Jung thread

he never made claims to science.

do you know how religious you sound right now?

i think i should dig more into the works of his collaborators for Man and His Symbols

Not him, but why is that a bad thing?
"Read some Nee-chee on Truth" before you criticise religiosity.

Your concept of religion probably includes several vital elements of Jungian psychology so I can see how you'd think that.

That said, reading anything from the western canon is basically pointless without fostering an understanding of religion.

read some neechee on religiosity before you criticise criticism of religiosity

Jung explains religion.

(Spoiler: it's not what you think it is.)

The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscous.

Every time I read Jung, or even spend some time thinking about him, I'm struck by some startling synchronicity that just underlines his relevance.

And I'm guessing those trips of yours are no coincidence ...

HOLY FUCK! SEE WHAT I MEAN!

lek

...

Nice!

Kek, don't even know why I'm making a fuss about it t.b.h. It's a well-documented Jungian phenomenon. It's happened to me more times that I care to count.

It's worth noting how important multiples of four are in Jung's theory of the Self when considering these two sets of trips.

nice dubs

OK, stop it already!

Singles get.

Absolutely right, and extra spooky.

>It's a well-documented Jungian phenomenon.
Non-Jungians like to call it "confirmation bias".

Non-Jungians inhabit a different reality tunnel.

I've conducted years' worth of tarot experiments (complete with control mechanisms) that more than convinced me of the existence of synchronicity.

(Don't worry if you don't believe me. It's important to get comfortable in your own reality.)

please dont shit up the thread

He formed conclusions based on empirical observations. That's what a scientist does.

What do you call shitting up? Jung endorsed divinatory methods as a way to generate synchronicities. He also wrote a foreword for Wilhelm's translation of the I Ching, complete with a divination of his own.

none of his claims are falsifiable

holy fuck this thread got jung'd

omg. Witness'd

double

bump bc I also think Jung is right about everything
its like the best of existentialism and mysticism rolled into 1 philosopher

>444
There go the fish again.

I just read Undiscovered self and Synchronicity.

It's like this man read Nietzsche (studied under him), Schopenhauer and Spinoza and mashed them together into a kind of philosophy that seeks to pave the way for humanity to transcend. Brilliant man, he's onto something big.

>Brilliant man, he's onto something big.
Why is he not a bigger thing in philosophy/literary departments? Honest question, it seems like all later philosophers and critics took after Freud and then you have postmodern faggots like Baudrillard, Lacan etc. and Lacanian analysis is it's whole own thing.

Jungians are kind of the weird hippie rejects of the humanities. I wonder why, few major artists cite Freud as an influence yet heaps tout the benefits Jungian psychology had on their work.

Freud is less work. No work at all, in fact. He managed to put together something that essentially functions as a template, in the form of an outlook that can be intuitively adopted and applied without the least need for creativity or self-involvement.

I always thought the archetypes/individuation type Jungian template seemed a lot more prevalent and easy to apply then Freudian ideas like the Oedipal complex, can you elaborate on what you mean?

They are absolutely falsifiable in the way this thread involves opinions saying they are false. And Jung would not have argued with your right to disagree with him.

He took his observations that we available to him and made models that helped him help people better. He is a pragmatist, in that his observations about the psyche were true if they were felt true for the client and offered them an opportunity to heal.

I honestly think Memories, Dreams, and Reflections is a great way to start. Wish I'd done it that way.

Really gives you a great sense of what you're dealing with and the underlying motivations behind the theories you can then chase up in more detail.

So wrong!

I'm currently reading Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, and it's really REALLY hard to understand.

But I think I get what he's talking about when he says that there are cognitive categories which are impossible to avoid, and that exist in all humans.(Like the notion of the Anima being some kind of archetypal mother; all cultures have some veneration for the feminine aspects of their humanity etc.).

That said, his writing is really esoteric, seems almost manic in a way.

bunp

“Over-civilization and barbarism are within an inch of each other. And a mark of both is the power of medicine-men.”

That's one of his easier works, actually.

But keep reading him; it's worth the effort.

>That's one of his easier works, actually.

Praise kek!

Praise the trickster

>Why is he not a bigger thing in philosophy/literary departments?
The way his work interfaces with religion isn't likely to go down well in academia. Jung approved of religion, as a way of communing with the inner archetypes. He also studied various branches of the occult. I think academics just dismiss that as mumbo-jumbo, without bothering to understand where he's coming from.

There's another detail which will probably cause hangups among modern academics: Jung insists the psychic structures of men and women are fundamentally different. You can bet that causes a mass triggering in the universities ...

Praise kek! It's the same for me though, everytime i see his name, some weird thing happens

Both of those explanations make sense, it's probably due to both of those.

I feel like if Jung's ideas became more popular and we recognised the value of religion and the fundamental psychological differences of men and women, society would be radically improved.

But I'm just an autist on a Burmese finger puppet board so who am I to talk

Too esoteric, this whole synchronicity thing for example or his research of alchemy/occult things. I personally like his way of approaching these topics in a scientific way and not just denying their existence.
Take the collective unconsciousness most people would roll their eyes when hearing about it but it makes so much sense and it doesn't feel much different from the normal unconsciousness once you understand it.

The best explanation of the collective unconscious I ever heard explained that it's nothing mystical, it's like referring to the basic structure of the human arm as the 'collective arm,' except for the unconscious mind. I think that comparison makes the concept far more intuitive and believable, rather than obscure esoteric garbage.

That's a pretty good allegory for someone new to Jung

Exactly, if you're just getting into Jung you can easily misinterpret the Collective Unconscious to be some magical hivemind, which is far from the truth. Some friends I've tried to get into Jung have made that same mistake.

Same reason Marxism is so big in academia despite it not being anything near the most radical philosophy of its time--both tout a dirty "secret" of the world predicated on common bourgeoise ideology; i.e. they are a way for academics to gain power over the igonrant, rather than discover the power that is in themselves.

I need to read Evola once I'm comfortable with Jung, is Ride the Tiger really a good place to start? I've read that somewhere.

>i.e. they are a way for academics to gain power over the igonrant, rather than discover the power that is in themselves.

oh god I think you may be onto something here lmao

What exactly is the individuation process?

Finding and accepting yourself. And by yourself it is meant the whole thing.

Could you explain further? How does one go about doing this according to Jung?

Checked.

That Jung lived obviates my existence.

I've read Man and His Symbols, The Gnostic Jung by Hoeller, some of von Franz and Edinger's works, and a good portion of Joseph Campbell's oeuvre. I'm excited to tear into Jung's essays on active imagination. This Swiss genius has done more for me as a writer than anyone else on Earth.

Integrating all the subpersonalities that were generated by past trauma, repression or dissociation.

How is this meant to be done?

>in the way this thread involves opinions saying they are false.

That's not what falsifiability is though. Is this a joke?

Is there a more scientific take on his works? I mean, trying to prove that archetypes are indeed the left overs of supressed instincts or sonething. I will start Psychology, so I accept suggestions of research area.

>von Franz
I was thinking about getting her books about fairy tale archetypes, y/n?

Everything Max Stirner wrote resonated with me.

He's persauding you into his way of thinking, if you adopt it, then of course everything you see will fit into his framework. Its very hard to refute the idea that morality obtained outside of the self isn't a spook or that property is only something one can defend, doesn't mean its neccessarily true.

I was going to ask what your incoherent ass is on about, but then I realized I don't care.

I'll put in terms your autistic mind can understand.

>read book
>author comes with an explanation for things
>because you buy into the explanation, you start using it to explain things, and like magic, everything seems to fit together because you now fit everything you see into the explanation rather than observing things as they are

Make sense?

>observing things as they are
stuck in the beginnig of the 20th century much?

huh

Look it depends on what satisfies you in terms of evidence. There is a huge gulf between those psychologists who think that their sessions with clients are valid evidence in support or against psychological theory.

Then there are researchers who dismiss that evidence and think that evidence is only valid if it is gathered under strict empirical methods.

Now, your idea of falsifiability is dependent on what you are willing to consider as evidence. If you take the first premise as OK, then a theory can be falsifiable by opinion. If you go into a session with a client and they are free to reject your interpretation, and you are willing to use this to revise or reject your theory, then how is it not falsifiable?

are there any theorists work that would be a synthesis of Hegel and Jung's ideas? Lacan and Deleuze comes to mind but not really

m-m-m-m-m-mmmuh reason!
Why is that relevant? Joke of a philosophy.

