This fucking book, guys. I just finished it and it blew my mind. I went in expecting mythology...

This fucking book, guys. I just finished it and it blew my mind. I went in expecting mythology, what I got was part myth, part psychology, part theology, part self-help, etc.

It was my first experience with a lot of these themes; Freud and Jung's ideas on ego and how they relate to occidental and oriental myth traditions, the urge for personal realization in a western secular world, and more, all in a casual first-person presentation because the book is just made up from Campbell's lectures.

Anyone have thoughts on it? And where can I go to continue this Jimmy Neutron brain blast it gave me? Aside from more Campbell works of course. I have his Myths to Live By, and afterward I'd like to try Myths of Light, because the Indian stuff in particular was very interesting.

God I love books.

...

>And where can I go to continue this Jimmy Neutron brain blast it gave me?

If you enjoyed his Freudian forays, you might find some Jung a stimulating followup.

Joseph Campbell was a huge pseud. I thought his work was interesting when I was a teenager, but it really is oversimplified junk social science pandered to the laymen.

wtf i love star wars now

Why?

I chuckled. Everyone has to start somewhere though.

Thanks. I'll do that at some point for sure. Is Jung put in the same "cool ideas but not terribly accurate" boat that we put Freud in now?

He is almost entirely dismissed in academia for having huge ideas that he cherry picks evidence for while ignoring contrary evidence, rides roughshod over multiple disciplines he doesn't understand the methodology for, and his generally weak knowledge on a lot of the cultures and religions he talks about. Most if not all of his work is thoroughly discredited, or if not that considered extremely suspiciously because of his disregard for anything approaching good methodology.
Campbell is the sort of person who falls so in love with an idea that sounds really interesting he draws a target around it and says he hit the bullseye. A large reason why he is popular in a non-academic setting is because his ideas seem interesting, and that a non-academic likely doesn't know how weary he's in any discipline of which he works over. By contrast someone else does lots of research and gathers a lot of evidence and makes a very modest claim that unless you were deeply involved in that field you would probably not give the slightest shit.

I ordered A Skeleton Key to Finnegans Wake by him. Do you know if it's shit, too?

This is why psychology should never be considered a science. If you mix the requirement for empirical evidence into something that is inherently qualitative, you go from the genius of Jung to the heaping pile of sterile shit that is the big five and muh cbt.

Do you have any suggestions for books by/about Jung?