/lit/ - Literature

>>18711941
have you read enough freud

>>18711941
Aion is the Jung endgame. It's what he wrote for people who had read him and understood him.

>>18711951
I can't stand Freud.
>>18711959
So what should I read first ?

>>18711971
I've only read modern man in search of a soul all the way through. Volume 7 might be a good starting point. Maybe his biography or man and his symbols.

>>18712002
Ok, thanks. I was also thinking of that one or the red book.

>>18711941
archetypes of the collective unconscious
symbols of transformation
psychology and alchemy

What about this as a first?

>>18711941
Hero with a thousand faces -> Freud Reader -> Portable Jung

There's your pipeline

>>18711971
Definitely Man and His Symbols, he actually wrote/ compiled the book as an introduction to his terms and work. It’s the skeleton key. People who haven’t read it are Jung LARPers.

>>18712076
Man and His Symbols has an exceptional first section from Jung, the rest of it is okay but a bit basic, good introductory stuff. I got really bored with it but I was already fairly familiar with it going in. The Red Book's intro in the reader's edition is a really good introduction to how Jung developed his thought and how the Red Book was central to all of his writing. Basically he was coming up with his scientific theories during the day and then at night going into really out there consciousness exploration, and that got turned into the Red Book (which was the inspiration for his scientific work), but he was very reluctant to share it with anyone cause he didn't think he'd be taken seriously if he did. After finishing it (he worked on it for like 30 years) he got more into Alchemy and all of his later work is his attempt to unravel his very esoteric experience with it. You very likely might not understand much of what he's saying while reading the Red Book, but imo its useful to read and then use as a reference while reading the rest of his work.

>>18712682
I think the huge version of the Red Book has the same intro as the reader's edition but I don't want to go dig that thing up right now its massive. I bought both and would have the big book's pages open on display while reading from the reader's edition. The reader's edition is also really high quality for the price I highly recommend it, but it doesn't have any of the pictures of the pages, which adds a lot to it. Maybe download a PDF somewhere online and have it open while reading the reader's edition.

I'm going to read Aion, then the Red Book, and only then the rest of the collected works, and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

>>18712761
Based

>>18712705
Is there a gallery for the pictures in the full edition somewhere? Don't feel like leafing through a pdf to find pictures

>>18712182
I'd like to know this too

>>18712771
The Red Book is structured in a really unique way. Pretty much every page has an illustration of some kind. Even the calligraphy has artistic meaning. The pictures aren't really separate from the text, and every page is more or less like this.

>>18712792
You're making me want to buy the full edition but it's fucking expensive

>>18712771
>>18712792

>>18711941
You should read the intro on Kindle free sample before spending money like a dingus

>>18712802
I would definitely say its very worth buying, even if you aren't a fan of Jung's, but it is very expensive. And keep in mind its so big and heavy that its very hard to just straight up read on its own (especially because you'd need to flip between the translated transcription in the back and the actual pictures of the pages in the front), which is why I recommend getting the reader's edition even if you do get the full edition. It's also much cheaper so you can see how you feel about it first.

>>18712820
Yeah I'll buy the reader's edition and eventually might get the full edition, thanks anon

>>18712844
No problem, I hope you enjoy it. Remember to not try to analyze it too hard and just let the imagery sink in while reading and think about it later.

>>18712682
>>18712705
Bro what's the diff between Liber Novus and Philemon of Reader's Edition ?

>>18712994
There's the Red Book
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Book-Philemon-C-Jung/dp/0393065677/ref=pd_lpo_1?pd_rd_i=0393065677&psc=1
Which is 12 x 1.9 x 15.8 inches 9 lbs (fucking massive) but includes full size pictures of all of the pages, with all of the artistic detail in them. The first half is the pictures of the pages of the original manuscript, the second half is a transcription of the words with translations (the original manuscript is in german/ latin.) It's also $150.

Then there's the reader's edition of the Red Book
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Book-Readers-Philemon/dp/0393089088
Which is normal book size, high quality, 27$, but only has the transcription/ translation. I believe they both also have the same introduction which is about 100 pages and is a good read. With the reader's edition you're getting just the text without the art, but its much cheaper and also much easier to read because its not the size of a TV when open.

Liber Novus is what the books is called within the book itself, its just another name for the Red Book. I believe the Philemon refers to the publisher of the books, but Philemon is also a character in the Red Book.

