Just read this, and I am shocked by affirmation. Merely acknowledging the archetypes has improved me by quite a bit. It's like a dagger in the heart.
Has this book impacted you in any way? Has it been refuted -and to that matter; has Jung been? I would actually recommend this for women to read, so that they can nudge and hint at these archetypes for their boyfriends to grow up. Shame does not work any more. Political demagogues have inflated it.
>being such an aspie you need imaginary Dungeons and Dragons classes to understand real life
>Lacan
He the new coolface?
mad?
>jungian mumbo jumboo
Did you not read me? Shame is dead. I'm taking responsibility for my own shortcomings for the first time, taking a glance at the first mirror since my detachment from escapism, and what do I get? Truly, no good goes unpunished.
>jungian mumbo jumboo
Jesus was right! --The flesh-golems do not understand symbolism.
Don't you have an astrology meeting or something?
>Yet they use a symbol of evil on others
You are pretty damn spooked, aren't you? What do you even know of astrology? I know nothing, honest.
>call me spooked when he is the one falling for society expectations memes and schizo shit
>he is the one falling for society expectations memes
But I am not?
>and schizo shit
Well articulated, you must know your way around your own mind.
wait until the tornadoes start showing up, or worse those fucking mermaids (if that happens you're really fucked go read Fear & Trembling at once)
One thing that is very slippery with archetypes is that the authors that talk about them seem to accept them as a priori things in themselves that somehow evade construction. "If there is a flower in this fairytale it obviously represents archetype of the mother" "Why?" "Well thats how unconcious works"
Because of this you get lots of books (e.g. running with the wolves or other pseudo jungian-feminist omelette) that flawlessly serve given ideology - it shows that symbols are empty and their content comes from whatever ideology you are grounded in.
What hypothetical piece of evidence could possibly refute this kind of thinking?
what the fuck are you talking about?
Subjects have strong reactions to visual stimuli and subject IDs[Trigger Words]. They draw connections where they do not exist in an attempt to defame the information. The subjects also make no attempt at masking their ignorance, show no signs of reading books nor offer any alternatives.
You're oldfags, alright. Tell me, where and when did Schlomo Shekelbergersteinovich steal your foreskin and shame your masculinity?
>authors that talk about them seem to accept them as a priori things in themselves that somehow evade construction
They don't, I think, or if they do they haven't properly understood Jung.
Any rebuttal if I said this is just repackaged Aristotelianism, alongside needless positing of abstrcta?
>dude drugs lmao
>Aristotelianism
You mean Platoism?
>sister
It's a perspective of introspection with a hint of a narrative.
>Application results in no application due to internal conflicts, syntax errors or lack of users.
Just an example.
>Memerson fan trying really hard to be taken seriously
Jung was a dumb cunt and Freud was right
>Application results in no application
What did he mean by this
I'm pretty sure that's false-flagging, right?
They aren't in contention senpai
you'll see
and then you'll bee
He's arguing that if philosophy doesn't have a immediate applicable use It's wrong.
You may wish to read the subject matter or the original post. I can't blame you for missing a joke in the current year.
>Memerson
You brought him to this discussion by reacting to a trigger word.
My money is on archetype, but it could also be Jung. .
I have no clue of what this thread is about
I jack your jacket you're ejackted
I'm saying that if applying it will result in its own demise; aka Communism and USSR or suicide, it isn't worth the effort. Like a program that crashes.
Its like you have to write out what my mind is able to think in a fraction of a second, interdasting
>They don't, I think, or if they do they haven't properly understood Jung.
Well why, Jung did the same mistake. When discussing similarities and differences between him and Freud, he shamelessly calls the unconcious "by its true name - God" and bashes Freud for not accepting this truth. Whereas Freud for example tries to formalize his concepts Jung eagerly gives it content. So, my point, is that distortions of the notion of archetype are already supposed in Jung's work.
>suicide
By saying this are you implying if someone commits suicide while believing in something it is incorrect
It is 'a priori' due to its nature as a perspective. All perspectives start out the same. I think.
t. separate user
I guess I could draw a line on ironic suicide as opposed to sincere one.
>dude what if we were god lmao
Is it not written in our law?
Yes, what if?
You have a incomplete understanding of Jung's concept of God, he believed it malleable a self perpetual form created by the collective unconsciousness.
>shhhhhhh let them sleep a little longer
>he believed it malleable a self perpetual form created by the collective unconsciousness.
So an arbitrary social construct
I dont really understand what you mean by saying "It is 'a priori' due to its nature as a perspective"
Jung says it is a form as in Platonic idea from which perspectives can spring so it is different from a perspective.I think you're right when you say "All perspectives start out the same. I think." if you mean that they spring from one form (e.g. cat, sun, cat can mean one thing - archetype of the mother).
I agree with Jung on this and it is interesting. But what I'm getting at is that Jung is eager to fill in this Platonic eidos with "perspective" or "content" that has its own history. Pseudo jungian-feminists do that too. When they read fairytales or myths everything can be wild woman that needs to be set free.
was meant for
Aristotelianism insofar as human functioning being qualified by character (virtue and vice) - needless abstracta insofar as categorization by type instead of actual apparent
cases, and being noumenal in nature.
I'm not talking about his notion of God, but about the way how he approaches his concepts.
>I don't really understand what you mean by saying "It is 'a priori' due to its nature as a perspective"
I think the idea is so powerful that it will change one's way of looking at the world permanently. Similarly powerful ideas are resource, oppression, spooks - among many others. It gets integrated into your system in a way that thinking differently will require actions by the conscious mind. I think this is why Jung said that people don't have ideas, ideas have people. Now of course, there are multiple ways you can react to those ideas.
>if you mean that they spring from one form (e.g. cat, sun, cat can mean one thing - archetype of the mother).
I didn't consciously approach that notion here, although I do think this is the case.
> But what I'm getting at is that Jung is eager to fill in this Platonic eidos with "perspective" or "content" that has its own history.
Isn't this the case? I mean, sure, we may not understand "time" well enough to spell out the history, but we do know of Ouroboros and fractal patterns (the visualization of an archetype).
>Pseudo jungian-feminists do that too. When they read fairytales or myths everything can be wild woman that needs to be set free.
You make a good point. However, I think that they fail at the "fractal test". Theirs is a revolt, it can not approach permanence quite like archetypes. Unless it is an archetype of women to tear down a society and get reduced to wealth.
I agree with everything you said and this "filling in the form" is really inevitable (e.g. symbolizing eternal time by drawing snake eating itself). But it is harmful to do it consiously when you are building a theory. Freud tried to avoid it (sexual, aggressive impulses became 'id', repressive apparatus 'super ego') and so on. Calling unconcious God is acting like a pacient instead of analyst.