What are the books that I need to read in order to understand Jung, consciousness, and get started down a path towards mysticism?

What are the books that I need to read in order to understand Jung, consciousness, and get started down a path towards mysticism?

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just jump into the red book, maybe listen to a basic lecture on his general principles

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man and his Symbols
    The Portable Jung

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What are the books that I need in order to [couldn't understand this part] get started down a path towards mysticism?
    If mystery is what you genuinely seek then ideally none.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man and his symbols are esential to get in. Is the only book that jung wrote for normal people to understand him.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not the op, but is this a good one to start with if I know basically nothing about Jung? Or should I develop a passing familiarity first?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's the starting point. Move on to Origins and History of Consciousness.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's fine, I'm currently reading it and I don't find it very difficult. As the other anon said, it was specifically written for a lay audience. You will probably find it even easier to understand than people did in Jung's time because ideas like the unconscious have found their way into mainstream culture.
        Reading Jung's influences is valuable in itself but it's not necessary for an understanding of Man and his Symbols.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, in fact it is The book you need to read as an introduction, that was the whole point of the book. Then read his biography.

      https://i.imgur.com/NMLYRIN.png

      Unironically Catafalque by Kingsley. Also pic related if you can get access to it, it picks up on Jungs influences via Daoism which Kinsley missed, but is essential.

      >Catafalque
      This is, if anything, the last book you should read only when you are prepared for the red pills. But his other books are a must, specially ancient philosophy mystery and magic.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Read his New York lectures (I think available contextualized in a book called Jung Contra Freud) and then read Karl Abraham's response paper for a good idea of both sides of his split with Freud. Obviously they both had personal motives as well but the theoretical different basically came down to Freud's idea of "sexuality" as the fundamental motivation for human beings, and I put sexuality in quotes because arguing over the semantics of what sexual actually means is sort of what they split over. I can't help you much further with Jung beyond telling you that it's my impression that he and Freud shared a deep appreciation for the dream work.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jung basically said there were a bunch of motivations and sticking only to sexuality was moronic. But Freud was constantly overreductive in all his work, especially regarding religions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Freud was in the perfect position to objectively evaluate the religious impulse since he was not carried away by it himself. Also, Freud was anything but over reductive, if anything, many of his theories became too elaborate. On a side note, the Christian conception of a "Heavenly Father" whom you must love and fear and who commands you and punishes you is just a little too Freudian to ignore, don't you think?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Freud was in the perfect position to objectively evaluate the religious impulse since he was not carried away by it himself.
          Sort of like how modern atheists are the most reasonable critics of religion right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            More like James Frazer but if you seethe over modern atheists you'll probably seethe over anyone making reasonable evaluations of religion

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >if you seethe over modern atheists you'll probably seethe over anyone making reasonable evaluations of religion
            That's not a reasonable conclusion

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It is a reasonable conclusion since it is likely that if you object to modern atheists such as Dawkins or Hitchens you'll likely object to similar arguments which have been advanced by Hume, Frazer, Paine, or Freud.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          More like James Frazer but if you seethe over modern atheists you'll probably seethe over anyone making reasonable evaluations of religion

          Freud extended the israeli fricked up father complex to all religion, which is wrong. If you think Frazer is any source of enlightenment on religion you don't know a thing about religious studies. Progressivism is moronic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The Christian religion is literally centered on both loving and fearing a heavenly father who promises to either reward you with the chance to eternally praise and subject yourself to him or punish you with eternal torment and pain by his command. Again, Freud didn't make Christians adopt this point of view, it's the deep father issues of those who adopt and develop this type of religion coming through. Also, Frazer was incredibly based.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, but this doesn't extend to religion as such, only the self-destructive abrahamic cults.
            Frazer's views don't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Religion does not go through progressive stages.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Frazer's categories are useful tools to differentiate ways of human thinking. In fact, Frazer's category of the propitiating stage blends nicely into Freud's work, since people tend to imagine patriarchal gods to subordinate themselves to. Christianity is certainly almost cartoonishly on the nose in this regard, but religions of this mode do tend towards a "father god".

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Jung strikes me of a bit haphazard
      Fortunately he had some great students
      Edinger is probably the one wih most clarity while being in attitude and concept very close to Jung
      Von Franz did a mountain of work coordinated by Jung himself and she's a very good communicator; there is an 8 or so hour video of her talking about dreams, you could start there
      James Hillman was a groovy fella, American like Edinger but a completely opposite character, straight out from some 80s comedy; you can reproach him many things and a lot of Jungians did... but it's very hard not to love him

      >I can't help you much further with Jung beyond telling you that it's my impression that he and Freud shared a deep appreciation for the dream work.
      I recall an interview with the last living student of Jung and he said that the biggest changes in the formation of Jungian therapists is that dream work and shadow work went from being a large part of methods used to almost zero
      Quite sad

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Kant, Schiller, Goethe, Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Carus, Wagner, Nietzsche is a good intro.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is excessive. You can get all the introduction necessary from Ellenberger

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Should probably start with a lobotomy since only brain dead morons resonate with Jung

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why? What is your point?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That I’m a moron and a virgin.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Essentials of Jung:
    >Two Essays on Analytical Psychology -> Psychological Types -> Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious -> Aion -> Psychology and Alchemy -> Mysterium Conjunctionis -> Liber Novus / Red Book (final boss) - you may wish get reader edition of liber novus / red book for reading easily given bulk of big version tho worth shelling out boku bucks for pics in it -- optional: black books are supposedly good alongside red book... (never read myself tho)

    Secondaries?