>>18712994
>>18713055

There's also the Black Books, which are basically the rough notes that were compiled into the Red Book, but I wouldn't say those are that necessary unless you're doing a really deep dive into the work, which would be better to do after you're very familiar with the Red Book and his other work.

>>18712002
>modern man in search of a soul
im halfway through and i detest it.
It offers absolutely nothing.
All he has pointed out so far is that dreams are only a keyhole to the unconscious and psychology is solely empirical

>>18713055
>>18713069
Thanks. It's clear for me now.

>>18711941

>>18711941
I started reading Jung, and it feels like a guy telling about his life.
So i went back to the greeks, and it feels better.

>>18711941
You shouldn't read anything by Jung.

>>18711941
You should read everything by Jung.

>>18714137
>reading the works of a cripple

>>18712182
>>18712780
This is the best place to start with Jung. It gives you a round-up and explanation of the ideas you're most likely to misinterpret straight off the bat.

>>18711941
Read the collected works first then finish it with aion.

Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose, talks about the role that Jungian psychology has in the current era.

>>18715550
Fuck off

>>18716827
you first

>>18716849
>NOOOO EVERYTHING IS THE ANTICHRIST EXCEPT WHAT I SAY YOU HAVE TO BECOME ORTHODOX
Here saved you guys the trouble of reading that retard's book

>>18713155
Can I start with "Man and His Symbols" directly ?

>>18717749
Yeah, but I highly reccoment Two Essays. Under 270 pages

I made a thread about this some days ago but didn't get much out of it:
In Aion, Carl Jung describes the age of Pisces, the subsequent rise of Christianity (during two millennia) and its progressive fall (in the late 20th/early 21st century, with the rise of atheism, scientism and so on). He states that as we leave the age of Pisces, we are entering Aquarius, but he doesn't elaborate on what this means specifically in terms of the new spirituality it will yield. Do any books talk about this from an unbiased (non-Christian) standpoint (like the S. Rose book that was posted earlier ITT)?
The spirituality of Aquarius is not the same thing as the antichrist, as Jung himself says, since the age of Pisces is achieved.

>>18718148
>The spirituality of Aquarius is not the same thing as the antichrist, as Jung himself says
He literally says this, though:
"Astrologically interpreted, the designation of Christ as one of the fishes identifies him with the first fish, the vertical one. Christ is followed by the Antichrist, at the end of time. The beginning of the enantiodromia would fall, logically, midway between the two fishes. We have seen that this is so. The time of the Renaissance begins in the immediate vicinity of the second fish, /// and with it comes that spirit which culminates in the modern age. ///"
The modern age is the period of transition between Pisces and Aquarius, and it is characterized by the emergence of the anti-Christ spirituality.
>The spirituality of Aquarius is not the same thing as the antichrist
You need to understand that the spirituality of anti-Christ is different than the spirituality of "THE anti-Christ". The actual person known as "the anti-Christ" is the final manifestation of anti-Christ spirituality (whereby he is the last person who will place himself as above God - a current example of an anti-Christ is Kim Jong Un), while the spirituality of the age of Aquarius is characterized by the rejection or privation of the spirituality of the age of Pisces (Christianity), which is manifested as anti-Christ spirituality (rejection of Jesus as Messiah, etc.).

>>18718602
I don't follow. The two fish in Pisces represent Christ and Antichrist, respectively, according to Jung, yes? Then why does the influence of the Antichrist continue past Pisces and extends to Aquarius?
The cyclical nature of astrology would have you believe that there is no one sign that is inherently superior to the others, but that it is cyclic, with crests and troughs maybe. Why did Jung believe the spirituality of Pisces to be inherently superior to the spirituality of Aquarius?

>>18718059
May I ask why ?
Even something under 270 is going to take me like two weeks because I'm a on/off reader.

