what do you think about Carl Jung? Where do i start with him?

what do you think about Carl Jung? Where do i start with him?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Man And His Symbols

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I honestly think in this guy's entire body of work he fails to ever prove that he's doing more than making base level analogies between stuff he's read and the imagery of peoples dreams/fixations

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good analysis it works with the following

      Start with Esotericism, the Unconscious, Psychoanalysis, by EA, in Introduction to Magic Volume III

      >The archetypes correspond to fundamental forces of the collective unconscious, hence also of the deep layers of the soul. They are elementary, psychic-vital energies ever present and organically united to the I, which is rooted in them. And here comes the insertion, or, better, the irruption into the world of myth and symbol. As said above, the tendencies of the unconscious, though unknown, manifest in spite of all; but while the state of division persists, they manifest in projections, in fantastic images or images that superimpose themselves on reality, charging the things or persons in it with the fascinating and “libidinous” quality that belongs to the basal energy of the unconscious. Hence the theory of symbols and figures, variegated yet constant and, as Jung says, universal, corresponding to such projections. Given these assumptions, such manifestation of the archetypes would mainly happen in states of reduced or weakened consciousness. Thus, Jung started out with the material of dreams and the fantasies of psychotic and hysterical subjects (delirium, hallucinations, visions). He thought that this proved that the recurrent images had nothing individual or arbitrary about them, but had an atavistic and typical character and an exact correspondence with myths, fairy tales, and popular and traditional symbolisms. All of that was supposed to contain “original revelations of the preconscious psyche, involuntary statements about unconscious psychic happenings.” Even the world of religion was understood in this sense, as “a vital link with psychic processes independent of and beyond consciousness, in the dark hinterland of the psyche.” As if that were not enough, Jung asserted that the figures that his patients saw, dreamed, drew, and even danced corresponded to certain esoteric symbols. Thus, he started talking about “European mandalas,” seeing in figures that serve in esotericism for contemplation and evocation just so many manifestations of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, exactly like those produced in states of diminished or morbid consciousness. The more the field of the conscious principle is barred, the more the unconscious forces and their images appear as if they exist outside the individual, even as spirits and magic powers. There are cases in which the manifestation of the archetype has an obsessive character. The conscious personality that cannot discern its nature can be overwhelmed and lose its equilibrium. Then the archetype takes possession of the soul. Jung sometimes goes so far as to consider the archetypes,...

      >...the contents of the unconscious, as “psychic entities,” “numina” fearful to behold, and writes: “to let the unconscious go its own way and to experience it as a reality is something that exceeds the courage and capacity of the average European. He prefers simply not to understand this problem. For the spiritually weak-kneed this is the better course, since the thing is not without its dangers.” However, all that the archetypes want in ordinary life is for the conscious person to recognize the vital unconscious, accept its contents, and, incorporating them in its individual life, “integrate” itself with them. Jung calls this development the individuation process. The final stage would be the “integral personality” that includes both conscious and unconscious and is called the “Self” (das Selbst). Jung has no doubt that all mystical and initiatic developments are only more or less confused forms of the “individuation process” (because “scientific clarity,” understanding in terms of positive psychology and not cloudy metaphysics, only arrived with his psychoanalysis). For example, all the alchemical procedures with their Hermetic symbols are taken as images of this process, not recognized at their proper level but projected onto material substances and onto the myth of an absurd work of chemical transmutation. The same is said of the initiatic processes treated in the Taoist mystery of the “Golden Flower.” In general, figures like those of the Buddha or Christ are nothing but “projections” of the unconscious, and specifically of the archetype of the “Self,” the endpoint to which the process of individuation leads. 19 Nonetheless, the basic principle of psychoanalysis is that until the archetype presents itself in “projections,” that is, in images or external representations, it remains unconscious and its real contents are inactive, as is the force that, through it, wants to be recognized by the conscious personality in order to transform it. Then the “images” are accepted and “realized.” One should become conscious of them by letting them possess one, accepting the solicitation that they embody, which only then ceases to act as an autonomous unconscious complex. This is the criterion by which Jungian psychiatry pretends to evaluate, in terms of life and true consciousness, the dogmas, divine figures, and symbols of religions. It presents itself as a sort of psychologistic esotericism (if you will pardon the expression) even regarding initiatic traditions, as it discovers everywhere alleged “archetypes,” symbols, and phases of the “individuation process.” Before saying more about this process, let us bring a little order into this impossible mess of ideas...

