Psychology is literally just mordern mysticism

[Anonymous No.16568260]

>uh you are being possessed by the Shadow Lover, The Impotent Lover and the Shadow King, the Tyrant and are regressing into the Oedipal and Divine Child you need to slay the dragon in the Sea of Femininity to kill the boy and Merge the Ego with the Self

[Anonymous No.16568523]

>>16568260
It makes for a decent fantasy setting, at the very least.

[Anonymous No.16568846]

>>16568260
You are saying that as if its a bad thing

[Anonymous No.16568860]

Réminder

[Anonymous No.16568865]

>>16568860
lmao

[Anonymous No.16568913]

>>16568260
>>16568846
It's not bad or good, it's just the indifferent ravings of legalized stoners. Literally modern Lotus Eaters

[Anonymous No.16568921]

>>16568260
its just religion for athiests

[Anonymous No.16568930]

>>16568260
Forensic psychology is most certainly just the modern equivalent of fortune telling. Have you ever seen a documentary about a criminal investigation? There's interviews with actual Policemen talking about evidence, public records and other important parts of criminal investigation. Then there's interviews with forensic psychologists, who babble about how they can "sense anger" and "feel pain" in a manner reminiscent of Deana Troi.

[Anonymous No.16568932]

>>16568260
>Psychology is literally just mordern mysticism

Yes.

[Anonymous No.16568939]

>>16568860
what the fuck is "Lindy"

[Anonymous No.16568951]

>>16568913
>>16568921
>its just religion for athiests

I have a lot of experience with Zen Buddhism, and i will tell you psychology is of the utmost importance.

There is a reason 12 step programs and AA used Carl Jung as inspiration.

Your mind is like a stormcloud if not devoted to some higher good. This can take many forms, but it has to be transient or stable.

[Anonymous No.16568971]

>>16568260
Sure, Jungian psychology is straight-up Hermeticism. And cognitive-behavioral psychology dresses up in scientific language, but it closely resembles Goetia by way of Crowley (substitute "negative thoughts and behaviors" for "demons" and you'll see the familial resemblance). But other psychological paradigms aren't quite so "mystical"; existential psychology is obviously drawn from existentialism, humanistic psychology is obviously drawn from humanism, neuropsychology is drawn from biological materialism, cognitive science is the misguided application of the "brain as a computer" metaphor, and so on.

[Anonymous No.16568973]

>>16568260
If by "modern" you mean the modern period, you are correct that Freud is modern mysticism. If you're using "modern" to mean contemporary, you're a fool. Psychology at this point is so much more about understanding one's own emotions and learning how to handle emotions without letting them control you. Psychology today is not about the shit that you're babbling, that has been left by the wayside to be replaced by healthy regulation of emotion.

[Anonymous No.16568983]

>>16568260
This is just an inversion of the very notion the psychoanalysts had to begin with: all of that mysticism/myth of past eras were an expression of enduring processes that they sought a basis for in psychic phenomena. I'm not saying they're right, but your insight is just a cart-before-the-horse rephrasing of what they themselves were saying. You could've posed the question to them directly and they would've been very familiar with what you were saying; it's not like they'd be taken aback as if they'd never considered it before.

[Anonymous No.16568986]

>>16568939
I don't want to know. The more I feel like an outsider to internet retard slang the better I feel about myself.

[Anonymous No.16568999]

>>16568939
>>16568986
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

I think they're suggesting that astrology (and economics and the social sciences) are around precisely because of their age, and not because of their worth. Which, I don't know, seems tautological. "It's old because it has survived, and it has survived because it's old." But I might be misunderstanding them.

[Anonymous No.16569000]

>>16568951
Is this true? How do I attain clarity.

[Anonymous No.16569021]

>>16569000
There is a lot to learn, but try these two things.

First: accept the four stoic virtues (wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation) fully. Just for now, think and live as if you are devoted to these virtues. The effect will be immediate.

Second: Live in the now. Forget all your ideas and all your thoughts, and look at something in your environment. Lock in, and try to minimize your thinking.

If you do this earnestly you will get a taste of satori. But dont do it with a goal in mind.

[Anonymous No.16569031]

>>16568983
This is at least insightful, but I have to ask you, shouldn't they have been alarmed if their whole argument could be inverted on them, and then afterwards still mean the same thing?

How can you falsify psychology if it's just the ultimate in circular reasoning?

[Anonymous No.16569046]

>>16568999
>Tautology (checked btw)
Well, when you put it that way, but what they were really saying is that the probability of continued survival gets higher with age.

For instance, the Pyramids are older than Paypal, therefore it is more likely that the Pyramids will survive Paypal than vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.16569415]

>>16568260
Psychology is bullshit pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.16569451]

>>16569046
The Pyramids survive because they are gigantic structures made out of enormous slabs of rock, which endure for thousands of years because of their chemical composition. Merely dispersing a Pyramid would take an incredible amount of work unless you bombed it.

[Anonymous No.16569557]

>>16568999
This is not what he’s saying. He is saying the particular human behavior that motivates us to trust junk theories like astrology is Lindy. Because this behavior is Lindy, the modern manifestation is in psychology/social sciences, disciplines which do not replicate.

[Anonymous No.16569601]

>>16569031
I don't agree the early psychoanalysts, at least I struggle not to--it is a predominant ideology in which westerners are raised, embedded in our speech and worldview in... let me stop myself, I've almost said 'consciously' and 'unconsciously' twice in this single sentence refering to my feelings and dispositions.

OP is probably right in his motivation to move past psychoanalysis, to out it as a sort of mythology in itself. On the otherhand I don't think it necessarily helps to simply re-mythologise it with the very myths the psychoanalysts felt they were explaining away, as a great part of that 'mythology' inherent to psychoanlysis is a result of positivism and materialism rather than mysticism. Otherwise you do indeed just get involved in the circular argument inherent in psychanalytic engagement with myth.

[Anonymous No.16569631]

>>16569601
The unconscious was 'first' defined by Schelling, quite a while before psychoanalysis, the general idea itself is much older.

[Anonymous No.16569881]

The perspectives of clinical psychology such as the psychoanalysts are just tools to help people get over a malfunction that's preventing them from acting how they should or want to. One perspective is no better than the other. I like the Jungian perspective because it's built on narratives and people naturally like telling stories about their lives. Nothing is older than people telling stories.

[Anonymous No.16569898]

>>16568260
>t. doesn't understand archetypes and needs things translated to him to the lowest conceivable level

[Anonymous No.16570376]

>>16568999
a car is a "definition of a car"
a "definition of a car" is a car

is this a tautology?
no, it is a definition

[Anonymous No.16570399]

>Jung
>psychology

[Anonymous No.16570416]

>>16568860
>>16568999
What would be the alternative according to Taleb then?
I don't like his lack of integrity.