/lit/ - Literature

Just read my two essays:

1. https://niicha.neocities.org/essays/aliens.html

2. https://niicha.neocities.org/essays/syzygy.html

They're unironically better than his own writings in many regard. However, in case you do want to read Jung and not just understand what he was on about, I recommend you start with "Man and his Symbols," as it will give you an overview of his thoughts.

>>22595820
nice thanks.

>>22595788
You could start with Jung's chapter and maybe von Franz's chapter in Man and his Symbols. Or, start with Two Essays on Analytical Psychology. Actually, the first four chapters of Aion are a decent introduction.There are a few other commonly recommended starting points, but, to be honest, it doesn't matter all that much. I would not recommend starting with Memories, Dreams, Reflections, as some people suggest, because it will be more impactful if you read it after having acquired some understanding of Jung's thought.

Importantly, you need to read Jung closely and carefully, and then you need to experience his observations in real life. He is complicated and widely misunderstood. Ignore almost everything you hear about him on the Internet, including this guy >>22595820
Just dive in. Enjoy. He is a life-changing thinker.

>>22595820
>Just read my two essays
>They're unironically better than his own writings in many regard.
The audacity of this nigga.

>>22597041
lmao yea
>neocities
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>22596835
>Ignore almost everything you hear about him on the Internet, including this guy
>The audacity of this nigga.
Apart from my political stance having been heavily influenced by Evola, nothing I have written could be argued not to be supported in a Jungian framework. The fact that you do not understand this shows you have not read Jung or, at least, have not read his more dense stuff. And, yes, they are better than most of his writings, at least in terms of sheer density of fact, as Jung tends to drag things out unnecessarily much.

>>22597160
shut the fuck up cracka
neocities ass cracka
are you from 2006 or some shit

>>22597167
Would you prefer I use fucking Wordpress? I'm not going to bother setting up my own server. Are you out of your mind? If it works and is preferably free, then I'll take it. Why do you care?

>>22595788
Catafalque by Peter Kingsley

>>22597160
>yes, they are better than most of his writings, at least in terms of sheer density of fact, as Jung tends to drag things out unnecessarily much.
Pseud moment. You sound like genuine study is something foreign to you so you just turn Jung into a really simple system without any of the subtlety or depth of the original. 'sheer density of fact' is such a pseud phrase descending from the modern scientific mind and clearly just conceived on the fly without any greater thought, or history of thought, as to the nature of ideas or books. What matters is the communion with a great mind in the reading of a book, which your piddly essays will never be able to substitute.

>>22597220
I don't know if you discovered Jung recently or not, but I've studied this guy for years now. You sound like a fanboy. You are aware that Jung uses a lot of flowery language, metaphors, etc. to illustrate his points instead of just writing them plainly out, are you not? I mean, he's free to do that, but I prefer to keep that stuff to a minimum. Thus, my essays are shorter and more dense, which, in my opinion, makes them better, but, sure, if you prefer flowery poetry, I suppose you would disagree.

>>22595788
depends on how deep you want to dive into it. I recommend starting with Freuds Introductory lectures followed by Interpretation of dreams. For Jung you start with his doctor thesis "Pathology of the Occult" followed by Volume 2 of the Collected works to understand the methodology he uses. Afterwards both of these are applied in his studies on dementia praecox (schizophrenia). From there on you have "Psychology of the Unconscious" for the Libido "Psychological Types" and lastly "Two essays on analytic psychology". I would personally leave the likes of Man and his Symbols, Aion or the Red Book be for some time until you have a solid understanding of everything that has lead up to them

>>22597238

For me, I know I do write in a flowery style to some degree, but I also know very well what you're talking about when you mention short and dense.

The trick is to be concise, and even if you write with a bit of whimsy, there's a point where you need to focus very hard on getting the actual meaning of your point across in a way that uses solid definitions, crystal-clear logic, and yes, evidence.

>>22597238
>Jung uses a lot of flowery language, metaphors, etc. to illustrate his points instead of just writing them plainly out
You're either autistic or lying about studying Jung for years, or any writer at all for that matter. Since your idea of 'flowery language' is, for lack of a better word, standard in all literary culture. It's innately human and you talk about it like you're an alien. The sheer fact that it never crossed your mind that some ideas can't be expressed, or expressed any better, without poetic language, metaphors, etc., in short the entire artillery of human imagination, is astounding to me. To talk about the psyche, practically seen as an infinitude of impressions and meanings, without any imagination!

At any rate, your grasp of Jung's psychology is abstract and devoid of a genuine understanding, which is dependant on life. But it can also be proven as an entirely technical matter that you haven't studied Jung, because inevitably you would have come across Jung outright discussing, as he often has, the epistemological background to his psychology. By necessity it is paradoxical, and he always maintained the transitory nature of the scientific understanding of psychological phenomena. But it was only an outward justification of what he knew instinctively, that the phenomena is all important. You cannot separate life from psychology like you can the other sciences. This is why Jung identified himself more with the great German tradition of thought from Kant to Nietzsche, and his cultural position, than with Freud. You cannot be a psychologist, in Jung's sense, with mere scientific documentation. I wonder how you ever received the idea of 'innerness', that phenomenal quality so focused on by Jung and epitomised in dreams, in your logical understanding his psychology.

>>22597331
I’m currently phonefagging if you’re wondering about the IP stuff. In any case, have you even read Aion? It’s mostly flowery metaphors. Altough, that is not to imply that is how Jubg usually writes, but in his more dense works, like Aion and the alchemy stuff, it tends to get out of hand. Also, yes, most writers are bad writers. Jung writes way too fucking much and says too little in that span of text. You could argue that he’s merely providing context to substantiate hus claim, but his claim is usually vague. Whilst I respect his work, he is not a good writer because Jung is often times nor capable of simply stating something in plain english. Of course, you could claim it’s all because the psyche is flouid and the unconcious can best be descriped in metaphors, but even so, most of the time the metaphors are simply not good.

>>22597386
To add: this is the reason why peaple misinterpret Jung so much. This is the reason why peaple think the shadow is some evil boogey man.

>>22597386
You missed my point. Jung doesn't believe everything can be stated in 'plain English', or at least your severe metric for what is 'plain'. And the reasons for that are doubled when something is of a mystical nature. And most writers, at least many classic writers, some of who I assume you include in thinking to be bad at writing, would believe what they're trying to expresses is dependant on their style of expression. In reading anyone, you are in communion with the mind writing it, and Jung's personality, as the original visionary of Analytical Psychology, is obviously very important to Analytical Psychology. When you say Jung's claims are vague, I would say they belong to the authentic dialectic of thought, and he is not so arrogant as to presume that everything has to be neatly systemised. It was his vision, he's not blind to it like you may be, he knew what he was trying to convey. You act as if there is a fairly standard stratum of truth, working along modern scientific grounds, when Jung's psychology shows the exact opposite. Have you even considered that he was trying to convey something you aren't aware of? The ideas that Jung has inspired in YOUR personality are able to be articulated as YOU want, but I would not say they are a 1:1 of Jung's ideas or be so arrogant as to declare their superiority. When in reality Jung was the great mind.

>>22597469
>You missed my point.
No, I didn't. You missed mine. But I'll rephrase it in a better manner in-order to provide you with a more clear argument, nonetheless.

