What does Veeky Forums think of Jung? probably more than anyone else...

what does Veeky Forums think of Jung? probably more than anyone else, this man has shaped my approach to philosophy and opened the door to Hegel for me. never see him discussed here, however.

what's the consensus on freud?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychoanalysis
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Jung tried to water down Freud's ideas. If you bring up Jung in an academic setting you may get laughed at. Jung's ideas are almost completely unverifiable. Most parapsychogists wack off to Jung while most psychotherapists look at Freud as the great forunner of their field. The difference between the two can be boiled down to their theories. Freud believed that psychical processes could be boiled down to physical processes. Jung believed that there was some kind of uber-mystical importence to the unconscious and that psychical disturbances had some sort of "spiritual" significance.

If you are a Freudian then you may keep your distance from Jungians because they tend to celebrate the neuroticism that you are trying to quell. Freudians are pro-reality-principal while Jungians have their own idea about how reality should be.

His theory of archetypes is excellent. It is a great resource for finding the commonality in figures. The different mythic pantheons down to low brow fiction and even in how historical figures are portrayed often reveals an archytypal base.

Archetypes, while people like to believe that they exists in man, are actually man's tendency to experience similar symbols to those of others. Thus we see reccurent themes (Sun, serpent, ressurection, etc.) constantly in all cultures and times.

By examining one's own symbols, the synchronicities (experience of symbols that have meaning in the mind of the subject through acasual connection), one can learn about their unconscious drives.

It's also a healthier view than Freud, who saw the unconscious as just a place for suppressed libidinous desires. Jung saw the unconscious as an integral part of man and a source of what is similar to all humankind. By dipping into that primal source, one can individuate onself, by bringing the unconscious, conscious, and ego into oness.

>what does Veeky Forums think of Jung
Best time to experiment with sex and drugs.

Yeah, bud. Freud has been largely discredited while Jungian psychology is practiced world wide. You're jumping on the band wagon of those who take the maximal view of Jung theories when he never stated them as absolutes, but as metaphors for psychic processes.

Freud saw the unconscious as suppressed desires only, Jung saw it as a well spring of power to invigorate the individual life.

Fuck off with your anti-life Freud worship.
Go fuck your mom.

Freud is literally dicks all the way down, not even meming. Hats are dicks, womans dresses are dicks, dicks dicks dicks. From Freud's Interpretation of Dreams- "Of articles of dress, the woman's hat may freqently be definitely interpreted as the male genital."

Jung is mythical symbolism all the way down, which is similarly nonsense, but it's a lot more literary, varied, and interesting than DUDE DICKS LMAO

Bro, have you even read either of those people?
Do you get all your info from memes?
Freud is about libido sure, but it's about the will to pleasure and sexual stages of development. As well as sublimation of primal instincts.
Jung utilizes mythic imagery sure, but it much more about realizing the part of your being that are unconcious, becoming a wholly actualized person.

OP here, this is pretty much how I feel on both parties. Freud was the Moses of psychotherapy, undone by his reluctance to accept ideas outside of Darwin and the naturalists.

Jung had a lot of source material that sounded wonky, like Hermetic philosophy, alchemy, and fairytales, but was using these texts to highlight the recurrent presence of "spirit/Geist". it's not like he could've looked at medieval diaries desu to find how people evolved psychologically.

the problem with hippies is that they take allegory literally, like making gold out of piss instead of what the process symbolizes.

as kaufmann wrote on hegel, a philosopher should not "confine him or herself to views that have been held but penetrate these to the human reality they reflect."

I'm with you, my man.
I think another great distinction between the two is this:
Freud is saying there is no inherent meaning to existence other than for the existant party to maximize their pleause and avoid pain through the involuntary volition of the libido.
Jung was saying that whether or not life had meaning, the innate self believes in a sense of purpose. This personally subjective but chemically objective purpose can be discovered through dream interpretation, symbol analysis, and experiential synchronicity.

Jung also combined the Will to Pleasure of Freud to the Will to Power of Adler. In his eyes one may go against initial pleasure so that one can gain power which will give them great pleasure later and also lead to greater power. It's a self perpetuating cycle of the monism of existence that is the dualism of power-pleasure.

Nice strawman faggot. You argue like a true Jungian, by misrepresenting an idea and then spewing utter horse-shit in defense of your claim.

Point to one statment I made there that was innacurate.