      >...First, we will trace a firm line of demarcation. The whole world of an I that is divided and sick, in the grip of its “complexes,” its instincts, and the collective unconscious, has no relation whatever to the plane of mythology, traditional symbols, the processes of supranormal realization, nor even that of religion. Psychiatrists like Freud or Adler are much more acceptable than Jung, because they deal essentially with empirical cases that may well be real, with repressed sexual impulses and the like, keeping to a naturalistic and commonplace plane. And though Freud, and even more his disciples like Silberer (who found such equilibrium in psychoanalysis that he ended in suicide), touched on the world of symbols, the aberrant quality of their sexual interpretations leaps to the eye of any normal person, precisely because these interpretations do not cloud the issue and remain visibly in the world of neuropaths, savages, and beings in whom the libido really is the chief motive of all their psychic life. Jung, however, while essentially staying on the same plane—since, as we have seen, his unconscious is simply the subsubpersonal, vital, and even partly biological substratum of the collective life—brings in “spiritual” elements of every sort, exacerbating the confusion and providing a new opportunity and a more subtle method of reducing the higher to the lower. As for the “archetypes,” in the great majority of cases one should consider as totally accidental and irrelevant any correspondence between traditional symbols and myths and motives occuring in dreams, visions, or the delusions of psychopaths. As for the “archaic” heredity, here too Jung has no idea what is in question and no capacity for discrimination. True, such heredity can be made from irrational and vital impulses, but the symbols and myths in question have very little to do with that sphere. They do not figure in primitive life as “projections” from the unconscious psyche, but only as degraded remnants and twilight or nocturnal echoes of realities of quite another plane: it is only as residues that they appear as centers of crystallization for irrational forces. Psychoanalytic interpretation casually puts on the same level the reports of ethnologists, which concern the primitive psyche, and what belongs to the great spiritual traditions; we have seen that even in religious dogmas Jung sees only the effects of processes of the unconscious psyche. This is pure nonsense...

      >...Everything to do with traditional symbols and myths originally belonged to a plane of supraconsciousness, referring not to the vital, collective, and irrational substratum, but to metaphysical reality: to what the ancients called the “world above,” and with precise reference to its luminous and “Olympian” nature, the “intelligible world,” κόσμος νοητός. The ancients’ plain opposition between this world and the “demonic” or “infernal” world should have taught Jung something!
      >In any case, if the whole of psychoanalytic theory is really pure psychologism, with the “archetypes” one is only dealing with varieties of human psychology, individual or collective as the case may be. What we have called the “metaphysical subconscious” does not enter into it, while the true character of the archetypes, if they refer to traditional symbols, is a metaphysical and nonhuman one, just as their origin is nonhuman. They are signatures of the integral being of man, which as such reflects the powers of the cosmos and of the “world above.”
      >It is evident that “integration” as Jung understands it on the basis of his archetypes, is nothing but a caricature of the process of initiatic integration. The difference can be put in a few clear words: the entire psychoanalytic procedure is valid, in the most favorable hypothesis, for restoring a split and neuropathic human type to normality and health; the initiatic process, instead, starts from a normal and sane human type, to lead him beyond the human condition. It has as its point of departure what for psychoanalysis is the point of arrival, and a hard enough goal to attain, given the “subjects” with which it deals.

      Later on in another chapter
      >Jung has written: “Modern man must therefore consider himself fortunate not to have come up against Eastern ideas until his own spiritual impoverishment was so far gone that he did not even notice what he was coming up against. He can now deal with the East on the quite adequate and therefore innocuous level of the intellect, or else leave the whole matter to Sanskrit specialists.” 34 This is exactly what we would say about Jung himself, but in a wider sense: it is fortunate that this psychiatrist understood nothing, and could only see extensions of pathological experiences and psychotherapies whenever he came upon the vestiges of Wisdom and the Art.

      The most disturbing aspect of psychoanalysis is that it depends and revolves around the study of the neurotic, split or psychotic, and takes these people as the repositories of information which we are to be informed by in our own path of "individuation"
      If anything this would help a "split" "neurotic" or "psychotic" to get back up to normal human psychic health, but to universalize this "infernal science" and compel normal humans could only lead them either to actively transcend these things, or to succumb and devolve into an inferior condition
      Even the "psychoanalysts" themselves many times ended in suicide, I would just avoid this stuff all together and take the approach of the normal religions,

      Just get an exorcism, don't try to self-medicate with the likes of Jung and Freud

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The archetypes Jung talks about which have an obsessive quality, which can be seen with neurotics, with their diagnoses like OCD, Bipolar, these are "psycho-pathological" complexes which are pretty much the modern term for "demonic possession"

        The obsessive character of "fetishes" is merely a capitulation to the demonic "archetype" which can become an unconscious possession,

        The light of consciousness, mere awareness of these psycho-pathological complexes, so that they cannot overwhelm or act outside of the conscious subject is all that it takes to be freed of it.

        For example take Junga Archetype of the "Mother" the demonic possession symptom in our modern age is a "Femdom porn addiction" which ruins their lives, financially, socially, and so on

        When man engenders an "elemental being" by his own libidinal energies, and is resultingly enslaved by it, because he loses the equilibrium inherent in the "light of consciousness" the "self-awareness"

        When the dream becomes an external reality filled with alien entities bypassing ones conscious will, then we have a case of an inferior development. It is concerning that Jung had the view he did about the dream world as external things, totally outside of the conscious subject.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Just get an exorcism, don't try to self-medicate with the likes of Jung and Freud

        bad advice

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I agree bro, I think maybe the psychoanalysis could help out, and exorcism would maybe be useful in pre-modern society, the neurotic flock the churches and religions today in the position of priest, and have usurp the hierarchy.
          If the person is really so far gone, would he even seek help in Jung? Or in books, we simply don't have the institutions interested in rehabilitation these days, if it becomes really bad youd just get medicated in a psych ward. I actually think the psychoanalysts are respectable because they tried to put autonomy back into this stuff, but that is a dangerous game. Mania and other personality disorders seems to be one of these neurotic symptoms which may result as a negative side effect.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Jung operates on the idea that all human consciousness possesses the same depths and is in need of the same individuation. Psychoses are only common in those who take the first step but don't know where to go, which is where his psychoanalysis helps. But you can't run away from it. No person is "normal" and we're all eventually taken by obsessions and demons.
        I used to have this same critique of Jung when I was younger and my lack of life experience made me think others were vapid instead of actively acting vapidity to run away from the inevitable.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I like Jung, he has interesting ideas that are at least worth considering. A lot of his work feels underdeveloped to some extent, where he's onto something but not necessarily right. If nothing else, when you're finished reading you'll have a pretty extensive list of further things to look into.
    Both Man and His Symbols and Modern Man in Search of a Soul are very accessible and easy to start with. From there you can go in pretty much any direction, but if you decide to read the volumes of his collected works, you should probably go through the volume on archetypes first, then alchemy, and then aion of you want to have the best understanding of it.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Start with Esotericism, the Unconscious, Psychoanalysis, by EA, in Introduction to Magic Volume III