>Jung doesn't believe everything can be stated in 'plain English', or at least your severe metric for what is 'plain'. And the reasons for that are doubled when something is of a mystical nature. And most writers, at least many classic writers, some of who I assume you include in thinking to be bad at writing, would believe what they're trying to expresses is dependant on their style of expression.
There is a vast difference between writing a story and writing an analysis/explanation of that story. When you want to write a story, you don't want to say the message of it but instead convey it through the actions of the characters, in other words, by showing it. But when you want to explain the meaning of that story, you wouldn't want to merely show another retelling of that story but to instead provide an actual explanation of message of the story. This is where you fail to understand the purpose of a philosopher. A philosopher is meant to explain, not show. Jung was bad at explaining and preferred to show. This is why he is so frequently misinterpreted by so many people, because he did not explain the mythos, but rather repackaged them and allowed his readers to interpret them instead of the original tests instead. The psyche and the unconscious are vague, yes, because they are erotic. However, that is precisely why Jung should not have used an erotic, vague, and flowerily writing style to explain them, because that merely complicates the manner even more so than it already was. Jung should have been the logos, not another expression of eros. One of the few times Jung's writings are actually good this is in chapter 1 of part 1 of "Archetypes and the Collective unconscious" where he provides a clear and concise definition of the collective unconscious and then proceeds to substantiate this definition by analysing various myths and texts. Otherwise, he does not provide a definition, but let's instead the reader try to form his own definition when they read his retold, compiled lists of various concepts, myths, etc. with added commentary. Which, to repeat myself, is not what a philosopher should do. A philosopher should explain--that is, say--not show--that is, use flowerily language and rely to much on myths to indirectly explain his points.

>When you say Jung's claims are vague, I would say they belong to the authentic dialectic of thought, and he is not so arrogant as to presume that everything has to be neatly systemised. It was his vision, he's not blind to it like you may be, he knew what he was trying to convey.
I will give you that. It is authentic, but it's not really well explained.

1/2

>>22597469
>You act as if there is a fairly standard stratum of truth, working along modern scientific grounds, when Jung's psychology shows the exact opposite.
The entirely of Jung's body of work can basically be reduced to that the unconscious knows more about the world than the ego due to storing the knowledge of our ancestors and the future, because the psyche is neither bound by space nor time, like photons. What Jung sought to do was to, then, explain what the unconscious knew. In his earlier writings, he is more so focused on the fact that the unconscious affects us in more ways than we affect it. But in his later writings, he is more so trying to explain what it is the unconscious knows that we do not, for example with the case of Aion, which I hope you have read as I have mentioned it quite a few times by now, I believe. To have done this better, Jung should have been more logocentric, should have been more clear in his writings, and shouldn't have relied on mythos to indirectly explain what he meant before providing a general explanation or definition of the concept he wanted to discuss. Of course, in his later life, he really couldn't care less. If the reader wasn't well versed with his ideas, that is their fault. This is the case of Aion. To provide an example from another philosopher, I need only to refer you to "The Hermetic Tradition" by Julius Evola, particularly part 2. In other words, Jung should have been the logos to explain the erotic nature of the unconscious by making it less vague, shrouded in mystery, because that what he sought to do, at the end of the day.

>When in reality Jung was the great mind.
Indeed he was. That is not what I meant to imply whatsoever. Merely that he is not a good writer. Of course, dry writing might be boring, but bombastic writing can be overwhelming if there is no logos to define the chaos of it.

>>22597713
*I did not mean to imply that he was not one of the greatest minds to have ever lived, if not the greatest of all time, because he was one of the greatest minds to have ever lived, and I will forever respect and appreciate everything he has thought me.

1/2.5

>>22596835
>>22597160
>>22597220
>>22597238
>>22597331
>>22597386
>>22597469
>>22597700
>>22597713
>>22597721
Its fun to watch autists argue online when the only thing they disagree about is their personal feelings about stylistic choice, which is a matter of personal preference. Now kiss.

>>22597469
>Jung doesn't believe everything can be stated in 'plain English', or at least your severe metric for what is 'plain'.
Allow me to further expound on my point regarding this statement as I find it to be utterly ridiculous. You can explain the concept of the shadow, ego, persona, anima, animus, self, consciousness, unconsciousness, psyche, etc., as I have proven by explaining most of these in perhaps not perfectly plain, layman English but clear and concise, nonetheless. You don't have to say that the shadow is the "dark nature of the psyche," "the dragon in the underbelly of the world," etc. because that merely gives it unnecessary connotations, which has given rise to retards like Peterson saying that the shadow is the evil side of the personality, when the shadow of the Anti-Christ is Christ himself. So, yes, I do believe my writings are better than Jung's when it comes to actually explaining what he meant to say. What a writer should strive for when writing a book is for his readers to actually understand what he was written. If his readers do not understand what he was written, then he has failed as a writer. Luckily, there are many people who do understand what Jung wrote, like myself and you I would presume, however, there is an overwhelming cancer of people who have a very shallow understanding of his works. Of course, this is mainly due to the fact that most do not read philosophy. But, even so, even those who do read Jung, at least judging from my interaction with other anons who have read him, do not quite understand him that well.