>>18718890
>The two fish in Pisces represent Christ and Antichrist, respectively, according to Jung, yes?
No, he is saying that Christ is identified as the first fish (which is why His appearance occurred in the beginning of the age of Pisces), but that the beginning of the astrological "fall" of Christianity appears in the middle of the age of Pisces, which would logically be its peak (as we observe). Because the anti-Christ spirituality is characterized by a lack of belief in the spirituality of Pisces (eg. Jesus as the Messiah and Lord), the Aquarian religion would therefore, by nature, be an anti-Christ spirituality - just as the Pisces spirituality (the "New Covenant") was defined by its differences from Aries (the "Old Covenant"). This is because the anti-Christ spirituality is characterized by a privation of Pisces spirituality.
>Why did Jung believe the spirituality of Pisces to be inherently superior to the spirituality of Aquarius?
Because of the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus, which Jung viewed in very complex terms (as the ultimate synchronicity, the meeting of spirit/meaning and matter), but which he clearly placed as a fundamental feature of reality. He kept a copy of the Shroud of Turin at his house, for example. He may not have been a Christian (as far as we know), but he definitely realized the importance of Jesus, which doubtlessly was accompanied by a mystical perspective on His claims.

>>18719156
Thanks for the clarification. So, in more practical terms, what tenets will this spirituality of Aquarius adopt, aside from the rejection of Jesus?
Is the rejection of Jesus what qualifies "an" Antichrist spirituality? i.e. are Islam or Buddhism Antichrist religions?
>a fundamental feature of reality
I'm not sure I clearly understand. Jung was a kind of Gnostic, right? It seems to me that he believed in Christ as an archetype for the Self, but he didn't seem to believe the events of the Gospels happened literally.

>>18719324
>So, in more practical terms, what tenets will this spirituality of Aquarius adopt, aside from the rejection of Jesus?
Besides the rejection of Jesus, the most striking feature of Aquarian spirituality will be the "placing of oneself above God", which is a sort of corruption of the concept of "theosis", or "divinization" - namely, that the individual is God, and that therefore the subjective morals and desires of any individual achieves an almost divine status.

>Is the rejection of Jesus what qualifies "an" Antichrist spirituality?
Basically, although it is the qualified rejection of Jesus - either as the Messiah (eg. Judaism), the Son of God (eg. Islam), or as a real human person (eg. some forms of Gnosticism, contemporary theories like John Allegro or other rejections of the existence of a historical Jesus). This is established mostly in the Johannine epistles, which are a short read, if you are interested.

>Buddhism
Yes, Buddhism is an anti-Christ religion because it denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22-23). This does not mean all of its practitioners are evil, and I would dare to say many will reach heaven due to invincible ignorance - but the typical Western Buddhist will be vincibly ignorant, and thus liable to be judged for their choice of willful ignorance.

>It seems to me that he believed in Christ as an archetype for the Self, but he didn't seem to believe the events of the Gospels happened literally.
Even Gnostics have an incredibly high view of Christ. It seems that Jung subscribed to some orthodox interpretations when he said that:
"Man's greatest triumph was that God himself incarnated in man in order the illumine the world; that was a tremendous increase of consciousness" (Zarathustra Seminar, p. 967)

>>18719580
I don't see how you can reject the existence of a historical Jesus, the evidence is there.
Isn't divinization the process of literally becoming a God in Christian theology, though?
I am perplexed about the idea of salvation in Christianity, I suppose according to it I will not be saved, but I cannot bring myself to believe nonetheless. Regardless, I understand things better now, thank you for explaining.

What do you believe could come after Aquarian spirituality?

>>18719741
>I don't see how you can reject the existence of a historical Jesus, the evidence is there.
You should give a quick glance at Allegro's hypothesis, just to see how far out the theories of some anti-Christs are. It can be quite shocking to step into the mind of somebody doing so much mental gymnastics.
>Isn't divinization the process of literally becoming a God in Christian theology, though?
It is a complex mystery, but it is more like perfecting human nature, and more fully taking part in the Godhead through this process. Humans, being made in the image of God, becomes more "divinized" as they conform themselves to be more Christ-like. It has been described as "personal communion with God, which deifies the human in the process, conforming him/her into being Christ-like", but importantly, "though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before" - that is, though we can join the union of the Godhead mystically, we never stop being creations which are lesser than God.
>I am perplexed about the idea of salvation in Christianity
Understandable, as there are many different concepts, especially as you move away from ancient apostolic Christianity (which basically share the same beliefs), into Protestantism (which has widely divergent beliefs).
>I suppose according to it I will not be saved, but I cannot bring myself to believe nonetheless
What exactly can you not believe? The existence of God, or the resurrection of Jesus? I find that the slow and rational approach helped me to get to the point where the leap of faith was across a relatively small chasm, having realized belief was the most rational option. I also suggest that if you really want to know the truth, you sincerely ask God to reveal to you the truth, and that you will believe if He does. I find it probable that, having done so, you will encounter a sign which undeniably confirms your question. If you do not want to know the truth, you will not sincerely ask, though.
>What do you believe could come after Aquarian spirituality?
To be honest, I find it unlikely that the second coming of Christ will take another ~2000 or so years, based on the acceleration of signs - but if it does, the Age of Capricorn is uncharted territory. It is simply out of my wheelhouse.