    Origins and History of Consciousness is a fun work. Jungianism applied to prehistory. Ego and Archetype is another good one. Different author but a rather concise and systematic primer on his overarching system. Dream and Underworld by yet another Jungian is a good meditation on Freudian and Jungian dream theory. If curious about topology and Jung, a la Lacan, then Dreams Death Rebirth by a lesser known guy than those three is a curious and provocative work if tad shallow.

    Alternatively, you could read Memories Dreams Reflections and Man and His Symbols and The Undiscovered Self for intros to Jung. These are his works for laymen. All are good. A lil overlap. But meh. But I prefer to dive straight in to depths hah.

    Bless and good luck, sir.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      lol i didnt even know two essays was supposed to be read first

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    /r/jung

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i started with two essays on analytical psychology and it was pretty boring for the uninitiated save for the dream analysis. archetypes of the collective unconscious is his most quoted and essential work which is probably where i shouldve started.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    his autobiography is a decent primer to his major works, start there

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    man and his symbols should be enough to make you realize he was a charlatan

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    is it embarrassing to be seen reading jung

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    welly welly

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    First published 1964.

    I know he was Hitler hating israelite, but his autobiography is surprisingly well written. especially about his childhood and youth as aspiring actor and the Victorian London slums he came from.
    Usually actors are not very great minds, but he was also director and quite adequate composer, an innovator in yet to be developed art form that was cinema then.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      sorry wrong thread

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Read some Paracelsus and, if you feel completely confused and understand none of it, you'll be roughly in the same boat as Jung.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Gravity's Rainbow

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I HATE YOU

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Jung was an actual crazy person

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you say this? I do find his methodology strange but I appreciate the ideas it produces.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Mostly because while his "archetypes" are interesting conceptually, and I could see in a theoretical sense how humans could have subterranean thought patterns embedded from deep within our evolutionary history; Jung claimed he was "doing hard science" in his books, which is fricking absurd.
        There's a lot of theoretical weight behind archetypes but absolutely zero evidence or proof

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Shut up science b***h

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He distanced himself from academia and “hard science” in his later work. He knew empiricist plebs would never get it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"Nooo, don't make me provide evidence to prove my claim, just listen and believe!"
            You gotta be brain dead to buy this kind of nonsense.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If by now you are not considered by everyone a "brain dead" then you are the most moronic gorilla I've ever have the pleasure to interact with. Now post your pronouns and frick off to reddit.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bro, sometimes a moron is actually moronic. Don't pretend the epithet automatically bestows merit, you just sound like you're huffing your own farts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >evidence
          >proof
          Archetypes by themselves aren't really challenged (an amazonian child and an european one are behaviorally identical), it's Jung's affirmation that culture is their direct product.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Case studies are evidence. As ever the hard science plebs cannot understand what is right in front of their face.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Case studies are not hard evidence by any means

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Where does Jung claim he was doing "hard science"?
          >'It is possible to describe this content in rational, scientific language, but in this way one entirely fails to express its living character. Therefore, in describing the living processes of the psyche, I deliberately and consciously give preference to a dramatic, mythological way of thinking and speaking, because this is not only more expressive but also more exact than an abstract scientific terminology, which is wont to toy with the notion that its theoretic formulations may one fine day be resolved into algebraic equations.'
          >'Equally childish is the prejudice against the role which mythological assumptions play in the life of the psyche. Since they are not "true," it is argued, they have no place in a scientific explanation. But mythologems exist, even though their statements do not coincide with our incommensurable idea of "truth." '

          Jung makes lots of empirically falsifiable (and therefore scientific) statements. Just as the claims of astronomers can only be tested by looking through a telescope, many of Jung's claims can only be tested by looking inside oneself and observing what is there. Just because these observations take place in the *subjective* realm rather than the *objective* realm does not mean they are not empirically falsifiable. But it seems to me we don't all have the same ability to carry out this observation of inner experience. Just as some are outwardly blind, so it seems some are inwardly blind.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Since they are not "true," it is argued, they have no place in a scientific explanation. But mythologems exist, even though their statements do not coincide with our incommensurable idea of "truth."
            Did this motherfricker really just ask me where Jung claimed he was doing science and then post a quote where he explains how what he is doing is science?
            Boy, you crazay you needa git yo ass in church boy I teel ya what nuh

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t have a better link, sorry op https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Story

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically Catafalque by Kingsley. Also pic related if you can get access to it, it picks up on Jungs influences via Daoism which Kinsley missed, but is essential.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Schopenhauer and Goethe.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I started with The Portable Jung, edited by Joseph Campbell.
    >I have opened this anthology with papers introducing the elementary terms and themes of Jung's psychology. Once acquainted with these, the reader will be prepared to range at will through The Collected Works.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I didn't understand Jung for years. From Campbell originally because I wanted to be a good writer, to the Greeks with the Odyssey, Ovid's metamorphosis, the plays of Antigone, Oedipus Rex and then to the Gnostics. To understand Jung you must understand the Gnostics and other classical philosophies and mystery religions. Read Gnosticism by Hoeller and Jung and the Lost Gospels. The Upanishads, the Gita, the Old and New Testaments, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Once you see the world the way Jung does you cannot see it in any other way. Jung's beliefs are inherently esoteric and occult, and anything in those two categories including mythology, philosophy and religion will aid in your understanding of Jung. Carl Jung isn't the sort of mind you can understand by reading one or two books.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just made this list

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *