/lit/ - Literature

>>18255796
>Man and his Symbols
I just wanted anons to read proper Jung.

>>18255808
What are your recommendations, sad pepe?

>>18255817
>inb4 anon tells you to read all of Jung's Collected Works
The juicy stuff is in Volume 9, both parts.

>>18255796

Yeah pretty interesting. What did you like about it, anon?

>>18255808
>>18255852
I've got Modern Man In Search of a Soul and The Red Book. Did I hit or miss?

>>18255817
Modern Man in Search of a Soul and Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious are a good intro.

>>18255865
>anima/ animus theory
>archetypes
>how the subconscious try to maintain a balance on psyche through dreams
>dream symbolism

Its such a marvelous work

Most of it just reads like made up bullshit and second hand myth building/psychology, and he writes so obviously for a general audience with zero knowledge of the general theme that is just a boring read overall.

Read The Golden Bough if you want something like it but actually interesting.

>>18255937

>obviously for a general audience with zero knowledge of the general theme

Explicitly the point of the book.

>>18255796
When will /lit/ give Jung the respect he deserves?

>>18255944
I know that, but the way he writes and reaches conclusions is completely unscientific while pretending to be so. Its a really shitty book and completely misrepresents Jung in general, and anyone who is "mindblown" by it is either a general non-reader or a retard.

>And so I told my patient that the tree in her dream obviously represnted her parents and her wish to grow oranges in her backyard
>She went home totally cured after that, for real bro

>>18255982

>People are instinctively anxious about caves because thousands of years ago Grug was afraid of creepy crawlies inside

Is there .. something you don't like about signifier theory?

>>18256007
>People are instinctively anxious about caves because thousands of years ago Grug was afraid of creepy crawlies inside
Not him but that doesnt necessarily follow. The instinct to be anxious about caves doesnt need to come from a conscious fear from Grug who was afraid of creepy crawlies, it can be just nature selecting for traits at a way more basic level, the babies that didnt naturally avoid caves dying to them and leaving alive the ones that did at a higher rate by just mere chance.

Grug's fear is a posteriori in that case.

>>18256046

>Grug's fear is a posteriori in that case.

Sure. But why are little children a priori afraid of the basement? It's a stand in for the symbol of Grug's cave.

Getting filtered by Jung is just getting filtered by Plato thousands of years on.

>>18256143
Is this good or bad?

>>18256152
It's not good.

>>18255877
>Modern man in search of a soul
Exhilarating read, from start to finish

>>18255796
Memories, Dreams, Reflections is a great book. Understanding Jungs biography and how he came to his own perspective really helped me understand his theories of the psyche. Would highly recommend that book.

good for you buddy
jung and freud are just interesting

>>18255937
picked up, thank you very much

>>18255865
>psychology but with an air of occultism
Whoa, is that what Jung was all about?
Is he another Evola? Who do I read/believe?

I like the idea of the occult but I like the idea of the occult merging with science and scientific methods better

>>18256335
>occult merging with science and scientific methods better

Who did this?

>>18256335

>>18256335
>occult merging with science

Not exactly, though Jung isn't without his mystical scruples. More like an in depth psychological analysis of what popular and reoccurring esoteric symbols and traditions means.

>>18255796
did you like the bbc story?

>>18256412
1,500 rockets wasn't enough

>>18256412
bbc story?

>>18256431
about the big virile black king in

>>18256443

>>18255865
>Fromm

fuck off

>>18256498
Why?

>>18256498
Fromm where?

>>18256498
>>18256501
Yes, why?

>>18256542
Because Fromm hated Jung so why would you start from there?

>>18256558
Was he a disciple of Freud?

>>18255796
okay literal teenage girl.

>>18256571
Have you tried consulting Google?

>>18255979
Respect for what? For being yet another subversive Germanoid dabbling into worthless esoteric garbage?

>>18256583
No I haven't. Why do you ask?

>>18256335
"Psychology is the only science that has to take the factor of value (i.e. feeling) into account, because it is the link between physical events and life. Psychology is often accused of not being scientific on this account; but its critics fail to understand the scientific and practical necessity of giving due consideration to feeling."

