/lit/ - Literature

define worth

>>22807014
Schzobabble is worth reading. I love perusing /x/ for "testimonies" and conspiracy theories.

>>22807026
Not to mention the parallel science and anthropology

>>22807014
It's about one third schizo babble, one third passable, and a third extremely insightful and elucidating

It's for if you're a pseud looking to impress women with pseudo-occult philosophy over dinner parties.

>>22807121
This. Many of his observations about shared archetypes between ancient cultures and the modern psyche are very interesting, but the overaching system he extrapolates from those observations is kind of dumb and most of it is presented so dryly and matter-of-factly as to also render it kind of boring. His obsession with the mandala-symbol is perhaps the most annoying aspect of it all

He's an idiot and I feel sorry for his patients

>>22807328
>mandela(s)
Yeah, almost ruins a later book or two. Nonetheless the three alchemy books are worth checking out; great bibliographies

>>22807014
If you write babble you're a faggot

>>22807014
He is a response to Freud. He does not transcend the pedagogical arrangement and its terminus is disagreement.

what do you think about Adler?

>>22807025
I'll take that as a no

>>22808034
Bla bla bla I can't make a simple definition

Good luck understanding your own feelings

>>22807026
This. Most schizobabble is a waste of time, but 100% of what sane people say is tedious, so with schizos you at least have a chance

>>22807938
Psychology is an attempt to create a disconnected human subject from which truths can be produced in a controlled environment. The human genome is easier to map than the human subject without a specific touchstone, anyway. It can be further from or closer to biological analysis. There is a psychologist who incorporates occasionalism into their work.

>>22807014
Probably the best psychologist and psychoanalyst there is, but still on the whole worthless like the rest

>Is the smartest man to have ever lived who dedicated his life to mapping out the last great frontier of human psychology worth reading?
Dunno.

>>22807798
I fucked a super hot redhead who was ... let's say incredibly tortured by her own decisions and some tragic circumstances. She got brain cancer and had to spend several months locked inside a makeshift clean room at her house. She had to have a hysterectomy shortly afterwards, and had to convince an ex to have a child with her before she was rendered infertile. She was also legit raped, not fake "I didn't really wanna fuck him but I just kinda did lol" but actually gang raped while drugged.

Since she recovered from her cancer, she began drawing mandalas. I asked her why, and she said she had no idea. She had never really shown any serious interest in art before, but began constructing these incredibly elaborate and detailed mandalas completely spontaneously.

She said they made her feel better. And she would sometimes draw mandalas that represented how she felt at a specific time in her life, and during relationships.

So, shut the fuck up, retard.

>>22807014
OP, ignore all of these retards:
>>22807267
>>22807328
>>22807796
>>22807798
>>22807880
>>22808060
None of these people know what they are talking about. In fact, virtually everything you read about Jung online comes from clueless retards, because Jung is not an easy writer, but people love to pretend they know everything about psychology. Modern people are also totally resistant to any deep discussion of the unconscious, for reasons you'll understand if you read Jung. He is absolutely worth reading; in fact, he's probably the most important writer of the last century. Reading Jung is eye-opening, because he breaks away from the constraints of current social and philosophical prejudices, which are so pervading it's hard to realise they even exist. Vital if you want to understand the dilemma of modern man.

I genuinely can't comprehend the people who call Jung schizobabble. Are they being disingenuous or are they retarded? Because he's a perfectly straightforward writer.
Anyway he's one of the greatest minds of all time and should be mandatory teaching.

>>22809425
It's narcissism. People generally have this idea that they can get one over on anyone.

You can't with Jung. Anything he said that was wrong, and there certainly was plenty, happened to be a consequence of his inability at the time to conduct any serious scientific investigation on the subject. Virtually anything he studied seriously and diligently he contributed to.

Retards and normies hate those sorts of people because you simply have to kneel down in front of their work and thank them for doing the work for you.

>>22808437
Wow she sounds really hot

>>22809658
Bruh she was. Still work with. Bitch is fucking grade a1 nuts.

Jung observed in patients with very severe and sudden trauma, and severe schizophrenics, that they would spontaneously produce mandalas. Sometimes they'd even dance them.

Mandalas are a symbol of the self, so they're a kind of attempt at psychic healing when they're produced in dreams or imaginative crestive productive states.

The older I get and the more experience I have with people, the more my respect for Jung grows.

>>22808476
IDK, I read his entire "autobiography," Man and His Symbols, and Psychology and Alchemy, plus some secondary literature, and I ultimately came away thinking the guy was sort of a grifter tricked by his own game and essentially a pseudo-scientist.

I got much more of value from just reading famous mystics, Eckhart, Dogen, etc. Jung is like a sort of New Age secularized fusion of these with a patina of science over it.

I like his students better. He: Understanding Masculine Psychology is at least a fun walk through the Grail Myth.

I try to be charitable to each author. I eventually came around on Hegel and Augustine. I can appreciate aspects of Nietzsche and religious writers. But I feel like I just wasted time with Jung and I don't think it comes down to being "filtered." He's being obscurantist because he is doing pseudo science. If you take it as a sort of "art" it might be more palatable.

>>22809672
With all due respect, are you mentally ill? Or do you possess some personality disorder?

I've noticed narcissists do NOT understand Jung. Like, they have this weird tendency to project their own deceptive nature onto him and dismiss his ideas as a consequence.

Like, if I asked you to give a quick explanation of the difference between the Anima and the Animus, could you do it?

>>22809425
>people who call ____ schizobabble
Its a cope of midwit normies to affirm their delusions of superiority.

Very Jordan Peterson lobster mentality, just ignore the conceptual BTFO and raise claws anyway, a cheat of the self allowed for only in modern society, where anywhere else death would be the results.

Go ahead...fite me, /lit/...

>>22808476
Psychobabble is all fart smelling pseudointellectual bunk and when rationality progresses so that praxeology can be a thing it will devastate psychology.

>>22809693
>praxeology
Logical reactionaryism.
>will devastate psychology
The reverse engineering of an individuals praxeological results.

You've been through a lot in life, want to unpack this?

Bear in mind that psychology as a field fought hard to retain the analysis of dreams as a main stay of mental healthcare. In the end though, it didn't hold up to empirical scrutiny. Dreams don't appear to be any sort of special window into the unconscious, and treatment based on dreams is as useful as placebo.

So, we should be a little skeptical that Jung just happens to have clients whose dreams perfectly fit their issues and just happen to have all the symbolism from topics he was interested in studying.

We should be particularly skeptical of the claims to have foreseen the future through dreams and visions (which he helpfully only reported after the events he prophecied) or his whole "being possessed by an ancient dead Gnostic," thing.

This doesn't mean Jung wasn't a creative genius. It just means approach with some care the way you would the stories of some self proclaimed saint.

>>22809686
>Every Evola, Crowley, Guenon, Jung, esoterica thread ever.
>"I don't particularly like x." Or "there seems to be a problem with y."
>"You are a mentally ill retard. Anyone who is not evil/retarded would recognize the absolute brilliance of x and y. If anyone doesn't love x they simply haven't understood it due to their own deficiencies. If anyone disagrees with Y they simply could not have understood it."