Also, yes, whilst there are things you can't really explain in plain English, you can nevertheless provide an explanation for the concept, the archetype, and then explain various instances of that archetype. That is what Jung should have done.

In any case, I must say that I enjoy actually having this discussion, even if it doesn't really concern the contents of my essays, as both /pol/ and /x/ allowed me no discussion besides mere quests for clarification.

>>22597804
Midwit take

>>22597804
>Now kiss.
Only if flowerily-kun wants to as well.

>>22597888
checked

>>22595820
Read both. Unironically you're right, great summary essays of his ideas. Still value in reading the original for artistic or completion reasons though

>>22595820
Your audacity is beyond staggering.

Your writing is exceedingly bland. Study philosophy properly before trying to condense such dense text as Jung.

>>22597238
Well, I'm a jungian and scholar of philosophy.

Why don't you answer this query and prove the depth of your knowledge?

>What is the dual-mechanism by which the ego may come into contact with the shadow?

Bonus question if you're feeling lucky

>What is the significance of the identity of the snake with Christ?

>>22598561
Thanks.

>>22598651
>Your audacity is beyond staggering.
I don't care. Make an actual argument if you have a problem with the essays instead of bitching about them like a complete faggot.

>Your writing is exceedingly bland.
So I've heard, but I'm working on it.

>Study philosophy properly before trying to condense such dense text as Jung.
But I just did. How could that possible, huh?

>>22598655
>Well, I'm a jungian and scholar of philosophy.
I really don't care who you are. You could be the president of a country, and I will still call you a faggot. I don't care about your credentials, and the fact that you think they are in any way important and judging from the pic you added, I do not believe you belong here. Go back to where the fuck you came from.

>>What is the dual-mechanism by which the ego may come into contact with the shadow?
If this is a reference to some obscure passage or footnote, then kys. However, I'm going to assume you're alluding to the shadow projecting itself unto objects. Thus making itself known to the ego, at least instinctively to the ego, that is, unconsciously.

>>What is the significance of the identity of the snake with Christ?
Snake=Dionysus, Christ=Apollo. I really shouldn't need to add more, but I'll schizo post some more for the sake of it. The snake is the kundalini, which, as Manly Hall says, "When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands." Venus is the holy spirit that revitalises the son to follow the holy spirit in the footsteps of his father. There's also the part where Freemasons believe Christ to be Lucifer due to being the Anti-Christ. Both the snake in Genesis and Christ enlighten people. I'll only add this last thing: the snake is given priority due to having been written in the OT compared to Christ in NT, as one would expect from the Aions. If you don't know what I mean by this, consider yourself still remaining a vegetable.

>>22598753
You forgot that Anima/Animus, as the conduit between the shadow and ego, dipshit.

>All that shit about the snake and Christ
Yeah, no.

Christ, as the archetypal savior hero, is contaminated with the possibility of chaos and destruction. He is therefore indistinguishable from the serpent of the garden in that he is possessed of a dual nature ... the bringer of the capacity to fix the volatile, to make the unconscious conscious, and also the principles enantiadromic opposite, that being the intrusion of chaos which is incomprehensible and indistinguishable from the manifestation of destructive madness and religious insanity.

If you're gonna come in here and start swinging you should expect to get your ass sat down.

I'd have enjoyed reading your essay if you weren't shadow projecting onto all of us so hars.

>>22598753
Addendum: Abraxas is the fool/lucifer, much like Jesus symbolises both the son and Self. The Mesopotamian symbol for Saturn was often times conflated with the Sun. Confusing? Yeah, because it is. This is not how you're meant to explain shit to newcomers. This is how you are meant to dunk on pseuds who think they're hot shit. Also, FYI, I literally explained everything there is to know.