"...the Buddhists would say: Things would go right if people would only follow 'the noble eightfold path' of the Dharma (doctrine, law) and had true insight into the Self. The Christian tells us that if only people had faith in God, we should have a better world. The rationalist insists that if people were intelligent and reasonable, all our problems would be manageable. The trouble is that none of them manages to solve these problems himself. . .The Buddhist discards the world of unconscious fantasies as useless illusions; the Christian puts his Church and his Bible between himself and his unconscious; and the rational intellectual does not yet know that his consciousness is not his entire psyche. This ignorance persists today in spite of the fact that for more than 70 years the unconscious has been a basic scientific concept that is indispensable to any serious psychological investigation. . . we still complacently assume that consciousness is sense and the unconsciousness nonsense."

"Whatever the unconscious may be, it is a natural phenomenon producing symbols that prove to be meaningful."

>>18256558
But Fromm did not hate Jung.

>>18256631
>The Buddhist discards the world of unconscious fantasies as useless illusions
this is correct and irrefutable.

>>18255865
Are any of these books even good?

>>18256729

You can probably skip Psychology & Alchemy but yes they're all pretty good

>>18256644
"...the really complex and unfamiliar part of the mind, from which symbols are produced, is still virtually unexplored. It seems almost incredible that though we receive signals from it every night, deciphering these communications seems too tedious for any but a few to bother with. Man's greatest instrument, his psyche, is little thought of, and is often directly mistrusted and despised. 'It's only psychological' too often means: It is nothing. . . Where exactly does this immense prejudice come from? We have obviously been so busy with the question of what we think that we forget to ask what the unconsciousness thinks about us."

Translation: Consider the fact you dream as a refutation of midwit holistic nihilism and your unsubstantiated pseud prejudice against meaning.

>>18255870
Miss on Modern Man In Search of Soul IMO, but it’s decent. It’s just man and his symbols IS the better intro to Jung. After that, jump around the collected works with what you can understand.

>>18256635
>But
Faggot

>>18256804
I'd agree with this anon. Modern Man is the hard intro into Jung (suitable for someone familiar with history of psych or who has taken psych (or philosophy) as an undergrad; Symbols is a general reader's intro. As such, Modern Man can cause unwarranted filtering/burnout whereas if you're filtered by Symbols you shouldn't bother.

>>18256580
>Being enthused by a book you read is for children and sharing your interest publically is unmanly.
Ok, literal teenage boy.

>>18256979
>>Being enthused by a book you read is for children and sharing your interest publically is unmanly.
Listen, you're a fucking idiot teenage girl. Do I make myself clear Jungfag?

lol reason more books

>>18256093
Because it's dark and unknown. That's all.

>>18256335
the occult and science don't mix

>>18256631
Idea of the unconscious is stupid and anyone who follows it is also stupid.

>>18257083
>Do I make myself clear Jungfag?
Yeah: you act out online. You imagine reactions from faceless strangers online (e.g. I'm not even OP); that delusion gives you get a sense of superiority. Most likely, that's the closest you get to interpersonal accomplishment: imagining that you've elicited control over something.

The above behavior is superior, in your mind, to sharing enthusiasm toward a common interest.

Pretty clear (and I pity you). Have a better life (and don't kill yourself).

>>18257230
Never considered that the idea of the unconscious is unwarranted - anything to read more about this?

>>18257230
k.

>>18255796
How is it anon?
I've only read The Undiscovered Self and Memories, Dreams, Reflections, then later today CG Jung Speaking is expected to come in the mail. Which Jung book would you all recommend I read next?

jung is astrology for midwits

>>18256276
just finished that book a few days ago, it was great, but i got very confused everytime he talked about alchemy and wierd shit like the conjunctio mystifis or whatever, what should I read to alleviate this issue? Thanks

I dreamed I was in the courtyard of Solomon's temple and I saw 2 giant stelae (standing stones) with symbols carved on them. I'm not going to say what the symbols were. I think they were meant specifically for my eyes.

>>18257221
Tell Newton.

>>18258587
kek

>>18255808
Brother, Jung and his colleagues literally wrote Man and His Symbols as an introduction to his work.

The other intro recommendations people make, either The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious or Aion, are filled with dense paragraphs of idiosyncratic technical terms and like 50 pages of musings about sacred geometry. And all that is important to understand if you wanna get where he's coming from, it's also an awful struggle.

Jung was a great thinker, not a great communicator.

Is Man and his Symbols a good place to start with Jung's thought? I know little about psychology and even less about pyschoanalysis, and what little I have read has denounced it as an antiquated psuedo-science.

Should I follow >>18255865 and read the Forgotten Language first?