    >The archetypes correspond to fundamental forces of the collective unconscious, hence also of the deep layers of the soul. They are elementary, psychic-vital energies ever present and organically united to the I, which is rooted in them. And here comes the insertion, or, better, the irruption into the world of myth and symbol. As said above, the tendencies of the unconscious, though unknown, manifest in spite of all; but while the state of division persists, they manifest in projections, in fantastic images or images that superimpose themselves on reality, charging the things or persons in it with the fascinating and “libidinous” quality that belongs to the basal energy of the unconscious. Hence the theory of symbols and figures, variegated yet constant and, as Jung says, universal, corresponding to such projections. Given these assumptions, such manifestation of the archetypes would mainly happen in states of reduced or weakened consciousness. Thus, Jung started out with the material of dreams and the fantasies of psychotic and hysterical subjects (delirium, hallucinations, visions). He thought that this proved that the recurrent images had nothing individual or arbitrary about them, but had an atavistic and typical character and an exact correspondence with myths, fairy tales, and popular and traditional symbolisms. All of that was supposed to contain “original revelations of the preconscious psyche, involuntary statements about unconscious psychic happenings.” Even the world of religion was understood in this sense, as “a vital link with psychic processes independent of and beyond consciousness, in the dark hinterland of the psyche.” As if that were not enough, Jung asserted that the figures that his patients saw, dreamed, drew, and even danced corresponded to certain esoteric symbols. Thus, he started talking about “European mandalas,” seeing in figures that serve in esotericism for contemplation and evocation just so many manifestations of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, exactly like those produced in states of diminished or morbid consciousness. The more the field of the conscious principle is barred, the more the unconscious forces and their images appear as if they exist outside the individual, even as spirits and magic powers. There are cases in which the manifestation of the archetype has an obsessive character. The conscious personality that cannot discern its nature can be overwhelmed and lose its equilibrium. Then the archetype takes possession of the soul. Jung sometimes goes so far as to consider the archetypes,...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >...the contents of the unconscious, as “psychic entities,” “numina” fearful to behold, and writes: “to let the unconscious go its own way and to experience it as a reality is something that exceeds the courage and capacity of the average European. He prefers simply not to understand this problem. For the spiritually weak-kneed this is the better course, since the thing is not without its dangers.” However, all that the archetypes want in ordinary life is for the conscious person to recognize the vital unconscious, accept its contents, and, incorporating them in its individual life, “integrate” itself with them. Jung calls this development the individuation process. The final stage would be the “integral personality” that includes both conscious and unconscious and is called the “Self” (das Selbst). Jung has no doubt that all mystical and initiatic developments are only more or less confused forms of the “individuation process” (because “scientific clarity,” understanding in terms of positive psychology and not cloudy metaphysics, only arrived with his psychoanalysis). For example, all the alchemical procedures with their Hermetic symbols are taken as images of this process, not recognized at their proper level but projected onto material substances and onto the myth of an absurd work of chemical transmutation. The same is said of the initiatic processes treated in the Taoist mystery of the “Golden Flower.” In general, figures like those of the Buddha or Christ are nothing but “projections” of the unconscious, and specifically of the archetype of the “Self,” the endpoint to which the process of individuation leads. 19 Nonetheless, the basic principle of psychoanalysis is that until the archetype presents itself in “projections,” that is, in images or external representations, it remains unconscious and its real contents are inactive, as is the force that, through it, wants to be recognized by the conscious personality in order to transform it. Then the “images” are accepted and “realized.” One should become conscious of them by letting them possess one, accepting the solicitation that they embody, which only then ceases to act as an autonomous unconscious complex. This is the criterion by which Jungian psychiatry pretends to evaluate, in terms of life and true consciousness, the dogmas, divine figures, and symbols of religions. It presents itself as a sort of psychologistic esotericism (if you will pardon the expression) even regarding initiatic traditions, as it discovers everywhere alleged “archetypes,” symbols, and phases of the “individuation process.” Before saying more about this process, let us bring a little order into this impossible mess of ideas...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >...First, we will trace a firm line of demarcation. The whole world of an I that is divided and sick, in the grip of its “complexes,” its instincts, and the collective unconscious, has no relation whatever to the plane of mythology, traditional symbols, the processes of supranormal realization, nor even that of religion. Psychiatrists like Freud or Adler are much more acceptable than Jung, because they deal essentially with empirical cases that may well be real, with repressed sexual impulses and the like, keeping to a naturalistic and commonplace plane. And though Freud, and even more his disciples like Silberer (who found such equilibrium in psychoanalysis that he ended in suicide), touched on the world of symbols, the aberrant quality of their sexual interpretations leaps to the eye of any normal person, precisely because these interpretations do not cloud the issue and remain visibly in the world of neuropaths, savages, and beings in whom the libido really is the chief motive of all their psychic life. Jung, however, while essentially staying on the same plane—since, as we have seen, his unconscious is simply the subsubpersonal, vital, and even partly biological substratum of the collective life—brings in “spiritual” elements of every sort, exacerbating the confusion and providing a new opportunity and a more subtle method of reducing the higher to the lower. As for the “archetypes,” in the great majority of cases one should consider as totally accidental and irrelevant any correspondence between traditional symbols and myths and motives occuring in dreams, visions, or the delusions of psychopaths. As for the “archaic” heredity, here too Jung has no idea what is in question and no capacity for discrimination. True, such heredity can be made from irrational and vital impulses, but the symbols and myths in question have very little to do with that sphere. They do not figure in primitive life as “projections” from the unconscious psyche, but only as degraded remnants and twilight or nocturnal echoes of realities of quite another plane: it is only as residues that they appear as centers of crystallization for irrational forces. Psychoanalytic interpretation casually puts on the same level the reports of ethnologists, which concern the primitive psyche, and what belongs to the great spiritual traditions; we have seen that even in religious dogmas Jung sees only the effects of processes of the unconscious psyche. This is pure nonsense...