>>22598821
>You forgot that Anima/Animus, as the conduit between the shadow and ego, dipshit.
Oh my god, I'm so sorry for not memorising this shit. No one cares. Stop trying to flex your fucking internet dick like it fucking matters.

>Christ, as the archetypal savior hero, is contaminated with the possibility of chaos and destruction. He is therefore indistinguishable from the serpent of the garden in that he is possessed of a dual nature ... the bringer of the capacity to fix the volatile, to make the unconscious conscious, and also the principles enantiadromic opposite, that being the intrusion of chaos which is incomprehensible and indistinguishable from the manifestation of destructive madness and religious insanity.
Yeah, that's literally what I wrote, you fucking retard.

>I'd have enjoyed reading your essay if you weren't shadow projecting onto all of us so hars.
You're 100 years to early to even begin discussing the occult with me.

>>22598829
>Oh my god, I'm so sorry for not memorising this shit. No one cares.
Lmao, well, Jung definitely said that it mattered you gigantic retard.

>that literally what I wrote
Not really, you got kinda close to part of my point but not very far for someone who's apparently mastered the subjected.

Jesus man, why are you so angry? Did you mother rape you or something?

>>22598853
>Lmao, well, Jung definitely said that it mattered you gigantic retard.
I care about the big picture, not details. I got other shit to do. The reason why I know the other details mentioned in my answer is because they kept bugging me so I solved their puzzles.

>Not really, you got kinda close to part of my point but not very far for someone who's apparently mastered the subjected.
You failed my test. Like I said: I don't care about your opinion of me because I'm not a complete faggot like you are. I explained it in the most obscure and dense manner possible. Both as a means to illustrate my point that flowerily language can't explain shit and to test you. You failed. You don't even know that Christ is the fool (Osiris) who is Lucifer, Kundalini, etc., etc. due to being the son. Do you even know what the son symbolises? The prima Materia? Do you know what that is? No, of course you don't.

>Jesus man, why are you so angry? Did you mother rape you or something?
Because I've had to deal with retards like (You) all fucking day. I haven't even received a single intelligent question. It's been nothing but complete and utter retardation.

>>22595820
>Just read my two essays:
>Unironically better works than Jungs

>>22597238
>Anime faggot

Opinion discarded

>>22598899
This shit is really fucking tilting. You retards are aware of the fact that you are literally deifying Jung as some form of fucking messiah by projecting your animus unto him, are you not? He literally warned against this, and yet you can't even recognise projections when they occur.

>>22598905
Anime website. Don't like it? Go back to whatever cancer cell you came from.

>>22595820
Unironically delusional

>>22598909

No just funny to giggle at your lack of self awareness

>>22598925
Have you even bothered to read the thread? Let alone bother to understand what I meant by "in many regard" and not "entirely?" No, of course, you haven't. You haven't even read them.

Why are you all such insufferable faggots. I make one fucking comments, and all you of turn into complete NPCs. You can't make this shit up.

>>22598937
It's obvious to everyone except you. I wonder why that is.

>>22598960
Because you deify Jung's work as a result of his philosophy being your new religion/dogma/logos/morality/father.

>I wonder why that is.
Because, unlike myself, you're retarded.

>>22598937
Sorry I saw your anime images and instantly made the conclusion that anything you have to say is worthless. I will not be reading any of your long shitposts.

>>22598873
I'm gonna go ahead and guess that you're either psychotic, ADD, or schizophrenic, OR you're trolling using some random kids essay.

>>22598966
I appreciate that you at least have the decency to admit the fact that you're retarded. Do you know why Nietzsche threads are so shit? It's because no one there has read Nietzsche, and everyone who has, can't be bothered to engage with the fucking retards who spew retarded nonsense.

>>22598974
No, I'm completely normal, albeit tilted to the fucking maximum as a result of having been forced to interact with you.

>>22598964
You are not as intelligent or as profound as you believe yourself to be. You are, rather, of shallow character. Flail as you might, you will continually be ousted for your inauthenticity.