Literally every thread on these topics. It's so tiresome.

Nevermind, Jung is one of the greatest minds ever and his principles being largely abandoned in his own field is due to everyone being retarded and unable to fathom him.

>>22809706
>his whole "being possessed by an ancient dead Gnostic,"
Based.
I may look over his works after all.

>empirical scrutiny
>prove to me your phenomenological experience
Thats impossible without a consciousness transfer device, to which would use cognitive signals of another, with produces another consciousness all together, thus you would cease to experience as the you before, voiding empiricism.

Ripperino, not very rigorous.

https://youtu.be/kMxTS7eKkNM

>>22807014
I'd say his contributions to psychology are significant enough that they are worth reading whether they are schizo babble or not. It would be silly to not read his books even if you disagree with him.
His ideas are so taken for granted that to many people they appear invisible, which results in only his mistakes receiving attention. Same thing as Freud.

Some of his works are tedious to read because he tries to be medically rigorous.
Other works are more philosophical and require logical reasoning to follow along.
And other works still, are very esoteric and may or may not require personal experience with the matters being discussed.

>>22807014
I tried reading man and his symbols and all I remember is that he knew a guy who had dreamt of his house burning and later ended up dying from a fever and some little girl who had morbid dreams and died young. not schizo-babble but not interesting or worth reading either

>>22809716
I mean, yeah? It's kinda like someone coming into a /sci/ thread with no mathematical training and criticizing Einstein based on, like, cracked articles they skimmed when he was 15 in his school library.

>Nevermind, Jung is one of the greatest minds ever and his principles being largely abandoned in his own field is due to everyone being retarded and unable to fathom him.
Literally yes, lmao.

>>22809706
> Dreams don't appear to be any sort of special window into the unconscious, and treatment based on dreams is as useful as placebo.
Perfect example of what I mean.

What Jung discovered was that as we develop as individual personalities, we imitate other people around us. If you've ever seen a child walk away from a superhero movie, they'll basically become the hero for a few days afterwards. Little girls play house and mommy, and little boys play soldier and hero. This is so deeply constituted that even Gorillas will sort themselves by sex into groups when you toss into their enclosure toy dolls and toy guns; the female chimps play with the dolls, the male chimps use the toy guns as clubs and even sometimes figure out that the trigger is meant to be pulled and the gun held just like we do.

He discovered that this was an instinctual process, and that if he entered into his own imagination, or analyzed his dreams, that these patterns of representation could be engaged with and even hold autonomous conversations. Jung imitated his father, who imitated his father who himself was also influenced by hundreds of other men across his life, who imitated his father who was also influenced by hundreds of other men, etc. going back to the dawn of human consciousness. When we analyze these amalgamations of patterns of behavior, we can reveal to ourselves the structure of our personalities.

Retards like this come on here and shit out spastic takes like "lmao dreams are just gay nonsense" because, well, that's what their dreams are to them. As such, their personality is gay nonsense too.

>>22809796
>with no mathematical training and criticizing Einstein
"Give it exactly one week."
-Richard Feynman

>>22809822
I don't understand your post, namefag.

>>22809824
>I don't understand
You could have just left it as that.

Extrapolate or die.

>>22809796
>I mean, yeah? It's kinda like someone coming into a /sci/ thread with no mathematical training and criticizing Einstein based on, like, cracked articles they skimmed when he was 15 in his school library.

No it isn't. SR/GR is still a cornerstone of modern physics. Jung is barely taught in psychology programs. He is a footnote in intro and abnormal, but is generally thought to be too poorly supported by good data and too unfalsifiable to be given considerable discussion. Modern psychology is not grounded on Freud and Jung in the way modern physics is grounded in SR/GR as a paradigm.

In terms of the approach as an actually effective way to treat mental health issues, there is plenty of data that suggests it's no better than placebo. A random person talking you for an hour with no training is as likely to improve your self evaluated mental health as a psychoanalyst. Very few clinicians these days are diagnosing people with Oedipus complexes, etc. That sort of early psych has largely been abandoned by the field.

People who still do it almost always mix it with CBT. Why? Because health insurance literally won't pay for straight psychoanalysis because there is no data that it actually works.

You can use SR/GR to make extremely precise predictions about future observations. You can use economic models to make less specific but still quantifiable predictions about the future and see if they are falsifiable. You can't test "if you really get it you can see the future in your dreams bro," the same way. Or at least, no one using these methods has ever shown they can reliably predict the future through their dreams lol.

Jung has more in common with quantum mysticism and ectoplasm than Einstein.

>>22809842
>taught in psychology programs
pffft hahahahhaa

Symptom classification and hyper-distiguishing making every malaise a unique (and chemically treatable) diagnosis.

Treatment center prescription PhD-nurses, they produce no doctors there anymore.

>>22809842
>Very few clinicians these days are diagnosing people with Oedipus complexes, etc.
They should be.

40-something year odl friend (patient) of mine. Always hated his dad for being "a fukken asshole dude". Mother kicked the dad out. Son moves back in, using the room of a 13 year old nephew that moved out.

His mother fills the void of wife.
He fills the void of man of the house.

She gets the company, he gets the comfort. Its everything but sexual.

Meanwhile...his 9 year old kid cries, A LOT, and literally asked his dad for a mother. Dad has no interest....he has that need filled, his son be damned.

>>22809842
>Jung is barely taught in psychology programs. He is a footnote in intro and abnormal, but is generally thought to be too poorly supported by good data and too unfalsifiable to be given considerable discussion. Uhuh, and the modern state of psychology is ... to your liking? You think that this is a good thing? Very embarrassing. Jung also has more honorary degrees than you've had hot meals, and happened to spend inordinate amounts of his time lecturing. It's basically all he did. His own children didn't realize he was their father, that's how much he worked. His collected PUBLISHED works total approximately 80,000 pages.

>People who still do it almost always mix it with CBT. Why? Because health insurance literally won't pay for straight psychoanalysis because there is no data that it actually works.
Of course, the health insurance companies are without question the definitive authority on human well-being and mental health lmao. Are you literally a psych major or something? Is this what they teach you? You're giving me PTSD flashbacks to arguing with idiots at college.

>You can use SR/GR to make extremely precise predictions about future observations. You can use economic models to make less specific but still quantifiable predictions about the future and see if they are falsifiable. You can't test "if you really get it you can see the future in your dreams bro," the same way. Or at least, no one using these methods has ever shown they can reliably predict the future through their dreams lol.
Jung hinted at times to personal colleagues and his students that the unconscious may hold the capacity to intuit, that is produce hints from the unconscious processes of the mind, about the probability density functions of certain events. It's absolutely not uncommon for, say, husbands or wives to begin having strangely menacing dreams on the topic of infidelity the moment their partner begins cheating. We may not consciously register very much about the world, but our unconscious seems to possess a far deeper understanding of the nuances of human behavior than our conscious mind does. That was his point. His personal SUSPICION was that if the empirical science could be done, which he pushed for very hard during his lifetime, and never really received proper funding for the truly massive scale such a study would need to be done on, that in his opinion he felt the likelihood was high that what would call legitimate prescience would be demonstrated.

Was he correct? No. We've done the research and it turns out the unconscious is just incredibly intuitive. Was he also born in the 18 fucking 80s? Yeah.

>Jung is barely taught in psychology programs. He is a footnote in intro and abnormal, but is generally thought to be too poorly supported by good data and too unfalsifiable to be given considerable discussion.
Uhuh, and the modern state of psychology is ... to your liking? You think that this is a good thing? Very embarrassing. Jung also has more honorary degrees than you've had hot meals, and happened to spend inordinate amounts of his time lecturing. It's basically all he did. His own children didn't realize he was their father, that's how much he worked. His collected PUBLISHED works total approximately 80,000 pages.

>People who still do it almost always mix it with CBT. Why? Because health insurance literally won't pay for straight psychoanalysis because there is no data that it actually works.
Of course, the health insurance companies are without question the definitive authority on human well-being and mental health lmao. Are you literally a psych major or something? Is this what they teach you? You're giving me PTSD flashbacks to arguing with idiots at college.

>You can use SR/GR to make extremely precise predictions about future observations. You can use economic models to make less specific but still quantifiable predictions about the future and see if they are falsifiable. You can't test "if you really get it you can see the future in your dreams bro," the same way. Or at least, no one using these methods has ever shown they can reliably predict the future through their dreams lol.
Jung hinted at times to personal colleagues and his students that the unconscious may hold the capacity to intuit, that is produce hints from the unconscious processes of the mind, about the probability density functions of certain events. It's absolutely not uncommon for, say, husbands or wives to begin having strangely menacing dreams on the topic of infidelity the moment their partner begins cheating. We may not consciously register very much about the world, but our unconscious seems to possess a far deeper understanding of the nuances of human behavior than our conscious mind does. That was his point. His personal SUSPICION was that if the empirical science could be done, which he pushed for very hard during his lifetime, and never really received proper funding for the truly massive scale such a study would need to be done on, that in his opinion he felt the likelihood was high that what would call legitimate prescience would be demonstrated.

Was he correct? No. We've done the research and it turns out the unconscious is just incredibly intuitive. Was he also born in the 18 fucking 80s? Yeah.

>>22809845
>The epistemological methods of the sciences cannot be used to test my pseudoscience. I have anecdotes and visions!

Ever wonder why a lot of stuff in this niche is in the New Age section of book stores?

>>22809842
>Jung is barely taught in psychology programs. He is a footnote in intro and abnormal, but is generally thought to be too poorly supported by good data and too unfalsifiable to be given considerable discussion.
Uhuh, and the modern state of psychology is ... to your liking? You think that this is a good thing? Very embarrassing. Jung also has more honorary degrees than you've had hot meals, and happened to spend inordinate amounts of his time lecturing. It's basically all he did. His own children didn't realize he was their father, that's how much he worked. His collected PUBLISHED works total approximately 80,000 pages.

>People who still do it almost always mix it with CBT. Why? Because health insurance literally won't pay for straight psychoanalysis because there is no data that it actually works.
Of course, the health insurance companies are without question the definitive authority on human well-being and mental health lmao. Are you literally a psych major or something? Is this what they teach you? You're giving me PTSD flashbacks to arguing with idiots at college.

>You can use SR/GR to make extremely precise predictions about future observations. You can use economic models to make less specific but still quantifiable predictions about the future and see if they are falsifiable. You can't test "if you really get it you can see the future in your dreams bro," the same way. Or at least, no one using these methods has ever shown they can reliably predict the future through their dreams lol.
Jung hinted at times to personal colleagues and his students that the unconscious may hold the capacity to intuit, that is produce hints from the unconscious processes of the mind, about the probability density functions of certain events. It's absolutely not uncommon for, say, husbands or wives to begin having strangely menacing dreams on the topic of infidelity the moment their partner begins cheating. We may not consciously register very much about the world, but our unconscious seems to possess a far deeper understanding of the nuances of human behavior than our conscious mind does. That was his point. His personal SUSPICION was that if the empirical science could be done, which he pushed for very hard during his lifetime, and never really received proper funding for the truly massive scale such a study would need to be done on, that in his opinion he felt the likelihood was high that what would call legitimate prescience would be demonstrated.

Was he correct? No. We've done the research and it turns out the unconscious is just incredibly intuitive. Was he also born in the 18 fucking 80s? Yeah.

>>22809842
Also, you do know that Jung was personal friends with and co-wrote multiple papers alongside the guy who codified modern quantum mechanical math, right, dipshit?

>>22809863
Because women and beta males with low test don't understand science? Jung is quite literally too alpha for guys like you, it's hilarious.

>>22809864
Freud wrote a lot. He got a lot of awards. He has even more rep then Jung. I guess since this is how we decide the validity of scientific claims it must be the case that Jung is quite wrong where he disagrees with Freud.

But that we have older psychologists who wrote even more pages and are even more well regarded. I mean, Saint Augustine wrote on human nature and psychology at length, thousands of pages, and he's a saint and top 10 influential philosopher. Guess he must have been right about everything!

>>22809867
>More appeals to authority
You know lots of scientists say stupid shit when they talk outside their lane. Are Pinker's (ass) political screeds correct because he is a good cognitive scientist. Is Rovelli's philosophy good because he is good at physics?

And then appeals to tough guyism. Truly, the power of Jung is quite apparent in the powers of debate you have developed through them. I concede.

Please let me know if you have any visions about the future so that I can prepare for future wars and shit.

>>22809870
Freud was also objectively incorrect about the structure of the psyche. His position was that the dream was a sort of censor, and it was trying to obfuscate knowledge which was too painful for the conscious ego to understood. Freud was a mega-genius, but he was also a pioneer, and like all pioneers he got an awful lot wrong out of sheer in-access to the grander conceptual frameworks of which Jung was privy, thanks to his work. So, Jung, thanks to the springboard Freud provided, discovered that the unconscious was not a censoring mechanism, and that instead it was something like an archaic remnant of an older stage in consciousness that has been integrated into the psyche as a kind of birthplace for creative thought. Freud claimed that the dream wanted to obscure knowledge that wasn't yet conscious, whereas Jung discovered that the dream was actually doing its best to communicate something incredibly complicated, but only had at its disposal something like feeling-toned images.

These two positions are not commensurate with one another, and Freud is wrong, and Jung is right. The reason modern psychology is completely retarded is because Freud's model is simpler, easier to teach, and doesn't work. Exactly why almost every other model outside of STEM is chosen ... it's easier for tards like you to grasp.

>He has even more rep than Jung.
That's because he was the first person to identify the psychological significance of dreams and their phenomenological category.

>>22809876
You don't know as much as you think you know, and you only care about what I think of you. The fact I don't think highly, and know more than you on a subject you apparently consider yourself generally knowledgeable regarding, should indicate to you, if you were a well integrated personality, if you were on the path to Jungian individuation, if you paid attention to your dreams and studied symbolism, if you actually knew what the unconscious really was, is sufficient evidence to me that you're probably young and narcissistic.

You don't care what I have to say because I'm being mean to you. That's the hallmark of a pussy.

>>22809888
>>22809876
Meant to conclude that injunction with the statement that you should consider your own emotional irritation at how I'm conducting myself as reflective of your own character.