>>18719741
>I don't see how you can reject the existence of a historical Jesus, the evidence is there.
You should give a quick glance at Allegro's hypothesis, just to see how far out the theories of some anti-Christs are. It can be quite shocking to step into the mind of somebody doing so much mental gymnastics.
>Isn't divinization the process of literally becoming a God in Christian theology, though?
It is a complex mystery, but it is more like perfecting human nature, and more fully taking part in the Godhead through this process. Humans, being made in the image of God, becomes more "divinized" as they conform themselves to be more Christ-like. It has been described as "personal communion with God, which deifies the human in the process, conforming him/her into being Christ-like", but importantly, "though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before" - that is, though we can join the union of the Godhead mystically, we never stop being creations which are lesser than God.
>I am perplexed about the idea of salvation in Christianity
Understandable, as there are many different concepts, especially as you move away from ancient apostolic Christianity (which basically share the same beliefs), into Protestantism (which has widely divergent beliefs).
>I suppose according to it I will not be saved, but I cannot bring myself to believe nonetheless
What exactly can you not believe? The existence of God, or the resurrection of Jesus? I find that the slow and rational approach helped me to get to the point where the leap of faith was across a relatively small chasm, having realized belief was the most rational option. I also suggest that if you really want to know the truth, you sincerely ask God to reveal to you the truth, and that you will believe if He does. I find it probable that, having done so, you will encounter a sign which undeniably confirms your question. If you do not want to know the truth, you will not sincerely ask, though.
>What do you believe could come after Aquarian spirituality?
To be honest, I find it unlikely that the second coming of Christ will take another ~2000 or so years, based on the acceleration of control systems being rolled out, which seem to be precursors to the spiritual patterns spoken of in the Book of Revelation - but if it does, the Age of Capricorn is uncharted territory. It is simply out of my wheelhouse.

>>18720064
>Allegro's hypothesis
Ah yes I've heard of this one. Ties in to the whole neo-psychedelic movement thing which I find sinister for many reasons.
Divinization will happen for those who are in heaven, right? Is there information on how this occurs on a temporal level? Since eternity is eternal, I guess that means man never stops to strive towards being Christ-like, but does that mean there is no end goal to any of this?

>What exactly can you not believe
That Jesus was the son of God, and that somehow the tribes of Israel had a role to play in God's plan. Why wouldn't God reveal everything to everyone? His actions in the Old testament are also hard to make sense of, Gnostic arguments are interesting but their explanations for Jesus are even more confusing.
I have asked for a sign in prayer a few times before but it has never led me to anything. Honestly I seem impervious to spiritual experiences in general.

>the Age of Capricorn is uncharted territory. It is simply out of my wheelhouse.
That's interesting though. Since there are zodiacal cycles that means there'll be ages for every sign, and then it'll loop back around again right?
So, in hundreds of thousands of years there'll be an age of Libra, age of Scorpio and so on, with characteristics we can't even imagine right now.
What about the second age of Pisces, that should carry heavy implications. It's all aimless conjecture though, I guess we can't ever know.
...Or does all that stuff not matter because the second coming will put an end to time as we know it?

>>18720189
Earth is only 7800 years old tranny

>>18720189
>neo-psychedelic movement thing which I find sinister for many reasons.
Agreed.
>Divinization will happen for those who are in heaven, right?
It begins to happen here on Earth, but the fullness of divinization, from my understanding, is the permanent beholding of the beatific vision in heaven, after salvation.
>Is there information on how this occurs on a temporal level?
I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for - it is a process intimately connected to the individual's choice to "deny themselves and take up their cross and follow [Jesus]", and is directly correlated to their sanctification.
>does that mean there is no end goal to any of this?
The end goal is heaven, where, as far as I know, every soul present has been perfected (divinized).

