/lit/ - Literature

>>21570477
built for bbc

I don't know what others think of him. I consider him, to a degree, a genius. His Psychological Types and its derivations are evidence of immense insight into the human mind. On the other hand, his views on God are juvenile, laughable, and blasphemous to the point of casting his works into the trash bin - literally. He dabbled in things he would have been better off without. They undoubtedly shaped him, twisted more like, yet even so he is a similar man to me in some aspects of his perception, and impresses with with his foresight and insight. His endeavors at the links between consciousness and quantum physics at a time where he was well into his 80s or early 90s, and well before this train of thought was common, are endearing. This salient life of the mind is something we, who have the capacity for it, ought to achieve. I do not know what I think of him, I suppose, though I often think of his ideas. Would our acquaintance have brought closeness and friendship, or contention and animosity? I would include him in my broader roundtable of the mind, but always with the lesser influence of a heathen's voice.

>>21570521
>self-shackled orthodox fears the unbound mystic
Ironically archetypal

>>21570604
Assuming and projecting. It's archetypal because you're thinking archetypally, thus bound by an idea of me without ever seeing the real me. Congratulations, you've deluded yourself.

>>21570477
no idea. i'm only getting to him after Neech and Freud

>>21570477
A man who has value as a thinker if you don't treat him like a guru like most people who talk about him here because they're in desperate needs of a father figure in their lives. You can safely ignore his schizo cult bullshit from the latter half of his career, it's satanic nonsense.

>>21570604
The fact you write this bullshit with such brimming pride gives me second hand embarrassment. It gives me the distinct impression of someone who has a poor bond with their parents and lead solipsistic existences.

>>21570477
Carl may be Jung, but Ernst is Jünger

>>21570846
better order is
1. archetypes and the collective unconscious
2. symbols of transformation
3. psychology and alchemy
4. aion
5. answer to job
6. the red book

>>21570900

>>21570521
You type like the guy in Highschool who thought he was an evil genius to compensate for his mediocre IQ. Instead of writing this drawn out piece of garbage type “X is good because I agree with X. X is also bad because I disagree with X”

>>21571133
What a strange thing to say, and what a strange archetype to imagine. My high school didn't have one of those, or else I paid him no mind. Why try and write some simplistic, formulaic nonsense rather than saying precisely what I mean in the manner in which I desire? That's exactly how pseud-posers would think. Jokes on you though, my IQ is 157, and even the lowest IQ person in my immediate circle is 131. Besides, I would never choose evil. Evil is for fools and weak men.

>Yet, IQ doesn't amount to much on its own. 4channers (like you) put too much stake in it. I'll take a wise 100er over a foolish 130 any day.

>>21571133
i see a lot of you types in the brevity camp. and i'm in that camp every once in a while, mind you. there's some sense to it and i wouldn't take it away, but i didn't mind >>21570521. it has its own flavor, and i probably wouldn't like it all or even most of the time but it's quite alright, really. if everyone wrote the way you wanted i don't think anyone would quite like it in the end. some roads are better when they wind with the land.

>>21570477
Fun read but I think people get easily lost in the language he uses. They think he has some kind of arcane secret to communicate but it's really quite grounded. That said, I think he was wrong about a lot of things.

>>21570521
>On the other hand, his views on God are juvenile, laughable, and blasphemous

Please enlighten me, what blasphemous views he had

>>21572212
>>The Book of Job is a book of lament, similar to other books on suffering and woe in the Bible. Jung uses the suffering of Job to draw a parallel between man’s shadow and self, to the dark and light in God’s nature. He reflects on the opposites that existed in God’s nature and explores this as it relates to the duality of his own nature. He says, God rages against Job because of Job’s conscious reflection. God’s weakness, according to Jung, is that God does not reach full consciousness in his interaction with Job. Jung believes, Job defeated God and had the moral high ground and was in a superior position to God. Even though this idea is considered blasphemous by some critics, it serves as a metaphor for the questions Jung and the world were asking about the existence of evil, questions Jung felt God could not answer.
Jung was also a Luciferian Gnostic if that doesn't clue you in by the way.

>>21572212
No! You non-reader pseuds need to get off my board. This thread is about what we think of Jung, not what you clowns think of how I expressed my views, or to beg me to tell you stuff you're too lazy to read. Shut up and lurk, or go read a book you worthless lot!

>>21572374
You shouldn't have helped him. They'll keep begging if you feed them.