You're doing what's called shadow projection, in Jungian terminology. Basically, to the degree that I annoy you, you're unconscious of that same behavior in yourself. The only difference between us is that I'm older, better educated, have more life experiences, and have better control of my emotions.

You see this, and instead of thinking "Hey, maybe I should move towards being more like that", you repress the possibility into the unconscious and cast onto me all of your own insecurities and sin.

You're arrogant. If you've read Jung, which I KNOW you haven't, then you'd know that you have to start with your own soul first, not mine. Despite my insulting you, I'm still providing you with deep insight into the nature of the psyche. Because there's the slightest chance this conversation may inspire enough self-consciousness in you to finally snap out of your pathetic, whining, pissy, faggy insecurity and contend with yourself.

>>22809888
>If you disagree with my truth claims it can only be because of mental problems you have. I can identify these because of the validity of my theory.

Right, the fact that the response to critiques of psychoanalysis was so often "ah, you must disagree because of your mental health issues," is part of what led to it being labeled pseudoscience.

It's pretty much like Marxism in this respect. "Oh, you disagree. This must be because you are trying to defend your economic interests or those of your master. My theory validates itself in that it is consistent with all possible observations."

You're very angry for someone who is enlightened BTW.

>>22809921
Bro, it was a general observation. Do you know how many peer reviewed large scale studies have been conducted across north America on narcissistic personality disorder in the past 30 years? Like, 5. Psychologists do NOT like studying narcissism. People with narcissism do NOT like Jung's work, because it'll snap you out of it real fast. It'll tell you to go straight down into your own unconscious nightmares and face them. It'll teach you to deconstruct your own defense mechanisms so you can develop the parts of your personality that the people around you don't want you to develop.

Freud was a narcissist, that was Jung's diagnosis; alongside very, very many other incredibly reputable expert psychologists. Starting to put the pieces together, kid?

>You're very angry for someone who is enlightened BTW.
Not angry at all, I'm disgusted. Totally different emotion. You come into this thread and espouse nonsense, and so I spit on it.

I can tell your father is still a menacing figure in your life.

>>22809921
>>22809937
By the by, the reason you're being antagonistic and cannot help but respond to me, despite how insulted you feel, is because you've developed a narcissistic "false self" that you employ on 4chan to contend with ideas that challenge your sense of self. Your shadow, the parts of your personality you've repressed, is egging you on to fight with me about nonsense because it understands the value of speaking with me, despite the pain it causes your ego. The shadow also contains all of your personality possibilities that may actually assist you in becoming emotionally stronger.

I know you feel angry because you've accused me of being angry. What I'm employing is controlled aggression, to draw your unconscious shadow features out and to communicate with it, in order to help it grow. This is a good experience for you, it's why people come to 4chan. To get taken apart, spat on, and then encouraged to actually do the damn work before they start spouting nonsense.

Do dreams really matter? Mine are often based on whatever stuff I thought about in my daily life. What's more, it's usuualy the less important part of it. Like, I can sometimes trace the subject of the dream to a particular passing thought that I had that day, but it doesn't seem to have any real importance.

>>22810004
It entirely depends on the context of your life.

If everything is going pretty well for you, then the unconscious doesn't have much to compensate for. That being its function, to show you what it is you're not paying attention to.

People who have recurrent and persistent nightmares incorporating a particular motif tend to have ego attitudes that are way out of sorts with what the general social attitude actually is, or are pathological in their personality constitution.

According to the modern limits and dictates of much of Western science, what Jung believes in is explicitly paranormal and supernatural, as in one of his most famous concepts, that of synchronicity, which theory he honed with the German physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Jung and Pauli posited synchronicity as an actual immaterial/trans-material principle bridging mind and matter, hence able to lead to these “synchronicities”, or subjectively meaningful coincidences that nevertheless didn’t seem to have a clear causal connection between them (from an empirical/scientific perspective).

This is just one example, and of course other well-known concepts of Jung’s as of the archetypes and the collective unconscious also border on being descriptions of paranormal/supernatural phenomena, if not outright ascribed this nature by Jung himself.

So what, finally, is the conclusion here? It’s this: if you’re seriously interested in Jung, you’re likely to first be more developed in capacities like intuition, to credit intuition more and a faculty that can lead to valid insights, as well as more likely to posit paranormal/supernatural explanations behind reality, or inclined towards the mystical and religious. If you aren’t like this, you will probably pretty reliably dismiss Jung as a “pseudo-scientist spouting schizo-babble.”

This dichotomy is not meant to call either of these reactions to Jung better or worse than the other, I’m just trying to describe the split in responses I see to Jung neutrally.

>>22810058
> to credit intuition more and a faculty that can lead to valid insights
to credit intuition more AS** a faculty

>>22810058
Decent take.

I'd like to propound the warning that synchronicity is incredibly complex as an idea.

Consider that 1 and 1, when put together equals 2. Why is that the case? Well, there's a kind of causal connecting principle between constituent elements of metaphysical reality that aren't open to question.

In the same way, why was it that when I was tripping balls on lsd, and desperately needed to piss while wandering around my neighborhood, that there was a portable toilet sitting in the middle of the road?

Fucked if I know, but it did happen. Jungs conjecture is that there may be some metaphysical connection between consciousness and material reality that operates under the same essential logical principles.

I think he was wrong, but I also can't explain the fact that consciousness does alter quantum states.

>>22810114
Acausal* connecting principle.

There's no real reason that numbers equal what they do, but they do describe reality.

>>22810114
>>22810119
Yes, and that’s right, synchronicity is an even more complex concept to wrap one’s head around than I perhaps suggested it was, but I just gave the simplest explanation I could there owing to the constraints of what fits in one post.

I like to think of it as Indra’s net. The concept of Indra’s net doesn’t really have any “explanatory” power (in modern scientific terms of being able to smash everything to atoms and those atoms to quantum particles and deduce definitively what it’s all made of and why the universe acts as it does), it’s just a very apt metaphor.

If consciousness is somehow intrinsic or fundamental to the universe, then we are “at home” in the universe. If, on the other hand, you conceive of consciousness as just a temporary epiphenomenon of brain activity which came about by complete chance in a minor pocket of the universe, this brain activity itself coming about by the chance flux of matter and energy, then we are essentially “homeless” in the universe. The universe is not “home” in such a case, it’s not something which we are deeply and intrinsically connected with, but simply a cold unfeeling nihilistic void which randomly spat us out to briefly observe this same universe before our consciousness is wiped out forever upon death. And, of course, which model-of-reality you lean towards clearly going to influence your psychology, and even your thoughts on psychology (as a field of study), making this relevant again to the point I’m making about Jung. The modern conception in the West of being a “well-balanced,” “stable” or “integrated person” tends towards privileging the scientific/rational faculties. But a complete human being is more than a thinking brain-in-a-jar — we have emotions, we have a body and senses, we have a libido, and we even have this mysterious faculty called “intuition.”

So, if you try to approach Jung from this scientific-materialist skeptical brain-in-a-jar unbalanced personality, clearly, what you’re likely to find (in accordance with your own preconceptions) is that Jung has already been conclusively “debunked by fact-checkers and modern academics,” and thus has nothing worth teaching for anyone.

