/lit/ - Literature

Did Jung read Guenon?

He found God and lived to tell the tale

I heard that seemingly the anima can evolve and change over time but I haven't been able to find a direct Jung reference

>>23430146
>Nietzsche’s amor fati is somewhat overdone, and like an ailing Superman he tries to be always one jump ahead of fate. Siegfried is more cautious: he conquers father Wotan and sets out to win Brünhilde.

Was he right?

>"The psyche of a child is molded by unlived life of the parent. For a son, it is the all the adventures his father could have gone on but didn't. For a daughter, it is all the men her mother could have lain with but couldn't."

He keeps saying that the feminine is more powerful than the masculine. But what, operationally, is feminine power? What examples? Obviously the seductress and using feminine charm is the shadow side of the feminine but I cant find any 'positive' feminine.

Where does Jung talk about heroic individuation and facing the Dragon?

"A man who has not passed through the inferno of his passions has never overcome them."

Virgins btfo'd.

He figured it out didn't he

>Integrate the shadow
Ok let's say I'm aware of my shadow. I'm aware of my "dark" side and what I'm capable of doing. Now what do I do with this information?

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

It follows from its own premises that the whole imaginary
“individuation process” cannot have anything but a
psychological significance. What else could one expect to
get from a method that consists of nothing but observing
dreams and fantasies, or provoking them deliberately
through states of reduced consciousness, then blathering
about them, not so much because one lacks principles as
because one has the wrong ones? The psychoanalytic way
and the initiatic way of exploring the deep layers of the I are
as far apart as heaven from earth. We will repeat that the
latter has nothing to do with a psychotherapeutic process,
because it starts out with a sane and normal person, in good
order as to the forces on which the sense of his I rests, in
the human state of existence. Second, the true goal of the
initiatic path is the realization as supraconscious of what is
called the cosmic-metaphysical subconscious. To achieve it,
we have said that rather than opening oneself to the
atavastic, collective unconscious, one must free oneself
from it and neutralize it, because it is the very “guardian of
the threshold,” the force that blocks the vision, prevents
awakening and the participation in that higher world, to
which the true notion of archetype refers. Meanwhile
dreams, fantasies, delirious images, subjective or collective
imaginations should be taken for what they are: a sphere
lacking any higher significance and hence no secret to
anybody.

It follows from its own premises that the whole imaginary
“individuation process” cannot have anything but a
psychological significance. What else could one expect to
get from a method that consists of nothing but observing
dreams and fantasies, or provoking them deliberately
through states of reduced consciousness, then blathering
about them, not so much because one lacks principles as
because one has the wrong ones? The psychoanalytic way
and the initiatic way of exploring the deep layers of the I are
as far apart as heaven from earth. We will repeat that the latter
has nothing to do with a psychotherapeutic process,
because it starts out with a sane and normal person, in good
order as to the forces on which the sense of his I rests, in
the human state of existence. Second, the true goal of the
initiatic path is the realization as supraconscious of what is
called the cosmic-metaphysical subconscious. To achieve it,
we have said that rather than opening oneself to the
atavastic, collective unconscious, one must free oneself
from it and neutralize it, because it is the very “guardian of
the threshold,” the force that blocks the vision, prevents
awakening and the participation in that higher world, to
which the true notion of archetype refers. Meanwhile
dreams, fantasies, delirious images, subjective or collective
imaginations should be taken for what they are: a sphere
lacking any higher significance and hence no secret to
anybody.

Once all this is recognized, the scope of Jung’s theories is
sufficiently clear and the conclusion obvious. Anyone today
who thinks that such psychoanalysis can provide any
“scientific” interpretation of initiatic concepts or any
spiritual processes whatever needs to be convinced that he
has not even begun to understand these and is totally “off
track.”

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.” 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.

On Heidegger:
>They discard unconscious subjective prejudices, whereas Heidegger bristles with them, trying in vain to hide behind a blown-up language
>Heidegger's modus philosophandi is neurotic through and through and is ultimately rooted in his psychic crankiness
>at Brinkmann's lecture in the SGPP the contrast between his normal language and the twaddle he read out from Heidegger was positively comic
>The substance of what he read out was unutterably trash and banal, and Brinkmann could just as well have done it to make Heidegger ridiculous
On Hegel and Nietzsche:
>Hegel is fit to bust with presumption and vanity, Nietzsche drips with outrated sexuality, and so on
Was he right brahs? How will philosissies cope?

>dude philosophy is just cope for neuroticism
>does the exact same shit except its le good because he doesnt call it philosophy
psychology was a mistake

Is Jung worth reading, or is it just schizo-babble?

>SO LIEK THIS LITERALL RETARD WAS TELLING ME ABOUT THE SUN SWINGING HIS PENIS TO CONTROL THE WIND
>AND I WAS ALL "THAT IS SO DEEP AND ARCHETYPAL BROOO"

Did people actually fell for this?

His entire work relies on the fact that some schizo was rambling about the sun wrangling his penis to control the weather

how would he fix the incel crisis? what would he think about modern therapists?

my gut tells me this Fucker is based...where should I start?

I'm posting this to /lit/ because its philosophical in nature.
I've noticed a troubling tendency within modern psychological analysis of personality disorders, particularly the ones that cause more outward harm to others, like cluster B's, and the dark triad. It is pretty well-substantiated that the vast majority of people with these problems, developed them from something traumatic that made them feel isolated, afraid, powerless, and ashamed. The combination of those feelings is why they act out in ways that are overly sensitive, or sadistic, or malicious, or reckless. Largely, it stems from a deficiency in power, a wound that relates to one feeling incapable and inadequate, and most of the dark behavior is either protective/defensive, or compensatory (generally, in a vain fashion).
Having said all of this; modern pop psychological content, ranging from articles, to small youtube channels, to large mainstream figures such as JBP, are endorsing a view of essentialism on these disorders. That the people who have a cluster B disorder or a dark tetrad complex, are innately evil. Rarely is this explicitly stated, but, it is hinted at often.

I don't think any dark personality traits are innate or essential, but maladaptive...does anyone have any thoughts on this? To me, its incredibly irresponsible, and opens up so much room for dehumanization, abuse by those in power, and ineffectiveness of rehabilitation, to write off suffering people as evil just because they make others suffer too.

Sorry, wrong pic

>>22290167
Religion exists because that's how humans parse reality. Imagine being moved and having your consciousness expanded by a book or movie and dismissing the entire thing out of hand because "we'll they're just actors and effects nothing in the movie is REAL and there are plot holes too!" Mythology is interesting because it tells us about ourselves and the world around us. Religion is practicing reverence for ourselves and the world around us. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never engaged with the material and their entire perception of religion probably begins and ends with something like evangelical Christianity or not wanting to go to Sunday school in the morning.

fuckin schizo