Is carl jung right about alchemy?

is it just symbolic of individuation—a reflection of the universal subconscious evident in myths from around the world?

Jung is trash. There's nothing there.

i dont care about jung. i want to know about alchemy

the need for knowledge of ones capacity for evil to truly be virtuous and good is nothing? Jung wrote about many groundbreaking psychological phenomenon. To discount him is to discount a whet stone to sharpen the blade of your self analysis and cut deep into the the good and evil of your soul - revealing your true self.

I doubt that all his theories were correct but he was correct in that it had deep allegorical significance. Jung tends to reach a lot in his writings though.

Sometimes Alchemy is literally just about gold.

is there something else, besides literally gold or psychological allegory, like what i think evola is getting at? something between the two, something occult?

You posted a pic of Evola himself, read The Hermetic Tradition.

i am

And now here's something we hope you'll really like!

so is alchemy legit or not

The only semi-recent person I've come across who seems to be able to comprehend any of the alchemical texts is Newton, who kept extensive notes on various subjects throughout his life, though he doesn't "reveal" anything in regards to alchemy as he wrote in the same enigmatic vernacular.

Evola certainly made a valiant attempt but there is nothing in his Hermetic Tradition or Introduction to Magic that is thoroughly convincing.

Though I think If you've read the Hermetic Tradition, it is pretty clear what you have to do. Whether this has anything to do with Alchemy or not remains to be seen. There is certainly much to be learned from the texts, though you may never acquire the key to them.

and what is it that you have to do? individuate?

No. Alchemy is alchemy.
Tired of fucking psychoanalytic brainlets prjecting their bullshit into unrelated fields.
It was an ancient attempt at science and a precursor to chemistry

have you ever read any of the texts? it is clearly up to some other shit m8

this except it was actually real
but all who succeeded had to pay a steep price...

>have you ever read any of the texts?
Sure but not selectively the ones only about mysticisms.
You have to look at the entire practice broadly stsrting from China. It was alchemists that discovered gunpowder, amalgamation, etc etc

*starting

>actually real
What do you mean by that?
Ofcourse the chemistry was real. When it worked.

wtf does that mean? this isnt an alchemical text, no need for fancy footwork

just because it had one purpose doesnt mean it didnt have another

Anatol France's At the Sign of the Reine Pedauque for more on that 'price'
>tic.. halfway

This. He just took too many drugs and spazzed out once he discovered eastern religions.

>just because it had one purpose doesnt mean it didnt have another
Sure. Some fuckers still thought they were doing magic

There is of course only one way to find out. Devoting one's life to it.
Which begs the question, was Jung successful? In one respect the answer must be yes, he founded a school. Otherwise the question cannot be answered except on the side of opinion.

Yeah no. You dont need to devote your life to a archaic pseudoscientific practice to know that Jung is babble

All that that means is that it's not for (you). Nor is it for me. Just trying to be fair.
Jung does write exceptionally well, however. It's easy to see why many are drawn in.

Yes.