/lit/ - Literature

>>16798742
Not sure about the animus but i did give myself an enema

>>16798742

Sounds like Jordan Peterson

Ironic cause Peterson is obsessed

>>16799096
Peterson's interpretation of Jung is confused at best. Please stop watching youtube videos and read books instead.

>>16798742
>muh language

i love the self masturbation of the linguists

>>16798742
>average intelligence
Easy.

>>16798742
Not every man is fit to have a woman's animus projected on them. Jung seems to be describing the characteristics of men who tend to capture women through projection.
>He must also belong to the "misunderstood" class, or be in some way at odds with his environment, so that the idea of self-sacrifice can insinuate itself
Literally just the doomer meme tbqh
>"i can save him"
- some egirl with daddy issues

>>16798742
Guys.. I'm literally the animus hero.

>>16799544
That's not a good thing anon

>>16798742
sounds like he's explaining the sadboi phenomenon. also he's saying that women don't care if what you say is intelligent, so long as it sounds deep and brooding. lol women are retarded.

>>16799553
How can I be one but myself? I only feel at home in myself, I must be-- or become, in some worth; who I am.

As evidenced by my spectacular use of grammar, the fully originary movement of the creative mind in unwanted linguistics, I am the animus hero.

You see, my fantasy reigns me, and I shall must first know sin, and then I can redeem to new heights-- But what sin matters if it has not always so? So I carry it in life.

>>16799533
I actually think Jung might have been to some extent describing himself here, don't you think? I'm more interested in what he meant by "fine words". Who in today's world would exemplify a master of fine words?

Man, right before I'm about to make a animus/anima thread.
This thread is now /ag/ - Animes Genera. /lit/, have some interesting words about this cool concept.

>>16799593
>actually think Jung might have been to some extent describing himself here, don't you think?
No, the passage specifically succeeds talk of the anima and animus archetypes. To my knowledge you can't ever be the animus aside from in the eyes of a woman or through becoming the "animus of your own anima" under possession. He presumably refers to charm and wit when he talks about "fine words". He specifies that not every "man of real intellectual power" can be(come) an animus seeing as it's not about "fine ideas". "Fine words" are words "seemingly full of meaning", implying there's little substance to them in reality. This is classically associated with projections, seeing not reality for what it is but through the lens of the archetype, which in this case would be the animus.

>>16799593
>Who in today's world would exemplify a master of fine words?
https://youtu.be/jKJYgIqLzcc?t=287

>>16798742
what's an animus?

>every personification of the unconscious - the shadow, the anima, the animus, and the Self - has both a light and a dark aspect....the anima and animus have dual aspects: They can bring life-giving development and creativeness to the personality, or they can cause petrification and physical death
What did he mean by this?

>>16799751
for example, the anima can appear as your mother, scolding you for every real or imaginary fault, and it can also be your mother forgiving you for everything and showering you with love, or a date embracing you or an ex stabbing you...

>>16799641
This actually helps a lot. I was mistakenly thinking animus projection depends for the most part on the man himself, but you're right, in the preceding passages he said it's mostly projection. Not gonna lie, it tempts me to put aside my autistic pure logic books and pick up a book on rhetorics instead, but I must remain true to Plato (pbuh).

>>16799896
being projected on is not always good, you do you.

>>16799896
I agree in part with this >>16799943. Charm and wit are useful without the projection of the animus, though. Learning rhetoric is always useful as long as you have the basics of social dynamics down.

>>16799943
It's extremely powerful though. Jung described a patient who had projected the father-image on him. At one point he basically asked her not to visit him as he believed it was more damaging to her than helpful, but she insisted on coming again and again. It seems to me there is a correlation between positions of authority (being the doctor, in Jung's case), and animus projection.

>>16798742
>Not every man of real intellectual power can be an animus, for the animus must be a master not so much of fine ideas as of fine words—words seemingly full of meaning which purport to leave a great deal unsaid.

Not every smart man can fit into the mold the collective unconscious has for a hero archetype. Some "smart" men lack any street smarts or actual wisdom and all they due is lecture with no lasting charisma that churns the listeners mind with such oratory prowess that their mind drifts to truths held but not understood. Led only there by the sheer rhetoric and charisma of a natural born psychologist.

>He must also belong to the "misunderstood" class, or be in some way at odds with his environment, so that the idea of self-sacrifice can insinuate itself. He must be a rather questionable hero, a man with possibilities, which is not to say that an animus projection may not discover a real hero long before he has become perceptible to the sluggish wits of the man of "average intelligence.

>>16800509
(cont.)

"The creation of something new is not accomplished by the intellect but ... from inner necessity." CG Jung.

A real hero must be aware of an aim higher than his peers. Often an invisible aim. A moral or empirical standard about the world that his peers are too dumb too see and the hero knows it must be brought to societal realization. From pure necessity the psychology of self-sacrafice arises not from the lazy 4chan NEET who has a comfortable life and just wants a gf. But from a scenario where a man it at odds with his world but has the capacity to change and master his situation, a rare thing in-of-itself. He is saying he must be a man who emanates capability and manifold adaptive creativity, so that his future looks uncertain to normies, because everyone knows he is smart enought to do whatever he puts his mind too. And that fact frightens a bit. He goes on to say that many normies will never realize a full animus projection because it is rare for the man to be able to read Jung and understand it, or to be able to identify a real hero. He says that many people will never realize the collective unconscious traits of a hero because the societal sandpaper of idiot normies wears down on the brain of the simple minded.

