posts, translating the method into particular therapeutic routine is just not as simple as sitting on a couch and telling the patient that his problems are caused by his poorly repressed childhood complexes. However the fact that you can apply any chosen psychoanalytic therapy to illnesses that don't have CBT worked out for it
... doesn't mean you should or that it works.

>>15247401
Psychoanalysis is Jewish hogwash

>>15263686
Explain the content of /gif/ then

>>15263671
>Still wider than psychoanalysis
No, psychoanalysis is the widest possible because it is endless and you can go through much more than just picking a specific goal and going for it. Jung was right when he said that our society focuses on performance, not on personality. You're displaying just that. Development of personality means nothing, but performing in a way that helps you overcome a certain problem is the way to go. Wonder why there are all these problems then.


>don't be surprised that your ideas are being called pseudo-science
I just said that psychology is art not science. Do you want me to spell it out again or are you going to keep pretending like I'm stepping into your frame?
I don't care how "scientific" community treats psychoanalysis. It means nothing to me. I have first hand experience with psychoanalysis and Rogerian therapy, and guess what, I don't need consent of scientific community to prove whether the therapy is right or not.
What do you have?

You are so disoriented, it hurts. I can see American flag all over your post and I don't plan to argue further. If it doesn't work, then go back to your usual mode of being and don't plague Jung thread with your "evident" lack of knowledge on the subject.
Dr von Franz was right after all.

>>15263746
>psychoanalysis is the widest possible
It's not 1950's anymore, nowadays I think typically you only recommend psychoanalytic therapy to PTSD, although that seems to be going out of style as well. Unless you mean non-clinical use, then whatever.
>I just said that psychology is art not science .
With that mindset leave therapy to behaviourists then and for your purposes use volunteers only, but not that's not happening anytime soon I am afraid because that's how analytics get their sweet sweet cash. 100 different schools of psychoanalytic thought, all having completely legit record from their patients confirming their conflicting theories won't feed themselves without pretending that they can help.
>I have first hand experience
Anecdotal.
>I don't need consent of scientific community to prove whether the therapy is right or not.
Jungian patients relay their dreams and they fit Jungian theory, Freudian patients relay their dreams and they fit Freudian theory and so on and so on. In fact that's enough of an evidence that if you believe in existence of unconscious "censor" then you're plain wrong and that "censor" is very, very conscious.
>I can see American flag all over your post
I wish I was American then I would live in McMansion instead of commieblock.

>>15263828
not that other anon, but this conversation is what makes Lacan interesting for me.

He goes the opposite direction and tries to take Freudian theory and frames it in such a way that allows symbolic formulation of the unconscious. Basically trying to make psychoanalysis into a science on the level with physics.

>>15263746
Rogerian therapy is the best therapy desu

>>15263937
based