I'm sensing some penis envy from you, boy.

For starters, you clearly have never even read Freud. Frued's unconscious is far more complicated than people in this thread understand. By saying that Freud's unconscious just consists of repressed urges you are completely undermining transferences and the preconscious. The preconscious is the location of "data" and the mechanisms of repression. The unconscious of Freud is an active and dynamic entity that encompasses a variety of interweaving processes which Freud was developing new theories for even until his death. Freud even theorized that there may be a "death instict." Freud is not irrelevant in modern psychology. Psychodynamics is a vast field with many adherents. Psychodynamics was built off of the skeleton that Freud provided. Freud even encouraged modification of his theories which where based in his vast understanding of neuroscience. But dissenters such as Jung and Adler had to be excommunicated because they severed from the fundamental tenants of Freud's ideas. Even dissenters from Freud's theories still built much of their systems off of his ideas.

Jung's ideas are interesting, but they do not hold a candle to Freud's pioneering work in psychology. Freud even predicted that moden science would verify his work. Many of Freud's ideas hold up today and work in a clinical setting. There are still vast psychoanalytic institutions that teach Freud's work. Meanwhile, pseudoscientists and mystics still cling to the half-baked ideas of a man who couldn't keep his dick in his pants because "muh aktualization." Btw Jung paraded his hysteria as some form of God-given revelation when truly it was just the upset fantasies of a man who lost his access to pussy and was reeling from his separation from his father-figure (Freud).


I find it incredible that people still hold on to this "Freud has been denounced" idea. Cognitive psychology is practically just a rehashing of his ideas. (Compare schemas and complexes)

Jung and The New Age by David Tacey. Cool book. Dude criticizes everybody. Talks about Jung's concepts as evolving/meant to be updated. Brings up how conservative Jung was. How he's seen by the public, his critics, and his stans/worshippers.

Neurobiology Of the Gods as well as The Two Million Year Old Self. Go fuck yourself buddy.

Freud is at least interesting and deserves credit for being a pioneer. Jung is an annoying hippie Terence McKenna Timothy Leary type hack.

Despite what you where told in preschool, naming books isn't an argument.

I've read pleanty of Freud, including his essay where he talks about the unconcious as a store house for sense impressions imbued with libidinal force which is suppressed due to lack of viable ways to exorcise it due to so societal constraint. In "civilization" he talks about how this store house of suppressed libido engorges the ego which has become society.

You obviously haven't read enough of what Jung actually wrote and are fine with spewing vitriol because some woo enthusiasts took up his ideas and misappropriated them. Similar things have happened to quantum physics, but it does not invalidate them.

Then you attack Jung the man, ad hominem. Freud was a coke addict, but let's stick to the matter at hand.

Freud wants everything to be the result of suppressed libidinal energy, fine. But as Joseph Campell said, the reason for the pyramids and great works of art was not for sexual gratification but for trandscendence to something bigger than the self.

If you want to view the world as mechanistic, that's fine, but Jung's theories allow for an individual to become more than bestial drives. We could argue all day over who is accurate, but archytypes and individuation are still viable ideas. Humans do experience certain symbols in their lives over and over again, which allows for a subjective meaning.

A real discussion (discourse) on Veeky Forums?

Jung and Freud talk about different things, just to begin, it's not for nothing that one is Analitical Psychology and the other is Psychoanalysis, psychoanalysis is not psychology and does not intend to be. There is a possible conception of psychology derivative of psychoanalysis but that is another point. Back to their difference one main thing is that Jung believed in the possibility of reaching some true knowledge of the unconscious that even if he didn't understood something it was a matter of not reaching the right myth or reaching the first one, so on and so on.
Freud took a radical different position, in which there simply is an impossibility of reaching certain knowledge, that is the Unbewusste, the unconscious translation does not really translates the idea this word has in german, seeing that wusste is knowing/knowledge and "un" is like a negation you could take it as unknown but then you still keep the idea of possible knowing, a better translation maybe could be unknowable and in this point they radically difer.

We could attribute the monomyth to archetypes as well right? That shit is everywhere in literature and has that same effect, you know? Atonement with the father can still bring tears as well as the apotheosis.

Then we can look at Freud's legacy, Mr propaganda general himself, Edward Bernays.

