/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13607833]

Don’t mind me just posting the most important spiritual manuscript of the last two centuries.

[Anonymous No.13607847]

>>13607833
Whats it about? Ive read some stuff by jung but i never really considered the red book since i assumed it was just dreams and stuff

[Anonymous No.13607851]

more like “the reddit book”

[Anonymous No.13607853]

>>13607833
Based

[Anonymous No.13607860]

>>13607847
What isn’t it about it a better question.

[Anonymous No.13607868]

Absolutely unequivocally based

[Anonymous No.13607882]

Jung should have done more manuscripting

[Anonymous No.13608179]

>>13607847
It's schizophrenic ramblings lol. His coherent work is much better.

[Anonymous No.13608307]

>>13608179
and? It’s a beautifully written and perfectly coherent even if it is a surreal dream of a book

[Anonymous No.13608325]

>>13608179
>schizophrenic ramblings
ah, you mean the best and most interesting sort of spiritual writing

on a more serious note; the red book is too coherent to be dismissed as either schizophrenic or ramblings.
It's more a lifetime of dreaming chewed over by a sharp intellect.

[Anonymous No.13608352]

>>13608325
Although I wouldn't dismiss it, it literally is schizophrenic ramblings

[Anonymous No.13608384]

>>13608352
I bet you would call Finnegans Wake schizophrenic
and picasso too

[Anonymous No.13608437]

What it is about?

[Anonymous No.13608448]

>>13608437
Jung tried bunch of hippie shit, and wrote the most embarrassing piece of philosophical work. Then after his death, his family thought it would be funny to publish it

[Anonymous No.13608463]

mystical vision jung is the only one i like

[Anonymous No.13608483]

>>13608437
jung's experience of tapping into the collective unconsciousness through dreams

[Anonymous No.13608488]

>>13608448
Jung was a huge critic of the hippy theopsoical movement of his time desu

[Anonymous No.13608504]

i: It seems to me that I gave you a long time. Neither did I descend to you nor did I disturb your work. I lived in the light of day and did the work of the day. What did you do?”

The Cabiri: “We hauled things up, we built. We placed stone upon stone. Now you stand on solid ground.”

I: “I feel the ground more solid. I stretch upward.”

The Cabiri: “We forged a flashing / sword for you, with which you can cut the knot that entangles you.”

I: “I take the sword firmly in my hand. I lift it for the blow.”

The Cabiri: “We also place before you the devilish, skillfully twined knot that locks and seals you. Strike, only sharpness will cut through it.”

I: “Let me see it, the great knot, all wound round! Truly a masterpiece of inscrutable nature, a wily natural tangle of roots grown through one another! Only Mother Nature, the blind
weaver, could work such a tangle! A great snarled ball and a thousand small knots, all artfully tied, intertwined, truly; a human brain! Am I seeing straight? What did you do? You set my brain
before me! Did you give me a sword so that its flashing sharpness slices through my brain? What were you thinking of?”

The Cabiri: “The womb of nature wove the brain, the womb of the earth gave the iron. So the Mother gave you both: entanglement and severing.”

I: “Mysterious! Do you really want to make me the executioner of my own brain?”

The Cabiri: “It befits you as the master of the lower nature. Man is entangled in his brain and the sword is also given to him to cut through the entanglement.”

I: “What is the entanglement you speak of?”

The Cabiri: “The entanglement is your madness, the sword is
the overcoming of madness.”

I: “You offsprings of the devil, who told you that I am mad? You earth spirits, you roots of clay and excrement, are you not yourselves the root fibers of my brain? You polyp-snared rubbish, channels for juice knotted together, parasites upon parasites, all sucked up and deceived, secretly climbing up over one another by night, you deserve the flashing sharpness of my sword. You want to persuade me to cut through you? Are you contemplating self-destruction? How come nature gives birth to creatures that she herself wants to destroy?”

The Cabiri: “Do not hesitate. We need destruction since we ourselves are the entanglement. He who wishes to conquer new land / brings down the bridges behind him. Let us not exist
anymore. We are the thousand canals in which everything also flows back again into its origin.”

I: “Should I sever my own roots? Kill my own people, whose king I am? Should I make my own tree wither? You really are the sons of the devil.”

The Cabiri: “Strike, we are servants who want to die for their master.”