>>22807014
Answer to Job is very nice.

Regarding the dreams, is it possible that people actually had meaningful, prophetic dreams when Freud, Adler and Jung were writing and that modern, or I guess postmodern to differentiate us from modern man 100 years ago, man is just so disconnected from his own nature and instincts, embedded in a permanent hyperreality shaped by mass media, that he lost this ability? That our psyche is so crippled by contemporary life that we are no longer capable of having the impactful dreams of our ancestors?

Does Oppenheimer strike you as the most direct jungian film Nolan has done yet? The script was written in first person, drawing parallels to both the nucleus and the jungian self. Then there’s the narcissism - avoiding shadow work leading him to life in the myth by his muse/whore leading to the destruction of the self / world / nucleus.

Any takers?

>>22810293
Imo it's as simple as sleep. It is much harder to get good quality sleep when you're sitting in an office all day switching between blue light sources until 9:30 pm. 100 years ago the attempt to go to sleep might have been prevented by thoughts/worries/depression like us today, but now we also have those things + shit food, poor health management, artificial environments, and too much light.

>>22810293
Not only could this be true, but there could still be quite a few people having these prophetic dreams, except we’re just not hearing from them.

I’ll let you take a guess as to why we don’t hear from them often. (Hint: does the modern West have a social and intellectual m atmosphere conducive to people making claims like these, or is it more likely that people reporting such phenomena will be looked at as “having a few screws loose in their head” or as being “superstitious yokels”?). You should look into what the scientist, inventor, and mystic Itzhak Bentov speculated about what the evolution of higher faculties in humanity (from humanity —> superhumanity) might look like, and how these evolving people would fit into modern society. (I’ll spoil it, he said you’re likely to find them in mental hospitals, because if these “mutants” report developing new and extrasensory organs of perception, they will be regarded as schizophrenic or psychotic; figures like Jung with an ironclad enough psyche to delve into these realms of “schizophrenia” and “psychosis” consciously and come out with their psyches intact, as in Jung’s active-imagination/Red-Book-phase, are presumably pretty rare).

There’s in fact a saying relevant here, that the mystic or artist swims in the waters in which the schizophrenic drowns. And the source of this, I believe, was Jung saying this to James Joyce when Joyce didn’t want to admit his daughter Lucia was schizophrenic, and when Joyce argued, “Aren’t I doing much the same things as Lucia is in my works?”

At this point, though, the natural outcome of following this mindset and these implications any further will likely lead one away from or beyond even Jungian-therapy proper, and make one end up having a worldview reminiscent of an ancient shaman, which, again, is either a great or a terrible thing depending on your perspective. (Or, to put it in terms of board-culture, this discussion would go beyond just /lit/ and become /x/, and this is of course why Jung is so controversial — precisely because he straddles these two worlds).

>>22810293
Dreams are simply the birthplace of thought. If I asked you to think of a crystal clear blue sky hanging high above an isolated desert island, with a single palm tree upon the tiny little semicircular shaped golden sandbar constituting an island ... well, you brain can take those symbols, the words, and slap together an "imaginary imagistic representation" of the corresponding icons within your personal unconscious and bring it to consciousness. That's all well and good, but the unconscious also contains shapes and ideas and feelings that are far, far, far older than the popular cultural images your personal unconscious has encountered.

Archetypes, and their expression in dreams, are simply memes that have been around so long that they've become encoded into your DNA as images and instincts.

>>22810333
It was propaganda written by Jews, dog. Oppenheimer was absolutely ecstatic when the bomb went off.

>>22810501
I can’t tell if you’re saying this in favour of Oppenheimer or against him.

How do I get into Jung? Should I pick up a selected writings book to get an overall idea?

>>22810114
>I think he was wrong, but I also can't explain the fact that consciousness does alter quantum states.

It's hard to explain facts that aren't true, so...

>>22808476
>>22809686
>>22809796
>>22809864
>>22809888
>>22809899
>>22809937
>>22809949
(Etc.)
Very insightful posts, anon, thank you. I assume this is the same poster (maybe with a mistake or two in the ones I’m attributing to you) just from the general rhythm of the thread and the back-and-forth you and another anon had. This makes me want to fill in the gaps in my knowledge and seriously get around to reading Jung’s works, I admit to only having read just one of his most simplified/popularized works, “Man and His Symbols”, which he intended as an introduction to his work for non-specialists, as well as (yes) the Wikipedia entry for him and various other summaries and articles of his thought, plus whatever I’ve absorbed of him by osmosis from other artists and writers influenced by him.

So many books, yet so little time …

>>22810678
>So many books, yet so little time …
you can say that again, brother ...

>>22810656
An untrue fact as definitionally paralogical, nigga.

Yo, this nigga be trippin

>>22810614
I'm for my dick being sucked by two beautiful women, one Japanese and the other German. I don't much about other gay shit.

>>22811039
>german women
>beautiful
kek

>>22809654
What about synchronicity?

>>22808476
You are a gigantic nut hugging faggot.

>>22809672
>>22809686
>>22809796
>>22809864
>>22809888
>>22809921
>>22809937
>>22809949
Holy fucking cringe.

>>22808476
>>22809686
>>22809796
>>22809864
>>22809888
>>22809921
>>22809937
>>22809949
Holy fucking cringe.

>>22810632
Man and his symbols has a nice intro, otherwise yeah.

>>22811940
you're not clever

>>22807014
Both.
It is just schizo-babble, but there's useful stuff in there.
Not a lick of it is scientific, though. Jung did glorified philosophy.

Why are Jung trannies so dogmatic? Only Christians react this way when you question their philosophical foundations.

>>22807014
You read it so you can pray it's just schizo-babble because if it has any truth at all to it you'll realize why he has such a following.

>>22808432
Every single pre-socratic is more intelligent and valuable than that pseud Jung.

>>22807014
He defends subconsciousness in his book man and his symbols using ad hominem attacks. I am not aware if he has an explanation for two conscious subjects anywhere else but I couldn't take him seriously after such childish attacks.

>>22812545
He has a following because people are pseuds

What's the point of studying psych when you can study neuroscience instead (I WUV SCIENCE GLOP GLOP GLOP)

>>22807031
What do you mean

>>22812649
>neuroscience
soulless psychology might as well be behaviorism

>>22807014
I am reading Man and his Symbols rn.
Chapter before "Meaning of Dreams"
>You can influence a person on subconscious level...
>Starts telling a story about how one of his patients dreamed of entering empty room. He told him that that means he will die. The guy dies..
>Woman comes to him with dreams of deviant dreams in forest. Tells her she will get fucked. She gets raped.

You can understand this two ways... either he predicted what will happen by dreams or he influenced them via interpretation of they´r dreams and i am not fond of the first option.

>>22807938
He was definitely the best at structuring a system of diagnosing neurosis. But he's no way near in insightfullness as Jung. Two different objectives for two different types of people.

>>22812649
What's the point of any studying if you don't apply it or derive conclusions? You should know both to be correctin your attempts to build upon it.

>>22813008
It's all just bullshit tho
If he just admitted he was doing philosophy and not science I would respect him

>>22813025
Philosophy is the science of tomorrow.