I didn't really have a point I do want to add the the neo Freudians are fun to read. I just picked up Karen Horneys book called feminine psychology. She goes on about the three levels of neurotic love seeking. Shit rang too fuckin true. Apparently I seek love by throwing my pity into the world as well as shutting myself off from the real world...

Erich Fromm is another interesting post Freudian. I have a few of his books on my shelf that I haven't gotten around to but I did read the first hundred pages of most of em. He reads like a Freudian Jung. I like his style and thoughts but my recall is very bad.

Speaking of post Freudians, I've found much joy in that first generation of Jungians. Edinger, von Franz, Campbell, perry, Moore, Neumann, hoellar, as well as the insights given in betwixt and between and the wisdom of the serpent.

I must say that I am not searching for objective truth, I an looking for a personal myth. I'm looking for a bridge between the primitive and modernity and I have found my comfort in the Jungians. I mention Jung and The New Age before and I have to reiterate that it speaks very loudly for jung, against his worshippers and towards the critics.
? Also, any recommendations on poist Freudians would be great. I want to check out hs Sullivan someday.

Also I feel that the guy who picked his side is being fairly one sided and I must ask you to chill and check out more shit/at least check out tacey's book. And to the Jungians - check out Fromm. There's a bridge and we should find it together.

Jung was never a fan of psychology being too scientific in the first place anyway

No Lacan?

I've heard the name but haven't come across his work in the millions of footnotes I've seen. I'll add him to the list.

Freud was surprisingly on point in an early analysis of patriarchy and the function of hegemonic power structures shaping the individual identity.

Nope. He referred to his speaking as the humble voice of science/empiricism. He also wanted his ideas to be updated. That being said, a lot of hate towards Hillman and archetypal psychology. Not sure why because I've avoided him for the longest time. Tacey says hillman is afraid of slaying dragons. Can't recall why though.

He did talked about not relying too much on empiricism in psychoanalysis in "Man his Symbols"

I never read any of the authors you talked about but I bet Lacan is probably very different from them, nonetheless he always called himself freudian and said he "invented" a small portion of this theory, most notably object petit a, and took a lot from Freud. But he isn't one to agree with your sentiment of there being a bridge to jungian psychology from psychoanalysis, he never wrote much specifically on Jung, that I remember at least, but he occasionally fired some shots at Jung and his practice.

Fromm says Freud was a product of his time. Said he devalued the feminine to something that gives birth. Fromm then compares Freud's view to bachofens. Says bachofen was living in an age/life where the mother figure wasn't looked down on as much. Says love and empathy/compassion are the products of having a good mother figure which plays into that Jungian thing with parents acting as archetypes in infancy. Fromm's view is mirrored by a female Jungian named Irene something or another in her only book Knowing Woman. She says that you should think about a beggar. Think about how you treat them. Compassion is the feminine psyche speaking. Pull your boot straps/teach a man to fish is the masculine. This is mirrored in fromm. He says that we become our parents. Our voice of self forgiveness is the mother voice and the You Oughta voice is the father voice.

I'm ranting and your initial point and my disagreeing was uncalled for. I apologize for that.

And surprise surprise it's packed with utter horseshit

Thank you for your side. Moore was an Adlerian and a Freudian analyst as well as a follower of Heinz kohut. He reminds me to read outside of my chosen poison. Nathan salant bridges kohut and jung in his book on narcissism. I remember some patient anecdotes but not much else. Blindspots as I've said before.

Also sort of wish I had a trip code for these kind of discussions. Hopefully my tone identifies me.

>I've heard the name but haven't come across his work in the millions of footnotes I've seen.

Fucking Lacan, you claim to have an interest in psychoanalysis and you never heard of Lacan? It goes to show how intellectually bankrupt Jungians are outside their fairy circle

A small passage from Lacan's Seminar XI that I remembered right now:
>The unconcious from Freud is not in any way the romantic unconcious of imaginative creation. It is not the place of divinities of the night. No doubt that this doens't stop having relation with the place the where Freud's gaze turns- but the fact that Jung, relay of the terms of the romantic unconcious, has been rejected by Freud, indicates a lot that psychoanalysis introduces another thing.

This was poorly translated from portuguese by me, so take it with a grain of salt but I think it kinda translates the idea.

I'm actually a real outsider here. Synchronicity. Campbell got his start after seeing buffalo bile wild west show, goes and reads everything about natives and the rest is history. I found hero at the tribal library and devoured it in a week, which is quick for someone who never read a book before in his life. That was six years ago and I'm doing my best to patch up my blind spots but life gets in the way.

