is carl jung right about alchemy?

[Anonymous No.10064907]

is it just symbolic of individuation—a reflection of the universal subconscious evident in myths from around the world?

[Anonymous No.10064938]

Jung is trash. There's nothing there.

[Anonymous No.10064950]

>>10064938
i dont care about jung. i want to know about alchemy

[Anonymous No.10065517]

>>10064938
the need for knowledge of ones capacity for evil to truly be virtuous and good is nothing? Jung wrote about many groundbreaking psychological phenomenon. To discount him is to discount a whet stone to sharpen the blade of your self analysis and cut deep into the the good and evil of your soul - revealing your true self.

[Anonymous No.10065528]

>>10064907
I doubt that all his theories were correct but he was correct in that it had deep allegorical significance. Jung tends to reach a lot in his writings though.

[Anonymous No.10065552]

>>10064907

Sometimes Alchemy is literally just about gold.

[Anonymous No.10065603]

>>10065528
>>10065552
is there something else, besides literally gold or psychological allegory, like what i think evola is getting at? something between the two, something occult?

[Anonymous No.10065811]

>>10064950
You posted a pic of Evola himself, read The Hermetic Tradition.

[Anonymous No.10065830]

>>10065811
i am

[Anonymous No.10067050]

>>10065517

And now here's something we hope you'll really like!

[Anonymous No.10067115]

so is alchemy legit or not

[Anonymous No.10067142]

>>10067115
The only semi-recent person I've come across who seems to be able to comprehend any of the alchemical texts is Newton, who kept extensive notes on various subjects throughout his life, though he doesn't "reveal" anything in regards to alchemy as he wrote in the same enigmatic vernacular.

Evola certainly made a valiant attempt but there is nothing in his Hermetic Tradition or Introduction to Magic that is thoroughly convincing.

[Anonymous No.10067154]

>>10067142
Though I think If you've read the Hermetic Tradition, it is pretty clear what you have to do. Whether this has anything to do with Alchemy or not remains to be seen. There is certainly much to be learned from the texts, though you may never acquire the key to them.

[Anonymous No.10067167]

>>10067154
and what is it that you have to do? individuate?

[Anonymous No.10067169]

>>10064907
No. Alchemy is alchemy.
Tired of fucking psychoanalytic brainlets prjecting their bullshit into unrelated fields.
It was an ancient attempt at science and a precursor to chemistry

[Anonymous No.10067187]

>>10067169
have you ever read any of the texts? it is clearly up to some other shit m8

[Anonymous No.10067190]

>>10067169
this except it was actually real
but all who succeeded had to pay a steep price...

[Anonymous No.10067197]

>>10067187
>have you ever read any of the texts?
Sure but not selectively the ones only about mysticisms.
You have to look at the entire practice broadly stsrting from China. It was alchemists that discovered gunpowder, amalgamation, etc etc

[Anonymous No.10067199]

*starting

[Anonymous No.10067202]

>>10067190
>actually real
What do you mean by that?
Ofcourse the chemistry was real. When it worked.

[Anonymous No.10067207]

>>10067190
wtf does that mean? this isnt an alchemical text, no need for fancy footwork

>>10067197
just because it had one purpose doesnt mean it didnt have another

[Anonymous No.10067214]

>>10067190
Anatol France's At the Sign of the Reine Pedauque for more on that 'price'
>tic.. halfway

[Anonymous No.10067220]

>>10064938
This. He just took too many drugs and spazzed out once he discovered eastern religions.

[Anonymous No.10067223]

>>10067207
>just because it had one purpose doesnt mean it didnt have another
Sure. Some fuckers still thought they were doing magic

[Anonymous No.10067245]

>>10064907
There is of course only one way to find out. Devoting one's life to it.
Which begs the question, was Jung successful? In one respect the answer must be yes, he founded a school. Otherwise the question cannot be answered except on the side of opinion.

[Anonymous No.10067250]

>>10067245
Yeah no. You dont need to devote your life to a archaic pseudoscientific practice to know that Jung is babble

[Anonymous No.10067324]

>>10067250
All that that means is that it's not for (you). Nor is it for me. Just trying to be fair.
Jung does write exceptionally well, however. It's easy to see why many are drawn in.

[Anonymous No.10068853]

>>10065603

Yes.