>>22812649
What's the point of studying science at all when you believe in magic lol.

It's honestly beautiful watching all the legit pseuds project their own insecurities onto Jung.

Never in my life have I encountered in another subject such a general propensity to confidently state what is absurdly wrong in the face of a man who was so terrifyingly right.

/// They're going to their neighbors' for a shindig /// In the course of a few decades, American publishing had transformed from a parochial cultural industry, mostly centered on the East Coast, into an international, corporate affair /// She made a searing attack on her political enemies /// Up-country traders and porters were makers of their own destiny, and were not hapless casualties of change /// Her second movie followed close on the heels of her successful film debut /// The analysis needs to be more granular /// These shops are offering the physical accoutrements of polite manners - lace, gloves, linen underclothing, snuff, and gentleman's powdered wigs /// That lawsuit was just a blip compared with what was to come /// There are still a few kinks to be worked out of the plan before we start production /// When one strained oneself to listen to the speaker one could make out that some important male writers were speaking in generalities /// She started gabbling away at me in Spanish and I didn't understand a word /// I find many aspects of your proposal to be inadequate. For one thing, you don't specify where you'll get the money /// A player with that kind of talent is tipped for the top /// The room was decorated with twee little pictures of animals /// He's always sneering at the way people dress /// I thought I saw someone skulking in the bushes - maybe we should call the police /// The question is, does his statement on this mean anything, or it is just an obeisance to the popular ideas of the moment? /// His assistant’s carelessness is exasperating him /// I have a lot of saggy skin on my stomach since I lost weight /// She fleshes out the characters in her novels very well /// Miss Bennett whiled away the hours watching old films /// This could have caused increased numbers of mosquitoes that could serve as vectors for the disease /// All I can do now is to carry out his wishes, that will be my expiation for my neglect /// Their stage act is a little too raunchy for television /// Tania stared at him aghast, unable to speak /// They wore garlands of summer flowers in their hair /// Pine needles turning from tawny to amber /// Alcoa, a global aluminum products producer, is cutting a third of production at its smelter in Norway /// The map has an inset (= a small extra map) in the top corner that shows the downtown area in more detail /// An Egyptian stela dating from more than four and a half thousand years ago, now in the collection of the Louvre, depicts the Princess Nefertiabet dressed in what looks like elegant contemporary evening wear ///

>>22813635
I kind of agree with Jung on him being philosopher or an occultist but his attempt on trying to make analytical psychology is a valid science is cringey.

>>22813635
You make me want to kill you by acting like such a smarmy browbeating pseud, and I know this isn't your first rodeo ever. KYS cunt.

>>22813898
>ever
*either

>>22812467
He says as much in memoir, he just didn’t give a shit. It’s part of why he quit teaching.

>>22807014
Jung contains almost no schizobable, in fact, he stays far away from it. He's more easily understandable than Freudians.

>>22813898
That's because you're projecting your own unconscious desire to kill the part of yourself that you see in me.

Lmao,

>>22814049
No I just want to slit the throats of you and your entire shit family that sired such a contemptuous narcissistic faggot to begin with.

>>22814110
Darn, your mother must be a straight up hoe, man.

I'm sorry.

>>22810201
Hm. You know, putting claims to the test doesn't force you into materialism. After all, the view that the brain produces consciousness has serious issues. Ultimately, was Jung doing mysticism or science? If the stuff has no empirical verification, then it was mysticism. Seven Sermons to the Dead was straight up mysticism, but this system he built up was like mysticism trying to put on a scientific veneer. And by empirical verification, is evidence that this stuff heals/develops people.

>>22810201
Consciousness is a logical necessity, actually, big dog.

Consciousness is in a dynamic relationship with unconsciousness they're reciprocals. Our universe exists because we do. When we stop being conscious, it'll instantaneously collapse into unconsciousness until consciousness evolves again.

>>22814359
It was science, dude.

Any metaphysician knows it was science.

>>22814388
It was empirically verified? It's not science if it doesn't have that.

>>22814401
Then you don't understand science. You're completely dismissing phenomology.

I'm a philosopher of science, dog. Consider what Jung was actually doing, i.e. creating generalizations based on massive amounts of data. The only reason people have trouble with his method is because it's pragmatic, not mathematical. He says "well, it's as if the human psyche contains a so-and-so function ... and it tends to manifest under X circumstances in Y types of people ... with personifications like so ... and these are the possible modes of interaction with such a figment of the psyche ..."

If you don't recognize this as pragmaticism then I dunno what to tell you.

>>22814359
> Ultimately, was Jung doing mysticism or science?
He certainly straddled the lines between both. Half the point is to ask how perfectly applicable the modern conception of the scientific method is to understanding the human psyche, consciousness itself, and what a flourishing life should be (getting into the realm of value judgments or teleology, and hence increasingly by definition “unscientific”). When you start to probe into the very same ultimate “instrument” through which all other instruments are used and all observations are made (the human consciousness), it’s going to be tricky to do this impersonally, at a remove, as if in a lab with a lab-coat on and test-tubes ready and precise measurements of everything. Even the recent revolution of neuroimaging and fMRI through which we can get images of the brain and go, “This part lights up when doing this activity, this one is associated with controlling such-and-such a system of the body, this one with these emotions, others with cognition and language, and so on”— it still hasn’t really become “psychological”. It’s scientifically describing things ABOUT the brain and how parts of it function (worthwhile of a study as this is). But the psyche itself is a trickier beast. To make a pithy aphorism about this, happiness is not just serotonin and dopamine. We can learn about these hormones and the role they play in the brain but we haven’t thereby “explained” or “understood” happiness.

Jung was also certainly doing what could be called philosophy, as well as comparative mythology/religious studies and cultural anthropology. If you want to see him as a mystic, that’s fine by me. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Perhaps, again, intuition is an underrated and under-exercised faculty in modern technological societies, and being a “profound psychologist” can be just as much a matter of being an art as it is a science. The human psyche is not reducible to statistics, number crunching, and physical measurements.

>>22814339
You act and think like a woman by constantly attempting to disengage and psychoanalyze.

>>22814597
Yeah, that's why I can run laps around your dumb ass.

>>22814705
>everyone who hates me.... IS MENTALLY ILL!
No it's because you're an autistic faggot tranny.

>>22807014
Its schizobabble but also the actual best working model of how our mind works.

>>22814435
Phenomenology isn't science, I'm very leery of claiming that a thing is science if it's not backed by empirical verification. It's fine by me if it isn't science, but don't try to sell Jung's stuff as having the coercive power of scientific truth if it doesn't actually have that.

>>22814510
See, this I can accept, as I definitely don't think science has a monopoly on truth (it chokes hard on consciousness), but then, how much stock can be put in the arbitrary constructs of a philosopher? Is there evidence that his stuff has helped someone?

>>22815062
>Phenomenology isn't a science
>I'm not convinced anything is science unless it adheres to empirical principles
Oh boy, do I have a surprise for you.

Are you willing to completely dispense with the subjective frame of reference you occupy in order to classify everything that isn't it as indicative of the essential logical structure of science as method?

