/lit/ - Literature

>>20567582
Can you explain the aenima and shadow?
What does picrel mean

>>20567595
Your shadow are the things behind you hiding in your shadow you don't want to look at. Can't run from it, can't fight it, because you are your shadow, and you are the casting light what creates the shadow too. Could be your irrational instincts, fears, hidden desires all hiding in your shadow out of sight so you don't have to reconcile with them while they exert their silent influences.

Pic is a mandala. An inner roadmap of a someone's being.

>>20567582
Forking paths
I.P. Culianu
Robert Anton Wilson
René Girard

bump

bump

>>20567582
>Where should I go from here?
A psych ward

>>20567582
John David Ebert’s tiny worlds giant humans

>>20567582
It'll be a bit jarring to go into more formalism, but I would recommend Semiotics: The Basics.

It's a good intro to a very interesting field, and covers Piercean tripartite semiotics. Semiotics is the study of meaning. How do these myths convey a message? What is a message?

Pic related. This of course doesn't just apply to human interpretation. Transcription RNA is the interpretat of DNA, the object referenced is a protein a cell can construct, and the symbol is the code in the DNA.

From there, you might want to consider either going for some of the more interesting philosophers on the subject, or going for a more scientific approach.

The Great Courses series on the Science of Information starts slow, but is really great. Information Theory complements semiotics very well. But you do have to slog through the basics of Shannon Entropy and error correcting code to get to how information works in physics, biology, economics, etc.

The other really great course they have is the one on Mind Body Philosophy, which is of course related to the whole idea of messages.

On the other hand, for the progression of history and the role of collective myths in that progression, Hegel is great but very difficult. Grey's Kantian Reason/Hegelian Spirit is a very good introduction to both. You don't even need to read the entire thing, the intro alone is worth it.

Because once you get to the idea of messages, how they propagate via semiosis, etc. the next question is: how do we know anything outside of symbols? Don't symbols just apply to other symbols? Aren't neuronal activation patterns just a code? Can we know things themselves at all, or just our mental representations of them?

And here Kant and Hegel are super instructive.

>>20567582
Personally I really dislike the idea of archetypes. I think every culture should be examined on an independent basis without reference to anything else. Archetypes don't agree with the originality and individuality of a people.

>>20567582
>Where should I go from here?
Sources. Alchemical treatises and sacred texts, fables and myths. And, uh, Fromm maybe?

>>20570380
Tranny.

>>20567582
Unironically Finnegans Wake. Did you read Joseph Campbell's writings on Joyce?

>>20570452
What about that posts suggests that it's author would be a transexual?

Or do you suffer from a sort of text-based Tourettes Syndrome?

>>20570380
I'm doing semiotics right now. Its very difficult.

>>20570709
The latter I’m sure

>>20567639
Nice effort post.