What are his big concepts?

I know a few outsiders, ATM I can only recall Girard and his scapegoat mechanism/memetic violence ideas but that's about it.

So yeah, what are the basic lacan ideas from a knowledgeable person?

Also jung was cool cuz he lead me to the quaternity which breathed life into the christian myth/cross. I also found the same color pattern of the medicine in alchemy which added more curiosity.

I think the coolest part about the Jungians was the bridges they made. Literalism died, Christianity/all of the religions were reborn, fairy tales lived again as did dreams.

Ithijk there's powerful medicine in the Jungians and the neo Freudians and I think someday we'll drink it together.

I think Freud's conception of castration anxiety is a really cutting observation on phallocentrism and the body as sign and signified.

No problem man! I've heard of the blurred lines between philosophy and psychoanalysis and lacan was brought up. Probably the only time I heard of him. Either way, good on you for the duel language shit! Must be hard af.

Thanks for the opinion, dude. Do you recall which book he speaks about it in? My bitch ass finally scored a full time job so I can pig out on some books.

You want a summary, go check Wikipedia, he's not a thinker that can be boiled down to "basic concepts"

Freud was a wackadoo who was hopped up on cocaine all the time so I don't find his writings particularly useful in and of themselves, but check out some feminist/poststructuralist analyses of castration anxiety and penis envy if you're curious.

As the other guy said it is pretty hard/impossible to reduce Lacan to basic concepts, I guess the best shot is to say the places he goes trought his progress, which are language with Saussure, literature with Joyce, Poe, Sade, I guess you could say mythology/anthropologyan with Levi-Strauss, philosophy with a bunch of people, Kant, Hegel and later on he goes really hard to math, firstly topology with Möbius strips, torus, cross cap and later he goes to knot theory, with the famous borromean knot.

He goes to math in an attempt to formalize the theory, this is where you get all the different graphs and mathemes.

I have an essay on the castration complex in this horneybook. Also have a book by Susan Rowland about Jung and feminism which gives an overview on deconstructionalysts. I don't recommend it. Cool, so he's the type of shit you study over a season. Cool. I think I was subconsciously testing that user to hear some striking ideas cuz that means he learned something, right?

You're the kind of mediocre person that will devote his efforts in an attempt at superficial appearence of engagement but without a trace of sincere commitment you'll never have any worthwhile experience or thoughts, have fun with your charade

Is it a charade? I've walked six miles in a blizzard and lost my mind. I've walked two miles on large stones. I stayed in an incubating room for five years learning to hate myself. i've overdosed on booze, lsa, and opiates. I've overcome the fear of death. I had seizures due to k2. i've had dreams that wouldn't let me leave until i learned my lesson. god has spoken to me, the jungian god, the inner self, not an outside force. I've lived 25 years on a reservation and watched many of people fall to this society.

I think your criticism is unfounded. I think because i have nothing left. I am an insider of the outside world.

and i am sorry that you feel this way about me.

Jesus christ dude, perhaps you shouldn't be reading psychoanalysis and junguian psychology, but instead be going to analysis.

I don't believe a word of sincerity in what you're saying, it could be all true but it's a bullshit self construed narrative and you know it. You're just a faggot posting on an anime website relax

The Jungians are a bridge. The Puer Aternusis a concept that has proven itself true on the reservation. The medicine wheel, the christian cross - both given life by Jung. The color pattern of the medicine wheel - the same path of alchemy, nigredo, albedo, citritinas, rubedo.

Jung has given dreams authority again. Jung has given religion a place once again. Art lives, fairy tales, freudian slips.

But mostly - i see rites of passage being the main fault in modern society. I've seen addiction, overdose, death, and car wrecks change people.

But that crosses over to eliade and victor turner's territory - turner becoming a jungian towards the end.

Edinger in The Creation of Consciousness talks about the new religion - he says it wont be a new one sided path but a mouth at the river.

And I am foolish enough to believe in it.

And I am doing my best not to be a new age woo pusher. I try my best to learn but that isn't enough, I think we need to make bridges.

Jung gives life to art, music, poetry... the subjective mode of life and that is desperately unattended in today's world. This is a world fueled by the dollar and extroversion. And we suffer because of it.

What would fairy tales, stories, dreams, entheogens, and the arts give to us? Can we tame the evil spirit taking over our school system by observing our own natural tendencies?

my intuition says we can gain a lot from this path but I am reminded of the outsiders. I am reminded of hatred, of the search for objective truth, of one sided ness.

I think we need a bridge. That is all. I think we need a bridge and I think Jung and the Jungians can help us.

Our culture is in a period of stagnation. or worse, period of decline.

Not all of us are interested in acadamia. So a path to the construction workers must be made. A path from neurosis must be founded. Addiction must be soothed. A path from meaninglessness must be found.

Only the wounded healer heals.

i am a self aware lost soul, what do you think I'm trying to do? I can't get into college. I don't have access to an analyst. I watch the earth burn. I see my people burn. Then I think of Handsome Lake of the Seneca and his success.

The inner path, artistry, words - those are all paths to an upgrading of cultural software. But you are right. How many times have we heard of students being weeded out of psychology courses because they seek to heal themselves? It's a natural course.

I remember one thing from uncle neech. He said the philosophers of the future will be pushed back from formal education. I think that's what this is. It's a push against the structures set in place.

i know our side isn't spoken of. I know that. I know i can't speak with authority so I speak in questions, is that so bad?

>Jung has given dreams authority again.

Come on now, Freud did this not Jung.

They signify enatiodromia. Libido and soul. This is not a matter of who used the distortion pedal first. As i have said in my previous posts - i am not against reading post freudians, i haven't enough time to read the words from his mouth but i've tried to expand my knowledge.

Freud is tainted. Jung is tainted. and our symptomatological approach to mental illness has failed us.

Who started it doesn't matter because dreams are universal. We've been dreaming as long as intuition has been working towards the salvation fo our ancestors.

Not sure what Veeky Forums thinks, but I asked a psych professor where Freud and Jung stand in current academia. If you're interested in psychology, they're not going to get you far; most of the big moves in psych today are occurring in neuroscience, and psychoanalysis doesn't fit in with that as well.
However, in the fields of film, literature, art and some regions of philosophy, the works of Freud and Jung are still fairly well read and studied. Use Jung as a lens to read works of literature or art, but not as a systematic empiricist of the brain.

I didn't know you could overdose on lsa. Did you take baby Woodrow or morning glories? What was the overdose like? Also, what was losing your mind during the blizzard like?

We are all dreamers. We all want to be authors. We want our experiences acknowledged by the outside world.

Lsa was a bitch. It was HBWR. And it was a trip. I got a few bags. Fifty count. My bro and I have fucked up tolerances so we ate a lot. I had at least twenty.

Well four hours later I was feeling pretty good. They didn't kick in for a long time so I kept eating.

I drove us up to the gas station for some malt liquor. By the time I got home I felt drunk as shit. This being the effect of the lsa.

I stared at the clock for fifteen minutes and told my bro that I had to leave him.

I puked.

A lot.

And then the fear set in. I stared at the world and it shook.

I grabbed a winter coat that my mother bought me thinking the love embedded in the purchase would save me. i laid under the stars. Freezing on a bench. My deaf and dumb dog in my arms. Love being the antidote.

And we watched the stars shimmer. it was as if a calm lake had been disturbed by countless rocks. Shimmering waters. And it was too much to handle.

I ended up going to sleep, this is the abridged version - and the next day at work - the most hellish experience i ever had. I walked past a coworker and it felt like her sorrow transferred over to me. Thirty some years of losing fell upon me like a suffocating blanket.

I called the suicide hotline shortly after.

don't ever do that if you think you can weather the storm. They will call the cops on you.

I've since learned that there is an analog of cyanide within the husks of HBWR.

The blizzard?

That's a pain. Cold grey eyes of an overworked night cashier. Stares into mine on some forgotten monday night. "Where are you from?" Well, just out of town, going for a cruise. "Couldn't help youself huh?" I guess not.

Turn around because the roads are too bad. White out. Snow builds up. Can't get my car over the bump of snow on the outside of the highway.

Drive along the road for a moment. Hear a crash. Underneath the fence. On the other side of the fence. Roof scraped up. Call my ex. Tell her I'm stuck out here in the storm. Tell her I might try to walk. She says her dad will try to come out my way.

Call my family. Tell them I'm stuck. Phone's battery is shot. Not enough gas to stay the night. Get out of the car and make my decision.

Turn my heat up as high as possible and enjoy the warmth.

Walk.

Those prairie hills. The don't fucking stop. My body is saying we fucked up. But worst of all, my anxiety. It awakens with ferocity. And those hills don't fucking stop.

You make it over one and it just keeps on going. On and on. And on.

No one's saving you.

No one's coming for you. Two feet of snow in a half hour.

Silence. Snow has a way of killing sound. And that soundlessness is killing me.

Cry. Shout. Scream. Scream so loud that my mother heard it. Says she felt a sense of dread around the same time.

It's gone.

It's all gone. Hope. Fear. Nothing. Gone. Meditation of nothingness.

Keep walking.

The ending?

I saw a light in the distance and that became my pilot star.

No more fear. Only movement. Abridged, mind you.

Suddenly a large silence befell me. More immediate than the sound of the snow dampened highway. The plains gave way to the most comforting trees i have ever seen.

I made it to the river. And there it was. The only car of the night. For two/three hours. And it drives passed me.

Where do i go? Do i walk up the hill onto more highway or to my ex's house?

So i turn towards her house.

I make it there with balls of ice in my hair. My hair frozen.

I make it to her house. Her wood stove room warmed up. My arrival anticipated. We sit in a quiet daze. Not thinking about our past life.

I learned about Jung and Freud last semester, took Theories of Personality as a core elective because it sounded interesting.

In the beginning it sounded like drivel, hysteria and queen Victoria. I found it hard to believe that hysteria was as common in the upper classes as my professor said, just to please an emotionally stunted queen.

I do however appreciate how Freud (and Jung, to a lesser degree) pioneered modern psychology to help people who truly needed it.

That aside, I failed that class. Too many concepts, not enough data.

Damn.
Earlier you said you lived on a reservation, are you native American? Also, about the opiate o.d., which opiate was it specifically?

Tb.h you sound like an interesting guy.

Good satire

Not knowing Lacan is a good thing

You got me. My bros deep in that shit, I did fuck upnwith an African herb called entada rhidi. No visuals.. Also I'm on a tablet so I can't get deep but I had another trial by ordeal. Lungs burned with a million needles. Couldn't stand or walk. Saw purple overlays. Accepted death.

Then adavan came into my veins.

But yeah, I said it, I think/want this to be the difference between me and Sherman Alexis. His smiling skull is aimed at white people but mine is toward ourselves. And the Jungians have colored our path. Louise mahdi Betwixt and Between as well as Moore's overview on the problem in Facing The Dragon. Both point to our downfall with stunning clarity.

That being said, opiates were the drug I never knew I needed. A clear headed drunk. And I would have bowed to its feet if I had the cash.
?I once heard McKenna say that our downfall in Europe and america was our lack of real drugs. We fall to solitary paths. Trials by ordeal. Suffering and booze. My one encounter with a mushroom took two years of pain and it gave me ten years of therapy.

My people had sundances and vision quest as well as mutilation. Campbell talks about natives, Sioux, my people, who lopped finger joints off to reach ecstatic states. Europe had flagilation

I might be getting too personal when I ask this, but what are your goals in life, if you have any? You mentioned not being able to go to college to that rules out a lot of options unfortunately. Do you want to create something, or are you just concerned with your inner journey of self realization ?

>subconsciously
Dude you are a moron.

>academics
>verification
lol

books to read, lads?

im an idiot but i think everything you're saying is true

>i see rites of passage being the main fault in modern society.
This is something Campbell writes quite a bit on, he saw the issue of loads of dejected, apathetic and nihilistic (mostly male) young people in society as a product of our lack of rites of passage, which assist in providing both meaning for existence and a way to interact with society.

Interestingly, I remember Campbell writing this doesn't apply to women, as through having their first period there's a clear dividing line between childhood and adulthood, and thus they have a sort of 'in-built' biological rite of passage. I don't know whether this is true or not but its an interesting idea.

I was looking for this. Glad someone here knows what's up.

I'd love to know from someone in academia whether Freud and Jung could be reconciled with new insights into neural processes that are occurring through Neuroscience. I would've thought Neuroscience etc would mesh quite well with the Jungian/Freudian idea of humans not being born as Tabula Rasa.