Science lives in us, and as such is not merely contaminated with subjectivity but is indeed comprised of it.

>>22812649
Because neuroscience doesn't say a fucking thing about cognitive phenomenology.

>>22810678
>>22810681
Would you guys agree with the sentiment in this tweet?
Certainly the Jungposter in this thread seems to demonstrate the validity of this claim.

>>22815062
>Phenomenology isn't science
Yes, this is a very good point. As Heidegger noted, ontology and phenomenology are even more primordial disciplines than the sciences, even closer to the being of man himself. And as Heidegger was constantly at pains to explain, this was not meant to denigrate the sciences’ roles, or arrogantly take onto philosophy, phenomenology, ontology the roles that the sciences alone can and do play, or to arrogantly claim that philosophy can do these things science does better than science itself can do. He was just noting the unbridgeable gap between them (between science and philosophy proper), as with aphorisms (on their face controversial) like, “Science does not think.”

The belief that the sciences, the technological mindset or calculative thinking (techne) whereby everything is reduced to presence-at-hand, split up into pieces, measured, analyzed, etc., the belief that this is somehow the more primordial, fundamental, or objective view or outlook on reality, is a reverse of the actual case. Phronesis (practical wisdom, practical judgment, the faculty of conducting oneself wisely) is what is more ontologically prior for man as man, as a time-bound, historical, en-worlded being for whom his own being is an issue, oriented towards his own mortality, the fundamental situation we’re all in, consciously or not, whenever we talk about or engage with reality. The sciences would all be useless without a being for whom there is such a thing as “usefulness”, things to be concernfully engaged with. So that own being’s nature and concernful engagement with the world is what gives science meaning at all, and hence phenomenology is even more primordial a discipline than the sciences. Man is not analyzed like you would a rock or even through biologically and taxonomically classifying as you would other organisms. Of course, you can apply this to the physical constitution of man, and come up with us as Homo sapiens sapiens with such-and-such likely ancestors, map out our DNA, etc., but that hasn’t even gotten close to analyzing what is most ontologically primordial and fundamental to being a human (which is that we are beings for whom our own being is an issue and embodied in a world we are concernfully engaged with).

Of course, Jung and Heidegger had different approaches and focuses, but in what Jung would say about the modern technological mindset as it relates to man’s psyche, and the relation of phenomenology to the other ordinary sciences, he would seem to overlap quite a bit. (Although, admittedly, yes, Jung preferred sometimes to be thought of as a “man of science”, perhaps from a bit of his own academic ego and wanting the prestige of the scientist). But as he said:

>That is why the declaration “Creatus est homo” seems very significant to me. However, as I have already said, it must not be mixed up with the scientific viewpoint, as it about the mental and not physical existence
C.G. Jung

>>22818106
I think one way to explain to science people the whole "science does not think" deal is this: Ontical sciences, including their empirical "verifications," are only as good as the ontologies in which they are framed. It's easy to imagine a group of people engaged in a Kuhnian "normal science" that is utterly valueless by our standards, making endless "empirical verifications" of things that have no real-world referents by our standards, etc. One can even think of real instances of this in the history of science, like theories of humors and Ptolemaic cosmology and so on. These weren't monoliths either, humoral theory was complex and had dissident strains, Galen clearly saw himself as combining and modifying the best of contemporary thought, and specifically because he was doing empirical work (he openly mocks Aristotle for having fanciful notions not derived from hands-on observations and so on). The breakdown of the geocentric model and Ptolemaic astronomy took place in stages and with reversals, for example Brahe resisted it and advocated a mixed model. Brahe was no idiot, Brahe is the reason we have Kepler.

What is the common factor in all this? People are committed to ontologies at levels that are not evident to them. They take certain ontical things for granted as the inarguable and self-evident "base" upon which ACTUAL reasoning proceeds. And it is precisely phenomenology that reveals that "reasoning" (thinking) can go lower, and examine the constituents of these ontologies themselves, making ontology itself something that is phenomenologically fluid and reflexive.

What counts as an empirical verification? Does it have to have a "physical" referents, as specifically understood by a highly historically contingent western materialism that is itself full of contradictions and interpretative difficulties? "Physics" and "phusis" did not always mean referents in the way we describe them today, and what one considers a valid physical referent has changed drastically almost generation by generation since Galileo and Descartes.

It's not that unimaginable that we could consider the first-personal process of phenomenological practice to be an empirically observable affair. You teach people how to think about their own concepts and examine their own presuppositions, and they empirically tell you that it has aided them, or they empirically produce better results in physical science even.

>>22807014
>>22814970
Jung basically went full schizo trying to disprove Freud's theory of sexual development.
As I see it, Freud is wayyy closer to the truth than Jung. Freud just sees things as matter of factly, whereas Jung has to try and shoehorn in some sort of fake spiritual stuff because he doesnt like the idea that sexuality is the driving motivation of humans.
Maybe he has a couple good quotes, but as a psychoanalyst I dont really see much of Jung that is worth reading.

I bought the red book but there are no pictures inside the book. Where should I get the pictures?

>>22807014
Its probably schizobabble considering his theories inspired modern MBTI typing bit I'll reserve my judgement until I've read him.

>>22818132
Thanks for the reply. I would take people using Jungian stuff to heal themselves or, hell, become extraordinary, as empirical verification of his ideas. I suppose this makes me a pragmatist, but when you're dealing with consciousness, you have no choice about this.

I definitely have a lot of experience with the shadow Jung describes, but I guess it's the more systematic seeming stuff that puts me off.

>>22817800
>bro just let other people tell you what to think
Once again twitter users and screencappers show themselves to be subhuman

>>22818254
MBTI typing works though. It's by far the best personality theory around and it makes psychometricians seethe.

>>22818254
He only defined the leading "function" or disposition. Not full fledged types like MBTI. And mostly in a limited fashion. For example, his own definition of Intuition would just be one type in MBTI. In MBTI, there is Extraverted Intuition and Introverted Intuition. Jung only described Introverted Intuition, which can be a lot more contemplative and often concerned with matters of time and predictive insight. While Extraverted Intuition is brainstorms a lot more from data outside. So basically, the "stereotype" of the ENTP in MBTI is a mad scientist just testing and experimenting all kinds of ideas from things gathered around him, while the INTJ stereotype is the kid from Deathnote plotting longterm plans for world domination.

Did Jung believe in a cyclical nature of human consciousness and ages like Evola? Or did he believe that we are constantly progressing to higher forms?

Sonic for shits and giggles.

>>22814359
>but this system he built up was like mysticism trying to put on a scientific veneer.
He was actually an alchemist. Jung applied science as far as it could go to areas that aren't scientific and he acknowledges this and tells you to deal with it or not to read it

>>22818164
>I bought the red book but there are no pictures inside the book. Where should I get the pictures?
Online unless you want to pay a few hundred dollars and can read it in its native language.

>>22819943

>>22819955
lmao. Do you have more?

>>22819968
Post more pictures and I'll draw more.

>>22819757
Jung did refer to extroverted intuition, it's in an interview.
>>22819900
He talked about the personal psychic mission within a single life. He wasn't pursuing a theology, contrary to plebs who can't understand him.