>>22598753
Oh no anon. You took the bait. He was going to say you were wrong no matter what.

>>22598984
>>22598988
>>22599005

If you wanted to be taken seriously. You should not be acting at like you are. At first the anime images were why I stayed away. But now you have given me another. And this is why I think judging a book by it's cover is actually a pretty solid strategy. Like for example in >Pic related clearly you don't want to touch this frog. Just like you don't want to read essays written by someone who posts tranime images.

>>22599036
>PIC RELATED

Man and His Symbols and Maps of Meaning will tell you everything you need to know about Jung; if you go deeper than that it starts turning into conjecture and schizo shit.

>>22598873
>I care about the big picture, not details. I got other shit to do.
>my essays are a better intro to Jung than Jung
Why would anyone read essays by a guy who, by his own admission, doesn't care about the subject enough to know its basic mechanics and important terms. The anima and animus are massive to the discussion of Jungian psychology. If you can't be bothered to get the basics into your own head how can we trust that you accurately represented them in your essays? It just doesn't make any sense man. Im not here to say Jung is gods gift to writing and that all of his asides and examples are uniquely meaningful and important, but come on.

>>22595820
Man and his symbols is what you want.

Some British politician asked him live on a radio show if he could condense his ideas into a book that the layman could read and understand, Man and his Symbols was that book. Excellent introduction

>>22600777
checked

And, yes, it literally says so in the introduction to it.

I only want to know why Anno liked him so much

>>>/vg/450068460
Artificial Academy 2 General /aa2g/ #1295
Sweater Puppies Edition

Welcome, this general is for the discussion of ILLUSION's Artificial Academy 2.

COPY ERROR MESSAGES WITH CTRL+C, PASTE THEM WITH CTRL+V INTO GOOGLE TRANSLATE. JUST CLICK THE WINDOW AND PRESS CTRL + C, IT WORKS.

>Downloads:
/aa2g/ Pre-Installed Game, AA2Mini: https://tsukiyo.me/AAA/AA2MiniPPX.xml
AAUnlimited updates: https://github.com/aa2g/AA2Unlimited/releases

>Information:
AA2Mini Install Guide:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS8Ap6CrmSNXRsKG9jsIMqHYuHM3Cfs5qE5nX6iIgfzLlcWnmiwzmOrp27ytEMX03lFNRR7U5UXJalA/pub
General FAQ:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200216045726/https://pastebin.com/bhrA6iGx
AAU Guide and Resources (Modules, Tans, Props, Poses, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qb1X0oOdMKU4OIDp8AfFdLtl5y_4jeOOQfPQ2F-PKQ/edit#gid=0

>Character Cards [Database], now with a list of every NonOC in the megas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1niC6g-Xd2a2yaY98NBFdAXnURi4ly2-lKty69rkQbJ0/edit#gid=2085826690
https://db.bepis.moe/aa2/

>Mods & More:
Mods for AAU/AA2Mini (ppx format, the mediafire has everything):
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/vwrmdohus4vhh/Mods
/aa2g/ Modding Reference Guide (Slot lists for Hair/Clothes/Faces, List Guides, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gwmoVpKuSuF0PtEPLEB17eK_dexPaKU106ShZEpBLhg/edit#gid=1751233129
Booru: https://aau.booru.org

>HELP! I have a Nvidia card and my game crashes on startup!
Try the dgVoodoo option in the new win10fix settings.
Alternative: Update your AAU and see if it happens again. If so, disable win10fix, enable wined3d and software vertex processing.
>HELP! Required Windows 11 update broke things!
winkey+R -> ms-settings:developers -> Terminal=Windows Console Host

Previous Thread:
>>>/vg/449160740
Sage

>>22599005
I think this being told this is one of my biggest fears.

>>22601370
Well, it's just a projection so it's really retarded.

>>22601393
It's still real, retard.

>>22601370
If you feel it, it must be real
if you have a longing to be profound and are depressed about it, I think there's a really good chance that you have some profundity in you that still needs to be cultivated, and the shame and weakness is because you aren't trying enough things.