>and that somehow the tribes of Israel had a role to play in God's plan
It was basically a sign of contradiction - God chose them because He would make of them a people who went against paganism and dualism, to establish the ground work for Christianity, which would lead to the ultimate salvation of all humanity. Also, their being chosen was simultaneously a punishment for the child-sacrificing pagan Canaanites - God even says through Moses that "not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". Ultimately, it was out of love for humanity, whereby through this action, Jesus Christ could become incarnate in accordance with the divine plan.

>Why wouldn't God reveal everything to everyone?
He did, through Jesus.

>His actions in the Old testament are also hard to make sense of
I can help explain, if you have specific examples.
>their explanations for Jesus are even more confusing.
They directly contradict the apostolic faith, they are basically as wrong as you can be. The Johannine epistles are extremely anti-Gnostic.

>I have asked for a sign in prayer a few times before but it has never led me to anything.
Keep asking, and begging. I promise you, it will happen, if you humbly ask for His help, beg Him to lead you, and are truly sorry for your past sins.
"A humble and contrite heart, He will not spurn".

>...Or does all that stuff not matter because the second coming will put an end to time as we know it?
The events of the second coming seem to be prophesied to take place on Earth, so the Zodiacal cycles might matter, but in some way that we do not know as of right now - another mystery. We do know that there will be no more death and suffering. Consider reading Revelation 22 & 23.

>>18712094
Haven't seen such a blessed pepe in a long time.

>>18720557
>directly correlated to their sanctification.
What I'm asking is about the passage of time in heaven, or more generally, what even happens in heaven. Maybe this is a naive question but I can't imagine that spending the rest of eternity just existing and contemplating God to be more blissful than actual action.

>who went against paganism and dualism
I thought Christianity was deeply dualistic. If anything, it's definitely not monistic/nondualist from what I've read.
And yes God revealed everything eventually but Jesus' message was originally intended to the Jews, and when he saw they didn't want to listen, he took back their superiority over other people and tribes, right? I'm referring to that parable with the Samaritan woman, I think it was in Luke.

>specific examples
Well, I've read about common answers to Job for example but they didn't feel right. The flood too. The problem of evil still filters me, you probably shouldn't waste your time trying to give me an answer to it though because I've read dozens of threads about it and am still none the wiser. I should let it rest for a while.
As for prayer, I will keep trying and try not to give up, thanks for the encouragement.

>>18720606
>more generally, what even happens in heaven. Maybe this is a naive question but I can't imagine that spending the rest of eternity just existing and contemplating God to be more blissful than actual action.
I can only suggest to read the book of Revelation. It elaborates in great detail what will be going on in heaven, and on Earth - there will be a liturgy in heaven, for example. In the Gospels, we can gleam insights as well; such as there being "many mansions" (John 14:2), and "treasures in heaven" (Matthew 16:20) indicating that there is a type of temporal existence which extends beyond the typical Eastern vision of a boundless oneness-type feeling, and is somewhat similar to our existence here, but perfected.

>I thought Christianity was deeply dualistic.
I should have specified - I meant cosmological dualism, which is rejected by ancient apostolic Christianity (eg. Catholicism and EO), but was a feature of some gnostic sects.

>Jesus' message was originally intended to the Jews, and when he saw they didn't want to listen, he took back their superiority over other people and tribes, right?
Jesus knew all of this beforehand (being God), but had to testify to the Jews knowing the vast majority would reject Him and conspire to have Him tortured and killed, because it was prophesied that the Messiah would begin preaching His message to the Jews. The apostles are the ones who brought the message of Christ to the world: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

>The problem of evil still filters me, you probably shouldn't waste your time trying to give me an answer to it though because I've read dozens of threads about it and am still none the wiser.
Makes sense. I will only briefly say that, as I'm sure you have heard, evil has no existence in and of itself (but is only a privation of Good), and that just punishment for an action contrary to divine law is not evil, but right and just (especially when God is the judge). Job 38 in and of itself is a profound text to meditate on.

>>18716870

Jung literally said that the Age of Aquarius was the age of anti-Christ, like Anon here said >>18718602

>>18718976
Don't rush it, it's not a race. But consider this >>18712182