>>22820160
>Jung did refer to extroverted intuition, it's in an interview.
Huh, I stand corrected then. If he did. that's the big kicker. Extroverted/Introverted differences in functions. He's closer to MBTI than I thought.

>>22820170
It's an offhand comment in this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9v_EXgDAMY

>>22819900
Jung was a german bourgeois addicted to sex and public babbling to entertain his bourgeois audience

>>22818106
I really appreciate your posts. I want to understand your way of thinking better; please recommend me a single book to read, whether it's Heidegger or Jung or whoever. Thank you.

>>22819943
Do you have any pdf or site?

>>22819900
Evola is to Jung what Weneinger is to nietzsche, dog.

>>22820435
An annoying critic?

>>22818106
Hey, man, solid post. Thanks.

>>22814856
just because he was raised by a single mother doesn't make a him a tranny, anon. nor does it make him a mulatto for the record.

>>22807121
As it should be. Well said anon.

>>22807014
both i think
all fields

>>22818149
>psychoanalyst
thoughts on Lacan?

>>22820435
I take it you've never read Evola?

>>22820170
>Extroverted/Introverted differences in functions. He's closer to MBTI than I thought.
He wrote Psychological Types in 1921 and explains a lot of this stuff at length and where it all came from. MBTI just did the work of adapting the ideas into a practical system for everyone without ever needing to understand hundreds or even thousands of pages of Jung.

>>22822129
MBTI has the same validity as saying that you're a Leo. Jung's point was that, for example with extroversion and introversion, if one type is dominant and brought forth into the consciousness, than the other becomes apart of the shadow and it is the job of you the person to bring the unconscious conscious. Saying you're some dumb shit like INTP is like a girl on Tinder saying that she's neurodivergent.

>>22822157
That's nonsense. First and foremost, personality exists and persists. It's easy to see all around you.
>Just make the unconscious conscious, bro
Right, Jung should've just said that instead of writing so much.

>>22822170
That is the singular literal goal that he expresses throughout all of his works so yes. Bring the unconscious conscious.

>>22809937
>Do you know how many peer reviewed large scale studies have been conducted across north America on narcissistic personality disorder in the past 30 years? Like, 5. Psychologists do NOT like studying narcissism
Probably because the everyday conduct of huge swaths of the population would be seen as pathologically narcistic only a few decades ago, see: the entirety of social media, the entire idea of the "selfie", etc.

>>22822194
That would literally be more incentive to study it.

Every mental health disorder has increased in prevalence within the general population and so too have studies investigating their development and aetiology.

Narcissism is the exception, Freud would call it a repressed idea.

>>22807014
I don't get why Freudians feel so personally attacked when someone mentions Jung, humans are more than just animals, get over it

>>22808476
>Vital if you want to understand the dilemma of modern man.
which is what, exactly?

>>22822157
This is part of MBTI you drooling retard. Why do fags on this board hate on the system without even knowing the first thing about it?

>>22822170
Nigger GO READ instead of spouting bullshit which makes it obvious you skimmed the wiki (and yt at best) to get your """insights""".

>>22819900
Can't believe no one has even said Aion yet.

>>22808476
yes an average bourgeois coomer is the most important thinker

LOL

>>22818149
>>22818149
Again that's just jewish projection. I know being judeo centered is very popular in democracy but let's face it, Freud is a jew who understood that after the atheist bourgeois revolutions, men and bourgeois women were sex and drug addicts just like him and since women who dont work but love to gossip about sex, he figured he could have a little cult around him, composed of whores and bourgeois desperate to hear how sex addiction is the nature of the human psyche framed into a self made and self aggrandizing myth disguised as science to surf on the atheist hype of positivism lol.
100 years later atheists still consider him their guru, since they are still lobotomized sex and drug addicts...

>>22823992
>>22823997
Please stay out of here. You clearly don't possess any meaningful insight to add to this thread. I am actually trying to follow and learn something and I don't want to see this discussion derailed.

>>22824467
Kikes are fucking evil. That's all the insight you should need. >>>/wsg/5354029/

>>22825166
>>>/wsg/5354029

>>22820827
Hes decent, but hes trying to improve on Freud when Freud pretty much completed and exhausted that field with better theories than Lacan.
Lacan's mirror idea and his unconcious being structured like a language idea is just not that impressive, and I dont think theres really much he says that is worth reading.
>>22823997
I don't think you're really understanding what Freud is about. He wasnt trying to excuse degeneracy, he was trying to understand what humans are, which is in large part sexual beings.
I get that its hard to look past the Judaism of Freud, but there is a lot more depth to his ideas than you are giving him credit for.

>>22820228
Thank you, but there’s another poster in this thread who seems much more well-read in Jung than me and worth asking about this w/r/t Jung, he seems to be the one doing more detailed posts than me on Jung. I’ve read Jung’s “Man and His Symbols” long ago. “Modern Man in Search of a Soul” is another highly recommended one of Jung’s as an intro. The post you’re responding to is just straight Heidegger. “What Is Called Thinking?” is a great intro to Heidegger and much easier a read than Being & Time, but the latter is of course going to be his core work that gets into his philosophy in even more depth, so either or both of those would work.

>>22825166
That's an incredible anecdote in your image

>>22825250
> He wasnt trying to excuse degeneracy, he was trying to understand what humans are, which is in large part sexual beings.

But then there is the quote here >>22825166

> Sexuality evidently meant more to Freud than to other people

Maybe the truth is that something like Freudianism is true for some people, but it doesn't apply to everyone.

>>22807025
define define

>>22808476
Where to start with Jung?

>>22819943
Would this be considered outsider or naive art? Always thought his art is really compelling, especially considering he wasn't a trained artist. It's neat stuff.

>>22823018
Read Modern Man in Search of a Soul if you'd like to know. It's accessible, short, and insightful.
>>22825969
Jung's chapter in Man and his Symbols (chapter one) is a good introduction. The second chapter, Marie-Louise von Franz's, is also good. The first four chapters of Aion are also a good introduction, but I would not recommend the rest of the book until you're more familiar with Jung's thought. Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, if you'd like to read a whole book, is a decent introduction, though a bit dry and medical. Modern Man in Search of a Soul is good as well. People often recommend you start with Memories, Dreams, Reflections, but I would advise against it; the book will be much more impactful if you read it after having become familiar with Jung's ideas. I wouldn't worry too much about the reading order, though. Feel free to jump into whatever essays you find interesting. Jung is complex and difficult. You need to read him carefully, and, importantly, you need to witness his ideas in real life. Only then will they really make sense.
>>22810678
I posted the first comment you replied to, not the rest.
>>22807014
I would again reiterate that most of what you read online about Jung is rubbish, as this thread demonstrates. It tends to come from a few places: 1) new age types who haven't read Jung; 2) people interested in self-help, particularly Jordan Peterson, who haven't read Jung; 3) pop psychology; 4) retards, e.g. most of the people in this thread, who haven't read Jung; 5) people who might have had Jungian-ish therapy, who haven't read Jung. There isn't anything wrong with these categories per se, but they tend to confuse whatever they've read with what Jung actually said. But sometimes you come across some pretty interesting stuff.

>>22825965