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >...Everything to do with traditional symbols and myths originally belonged to a plane of supraconsciousness, referring not to the vital, collective, and irrational substratum, but to metaphysical reality: to what the ancients called the “world above,” and with precise reference to its luminous and “Olympian” nature, the “intelligible world,” κόσμος νοητός. The ancients’ plain opposition between this world and the “demonic” or “infernal” world should have taught Jung something!
          >In any case, if the whole of psychoanalytic theory is really pure psychologism, with the “archetypes” one is only dealing with varieties of human psychology, individual or collective as the case may be. What we have called the “metaphysical subconscious” does not enter into it, while the true character of the archetypes, if they refer to traditional symbols, is a metaphysical and nonhuman one, just as their origin is nonhuman. They are signatures of the integral being of man, which as such reflects the powers of the cosmos and of the “world above.”
          >It is evident that “integration” as Jung understands it on the basis of his archetypes, is nothing but a caricature of the process of initiatic integration. The difference can be put in a few clear words: the entire psychoanalytic procedure is valid, in the most favorable hypothesis, for restoring a split and neuropathic human type to normality and health; the initiatic process, instead, starts from a normal and sane human type, to lead him beyond the human condition. It has as its point of departure what for psychoanalysis is the point of arrival, and a hard enough goal to attain, given the “subjects” with which it deals.

          Later on in another chapter
          >Jung has written: “Modern man must therefore consider himself fortunate not to have come up against Eastern ideas until his own spiritual impoverishment was so far gone that he did not even notice what he was coming up against. He can now deal with the East on the quite adequate and therefore innocuous level of the intellect, or else leave the whole matter to Sanskrit specialists.” 34 This is exactly what we would say about Jung himself, but in a wider sense: it is fortunate that this psychiatrist understood nothing, and could only see extensions of pathological experiences and psychotherapies whenever he came upon the vestiges of Wisdom and the Art.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Forgotten Language by Fromm is the best book for 'Baby's first psychoanalisis'
    >B-But Fromm is le reddit and le cringe!
    But that one book is substantially good. You don't have to agree with him. You just have to understand the though process.
    After that, you can go for Man and his Symbols or The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious
    He also bounces off greatly off Freud, which again, you don't have to agree with head to head, but you can see his efforts and take them for what they are. The Interpretations of Dreams is a great read for that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fromm
      >The belief that dreams contain significant communications in sign language is as old as recorded history He differs in part with Freud’s view that dreams are invariably expressions of the irrational (garbled wish-fulfillments of repressed impulses originating in infancy); and also with Jung’s view that dreams represent man’s highest intuitions, the wisdom of the unconscious. Fromm argues that dreams are expressive both of our irrational strivings and of our reason and morality; of both “the worst and the best in ourselves”; and he shows the application of his view to the interpretation of dreams.
      And what would Fromms view be on someone like Milarepa who claims to do whatever he wills in the way he does in the waking state in the dream state, ie. He is capable of maintaining complete lucidity and can simply play as he would with thoughts in the waking state, or even totally dissolve the world of the dream into the state of a "noumenal" consciousness of bliss, the "clear light of dream," where there is no subject or object, but a self-reflexive infinite awareness and universal power?

      It would say that in such a case that playing is not at all the mere expression of "irrational" "repressed" desires, and should be viewed as the outcome of a privation of "consciousness" or unconsciousness, on neither an individual nor "collective" level,

      What a a bunch of nonsense that these guys claim to be authorities and scholars

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Or even of our "reason" or "morality"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I actually own two Fromm books

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Where do i start with him?
    Memories, Dreams, Reflections

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If Freud has Lacan, why Jung never had an actual successor?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We both know that his most illustrious successor is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Carl Jung is rad. You should start with pic related.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    his black books are the sequel to Rimbaud's Une saison en enfer.

Comments are closed.