Jung is babbys first psychoanalysis. Horoscope tier

Bait.

You wish. Although Jung would literally take being compared to horoscopes as compliment since he unironically believed in astrology

He thought that, to understand ones neuroses, you needed to take more than a personal approach and see your life from the context of your societal zeitgeist and mythology. This is very different to your purposeful attempt to equate his opinions to tabloid bullshit.

Since it turns out you might not be pretending to be retarded, I'd also add that to properly understand Jung you need to apply the same context, which means being quite familiar with the models of consciousness and development put forward by Freud and Adler and such, so he is by no means entry level.

>While studying astrology I have applied it to concrete cases many times. ... The experiment is most suggestive to a versatile mind, unreliable in the hands of the unimaginative, and dangerous in the hands of a fool, as those intuitive methods always are. If intelligently used the experiment is useful in cases where it is a matter of an opaque structure. It often provides surprising insights. The most definite limit of the experiment is lack of intelligence and literal-mindedness of the observer. ... Undoubtedly astrology today is flourishing as never before in the past, but it is still most unsatisfactorily explored despite very frequent use. It is an apt tool only when used intelligently. It is not at all foolproof and when used by a rationalistic and narrow mind it is a definite nuisance. - C. G. Jung: Letters, volume 2, 1951-1961, pages 463-464, letter to Robert L. Kroon, 15 November 1958

Woah what a smart guy

See , he outright claims it has an applicative use. But as usual with pseudo mystics only with the esoteric elite.
The issue is ultimately his praxes for what you are implying is simple context is nothing but contrived monolithic framings which undermines his entire analytic worth. There is no such thing as mythology

>There is no such thing as mythology
haha what

I just started reading "Man and His Symbols" and it's really engaging. I can't believe I waited this long to read it, really.

How does Carl Jung make the case of a "shadow," and that people often psychologically project their shadow aspect?

Mythology is a retroactive construction, it has no subconscious existence but is simply pure metadiscourse.

>concepts that were created in the past have no impact on people's current lives

If you strip back the unnecessary jargon you spout, your position is fucking ridiculous.

whether you like it or not in your mid 20s

The "jargon" is clearly not unnecessary if you end up at such a misreading. The point is Jung privileges the influence of narratives that are only prescriptively significant rather than analysing what is in fact a amalgomous and arbitrary background of countless imaginative experiences that are specific to each individual.
That's to say Jungians are talking about fucking Zeus when Homer Simpson is a million times more important to people today.

>this sophomoric twat seriously thinks he has more insight than Jung

But Jungian concepts can still easily be found in popular culture, and many Jungians address this. Look at what Campbell has written about Star Wars. Of course Lucas was directly influenced by his monomyth but the same principle applies elsewhere.

Jungians do privilege mythological narratives over relevant, contemporary culture, but that doesn't mean that those contemporary narratives negate Jungian ideas.

that guy doesn't look very young

Because he was not a jew.

Yeah I am, thanks for noticing

Anything can be "found" in popular media, you could do a long post-colonial reading of Spongebob and it'd have as much analytic worth as describing the specific eternal archetype that Jar Jar Bink's represents. The point is whether its actually analytically useful, whether there is an actual correspondancy between what is going on in peoples heads and your interpretation. This is where Jung falls apart, his priviledging of prescribed significance is pure fetishization, he operates on a perverse desire not to actually deal with the traumatic and the incongruent in how fucked up, chaotic and indignified our mental life actually is but its exact opposite, its repression. By way of clean comforting nostalgia and an infantile adoration of the arbitrarily sanctified

>Yeah I am, thanks for noticing

Keep desperately LARPing the lone wolf genius over this wafer-thin contrarian purview of yours but just know that you post just like every other adolescent try hard that overreaches here.

Duly noted

I can't believe another person has experienced the same. This some white devil occult shit nigga.

Go read modern man in search of a soul. Jung is completely conscious of what rigor is necessary to show something to be true, why science is necessary for that and the limitations of his hypotheses.

Idiots like you who can't understand that it's possible to have great ideas that are before the time that science can prove them to be true or not, and that this is still useful.