>>16800524
>tfw even more certain that I am the Animus Hero, or more so, the true hero.

>>16800524
animus != hero archtype tho?
Anyhow the hero archtypes shows in our journey to signify our own journey. archtypes are collections of trait we identify as the type, they aren't really full people.

>>16800795
Animus isn't even one archetype. Jung describes how it's a collection, a council of men where one of them is a warrior, another is a priest, etc. It's rather bizarre to consider where there is only one anima-image.

>>16798742
contrived faggot who pretended to have visionary experiences but was only LARPING

>>16800886
Why do you think this is? Why would women have a multitude of animus figures while men only have one anima?

>>16800948
shoo you sluggishly witted man of average intelligence

>>16800970
This isn't just what I think. Jung says so:
>The same is true of the woman: she too has her inborn version of the man. Actually, we know from experience, that it would be more accurate to describe it as an image of *men*, whereas in the case of a man it is the image of *woman*.

>>16800549
No i'm the Animus Hero

>>16800970
>Why would women have a multitude of animus figures while men only have one anima?
I don't recall Jung saying this personally but for the sake of argument; Inferring hypergamy just because the animus archetype is experienced as multifarious boils the nature of the archetype to sexuality which Jung probably would've protested in any case. The anima / animus arcehtypes are dominated by sexual qualifiers only at certain stages of integration.

>>16798742
he is speaking to us my brother

>>16801051
Sorry for being presumptuous but I tend to have sense for where arguments are going. Shutting it out from the outset stops the discourse from getting what imo is too reductive.
Also seems like he did hold the animus archetype was practically a multiplicity >>16801022

>>16801022
Citation: CW vol. 17, "Marriage as a Psychological Relationship", page 198

>>16799102
No thanks, i'll prefer to watch videos which talk about books which talk about books.

>>16801092
No, sorry lol I'm letting my egalitarian bias get ahead of me. Jung did hold Eros to be the expression of a woman's essential nature and so you could argue for the contrary. Eros is still more than sexuality in the more complex cases but hypergamy could certainly be part of it.

>>16801092
As the anon who brought up the topic, I don't think animus being made of several figures means necessarily that polygamy is natural. Rather, I'd argue it reflects the fact that the roles men fulfilled throughout history have been much more diverse than that of women. I.e., there was a wide difference between men as leaders, warriors, or shamans while women mostly fulfilled domestic roles.
>inb4 some sjw feminist replies
I'm talking about millennia of dark ages. There was no gender equality in tribal life.

>>16801174
I would personally say that as well. The nature of men in culture is by necessity multifarious (profession, social standing, as well as familial role) but when discussing what Jung said, and on the exact topic of hypergamy, it makes little sense to argue for it, hence why I felt I had to correct myself here >>16801174

>>16801208
My understanding is that hypergamy states women strongly prefer men of equal or higher social standing. How does this relate to multiplicity of the animus?

>>16801244
I'm confusing the terms, sorry. I'm not very verbally inclined. I meant polygamy, and in a broader sense 'hypersexuality' in the first instance. If the social hierarchies present in a culture generate a multiplicity of animus-images, then it stands to reason that you might have attraction to several people high up in different hierarchies, effectively leading to a sort of polygamist hypergamy. Sorta analogical to how you can be into both big booba and smaller booba without there being any real conflict of taste, the appeal being qualitatively different (eg. hot vs cute). Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I was intending to refute an incel rhetoric of the kind "women are hypersexual" but the reasoning I envisioned doesn't hold up as I've hopefully illustrated here. Eros seems to form a multiple across the board.

>>16801308
Well, I would argue this multiplicity is due to that men tend to embody a diverse set of archetypes, so the animus of the feminine psyche had to adapt itself to this diversity. This does not mean women are or aren't hypersexual or hypergamous, which is an entirely different topic. The nature of women being the Eros would mean women tend to be more adept at handling their sexuality, which seems to be actually the case.

>>16801387
>I would argue this multiplicity is due to that men tend to embody a diverse set of archetypes, so the animus of the feminine psyche had to adapt itself to this diversity.
Yeah no I don't personally think you can infer polygamy etc., but it's the sort of objection I would met with by the hypothetical rhetoritician in my mind. I'm just elucidating what I thought might make me reconsider putting out my first argument. There's a lot going on under the surface, don't burden yourself with it too much lol.

>>16799102

My comment is referring to Peterson as the object of jung’s comment. You misinterpreted.

>>16798742
Why does this dude look like Harrison Ford?

Jung was a fanciful gnostic.

>>16802464
He was neoguénonian you absolute sperg

>>16802470

Perhaps he was, but that doesn’t change that his work is fanciful Gnosticism.

Literally my diary desu.

>>16798755
Why? Constipated or preparing to get fucked?

>>16798742
Replace animus w anime and you've got a paper

>>16799663
bump for this

>>16802732
thing that shows up in womens dream, takes the form of a man, and represents parts of the subconscious.

>>16802756
isn't that an incubus? also it seems like he talks about "being an animus", how can be what represents parts of the subconscious?