>>18260760
No

>>18258557
Based wizard

>>18260760
Use this chart instead
>>18256349

>>18255937
>Most of it just reads like made up bullshit
Yes. That’s psychology.

>>18261301
Thanks, Anon.

Does anyone have the hardcover version of this? The mmpb version is apparently black and white and in tiny print. Is the Turtleback hardcover version the same?

>>18257263
read less, think more. One day you'll grow out of your NPC state of mind

>>18257230
>>18261823
imagine being this much of an npc. it's astonishing. what do you like to read?

>>18261853

they'll just tell you condescendingly and vaguely to think about what to read

>>18255796
Nah he was just your boilerplate 20th century reactionary

>>18255796
Dear Jungians,

I am interested in psychology, but I am not sure what Jung is like. I don't want to delve heavily towards spiritualism.
One thing I need to know - is Jung legit?

I've read about him on wiki, about his visions, spiritual experiences, but I myself never had such occurrences. So it is hard for me to base something, on ideas, that I can't verify.

I tried to write my own analysis of social interactions and how my mind reacts to certain things, but I have a feeling that my analysis is similar, in style to Sigmund Freud, which now doesn't have a good reputation. I know their views separated, even though Freud expected Jung to follow his legacy.

I.e. when I describe insights of how my brain perceives and weights social interaction I write about:
social domination,
ego-centrism and its importance,
the leadership and authority examples learned from parents during childhood, benefiting towards understanding of respect of social status
subconscious compassion towards global socio progress


Does Jung analyze them in similar manner?
Or does he dream on ketamine, hallucinates, sees devils and writes a book about it?
I want something my smooth brain can verify. Tell me what kind of analysis does he do?

>>18261980
Freud was a coke addicted jew who probly had sexual feelings for his mom and his entire philosophy, from my point of understanding is an attempt to reconcile antisemitism with irrationality.

>>18262082
this.

The interpretation of dreams is the dumbest book I've ever read and Freuds megalomania is very obvious.

There is one part where he argues that all dreams are wish fulfilments but whenever a patient or student of his brings up dreams they had that clearly weren't he makes the argument that their wish simply was to disprove this theory...

>>18261980
Jung himself explains how his analytical approach differs from that of Freud and Adler in 2 Essays in Analytical Psychology.

>>18262543

Thank you! Will look them up.
What is your overall view of him?

>>18261596
The turtleback will be the exact same as the softcover version. You're better off getting the reissue of the first edition from Anchor Books (I picked one up in a bookstore for $15...it was Like New).

It's an oversized hardcover and the pictures are full colour; the pages aren't normal paper (they're glossy and thick). The formatting is such that text is written in double columns (which goes well with the pictures). Quite a few of them are also full-page (they did a really nice job with the overall formatting).

>>18263602
I spent money on a new 196x hardcover before I saw this post, kek oh well. Thanks anyways m8.

Crowley abandoned symbolism eventually

It is a relationship
A language
A projection
Is there a pattern in the stars?
What is the symbol of a house cat to me? Now what is it to a mouse?
My dog is terrified of vehicles. Doesn't mean much to me.
Now think about different cultures, sexes/genders/w.e, age. Etc.
It's projection. Psychologists always try but they will never be able to eliminate their bias.

>>18264546
>It's projection. Psychologists always try but they will never be able to eliminate their bias.
Jung committed a great deal of space to a discussion of just this...he even included a few case studies to demonstrate the proper relationship between analyst and patient while stressing that symbolic meaning depends upon, first and foremost, the lived experience and understaning of the individual who expresses them. (He even stated multiple times that there is no 1:1 translation and no generalized rubric with which to match and interpret symbolism disclosed by an individual.

Yes, there's a lot of room for charlatanism. Forming a client/patient relationship and imbuing a client's personal experiences with your own narrative are not the same thing.

>>18261980
>I myself never had such occurrences.

This was also true of Freud and why he could not take the esoteric seriously.

I like Jung and I have had premonitory dreams.

Your experience dictates your interests and beliefs.

>>18256335
>Is he another Evola?
No.
But he does cite Evola's book on Hermeticism as the best work on alchemy up to that date.

>>18257230
i think /toy/ or /sp/ may be more your speed

>>18261853
Rejection of the notion of the unconscious is not necessarily a rejection of consciousness. Anon may see it as a profane interpretation of the immaterial. And I'd have to agree considering psychoanalysis is a joke that reduces higher principles to materially controlled conditions of the psyche.