I know that at least in the field of autism there has been some studies who have been able to reconcile neuroscience and psychoanalysis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychoanalysis
we dem boyz

...

answer me u fags

start with the Greeks, dumbass

for Freud, definitely "civilization and its discontents". it's a perfect distillation of his philosophy. for Jung, most people say "man and his symbols," but that was written pretty much for retards, and is probably what all the hippies leech. I've never read it. a good collection of his essays if you're not a retard is "psyche and symbol".

I'm OP, and I'm actually getting my doctorate in neurodegenerative disease (cidp specifically, think close to multiple sclerosis). what exactly would you like to know?

for lack of a better word, I'm a "gnostic" (i.e. Platonic/Hegelian) Christian, and nothing in my research has debunked my personal beliefs

This graph is embarrassing, it doesn't understand the actual dynamics behind female selection at all and just pits them in the same behaviour expectancy as men

Of course not, that'd be like looking for cat lice on the moon.

If you want to debunk your own religious beliefs all you need is your core text and a good hard think.

Darude -sandstorm

For Freud The Interpretation of Dreams is a really good start, considered his first psychoanalytic text if you will, after that The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Totem and Taboo are all great and important texts.
For Jung don't know, don't care.
For Lacan Écrits or go in order on his seminars, just know that the text form of his seminars is actually written by Miller, who is a dumbass so there is that.

PS: English translation of Freud sucks ass so there is that too, if you can read spanish read in spanish.

>core text
>gnostic christianity
wew lad

Jung heals people.

Freud steals their money and then says, "I told you the Oedipal complex can never be fully resolved."

ILLL FIGHT YOOU

how much of this is bullshit?

Who gives a fuck? That's not what this shit is about. Determine that for yourself.

you okay pal?

No. But I am tired of the obsession with practicality and not thinking for yourself.
But I'll give you what you want, since you're such a sweet cunt, 38%.

Edinger is a great place to start when it comes to Jung. He does a lot of work with christianity so that might not be up your alley. Anatomy of the Psyche is a fun one about alchemy. Edinger also has lecture books on both Aion and Mysterium both of which are pretty fucking dense.

Wisdom of the Serpent is a good one about rebirth. John Weir Perry has some cool ideas. Robert Moore is pretty watered down but readable.

Jung though... Hmm... Jung...

I actually haven't spent a whole lot of time with him specifically. i've read Von Franz and Edinger as well as Campbell but I'm still seriously intimidated by his style.

Come to think about it - The Portable Jung is a good collection for the basics. Aion and Mysterium are bonkers but have cool ideas.

David Tacey though - I have a lot of faith in him, i'd look him up. I haven't gotten my hands on more than one of his books but he seems legit af.

I just got a job after two years of unemployment. Then I dreamed about losing my baby teeth as well as an encounter with an escort (prostitute) and then I saw roommates. Weird stuff but it seems my dreams are saying ''keep this up and stand on your own. Your losing your baby teeth. They are coated in sugar and booze. You don't need them anymore."

As to your question.

I want to write. I want to sell out. I want people to read my words with the noble savage stereotype's voice. I want to be a bukowski esque writer, traditionally bad but some good insights/stories.

I want to sing. Last year I released four collections of songs. About thirty altogether but that's a personal hobby.

I paint, i write, i sing, i record - that's what i do naturally.

And my goal in life is to ride this bitch out. Let the world open before me. Let this life take me where I need to be. And along the way I will collect words from dead poets and dead thinkers.

Campbell once said that the presence of a vital person revitalizes. I hope that by sticking to my path and listening to the dead elders ill be able to help whoever i can in whatever small way i can.

Ultimately - i'd like for a public dialogue about our lack of rites of passage. I'd like to talk to more people about these Jungian ideas. I'd like to learn and teach as much as I can.

But I don't think much about a career. I don't think much about the future.

Idk if you're still here, but basically do Jungian concepts like the shadow, persona, animus and anima as well as archetypes as a whole actually hold up? I has neuropsychoanalysis been more a revival of Freud's ideas?

>The Jungian is a redskin literally using his theories to try justify still believing in his caveman magic

kekaroo friendo

man and his symbols or the portable jung?which for a starting point?

I found Man And His Symbols to be p boring. Portable Jung has all of his basic concepts and a few of the out there ones. I think if you want some real starter material you should begin with Joseph Campbell. Hero was my introduction and those footnotes led me further and further a long.

But yeah, Portable Jung. That shit was even edited/compiled by Campbell.

aight