[Anonymous No.13608508]

>>13608504
I: “What will happen if I strike?”

The Cabiri: “Then you will no longer be your brain, but will exist beyond your madness. Do you not see, your madness is your brain, the terrible entanglement and intertwining in the
connection of the roots, in the nets of canals, the confusion of fibers. Being engrossed in the brain makes you wild. Strike! He who finds the way rises up over his brain. You are a Tom Thumb
in the brain, beyond the brain you gain the form of a giant. We are surely sons of the devil, but did you not forge us out of the hot and dark? So we have something of its nature and of yours. The devil says that everything that exists is also worthy, since it perishes. As sons of the devil we want destruction, but as your creatures we want our own destruction. We want to rise up in you through death. We are roots that suck up from all sides. Now you have everything that you need, therefore chop us up, tear us out.”

I: “Will I m’iss you as servants? As a master I need slaves.”

The Cabiri: “The master serves himself”

1: “You ambiguous sons of the devil, these words are your undoing. May my sword strike you, this blow shall be valid forever.”

The Cabiri “Woe, woe! What we feared, what we desired, has come to pass.” ~Carl Jung, The Red Book, Page 321.

[Anonymous No.13608509]

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/01/jungs-therapeutic-gnosticism

[Anonymous No.13608604]

he was a good painter

[Anonymous No.13608648]

>>13608509
I don’t know what I’m supposed to get out of this.
It’s literally all opinion

[Anonymous No.13608675]

>>13608384
From a Jungian and Campbellian perspective calling the Red Book schizophrenic is not pejorative at all. Cambell says that the guided schizophrenic is what a shaman is, they're people who swim in the unconcious depths and pull mythology from it.

[Anonymous No.13608805]

Can't decide if I want to stay in the U.S and live a life with more problems but possibly more meaning or escape to a better country but have a less meaningful job

[Anonymous No.13608826]

>>13608509
>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/01/jungs-therapeutic-gnosticism
I came here to post this.

Hart is such a circumlocutory fag and I hate him. Funny stuff though:

>I have to admit that I have never been an admirer of Jung’s writings, even on those rare occasions when I have fleetingly spied what looked like a glimmer of insight among their caliginous fogs. The Red Book, however, makes his other works seem quite tolerable by comparison. It is an essentially silly exercise—sub-Nietzschean, sub-Blakean, sub-Swedenborgian—full of the kinds of garish symbolism and pompous antinomianism one expects from more adolescent minds. To anyone seeking fantastic journeys through strange oneiric realms, I would much more readily recommend Lewis Carroll’s Alice books, which are far better written, far better illustrated, and far more profound (Humpty Dumpty’s discourse on the meanings of words puts all of Philemon’s drearily portentous maunderings to shame).

>I am omitting many details, admittedly, but I doubt it matters. What is truly astonishing about this sort of psychologistic reductionism is its absolute inversion of the spiritual aspirations it is meant to explain. The Red Book manages to preserve the most ungainly aspects of ancient Gnosticism—its boringly rambling symbolic narratives, the pretensions of its spiritual patriciate, its self-absorption and ethical sterility—but none of its genuinely sympathetic religious qualities: the ennobling sorrow, the tragic sense of estrangement from the world, the delightful paranoia.

>To tell the truth, I find The Red Book a rather disconcerting document, not simply because it has the feel of an expression of arrested pubescence, lurching clumsily between the morbid and the hilarious in its attempts at profundity, but because I cannot shake the sense that it is somehow a real reflection of the spiritual situation of our times.

[Anonymous No.13608847]

>>13608448
This, especially since Jung explicitly told his children to never publish the book after he died, but eventually they said fuck that shit, and published it anyway.

[Anonymous No.13609038]

>>13607833
How important are the drawings? Thinking about getting the much cheaper text version but would like to know if it is necessary to have the visuals

[Anonymous No.13609046]

>>13607833
It's a masterpiece and commenting academicians are specialists who's commenting may as well be equated to a dermatologist that knows Greek to translate Iamblichus or Proclus or Plotinus in short hand it DOESN'T WORRRRRRK

[Anonymous No.13609075]

is Jung even worthwhile to read? what did he develop that Sigmund Freud didn't do before and much better?

[Anonymous No.13609086]

>>13609075
If you're a semite,you got all you need from freud don't worry

[Anonymous No.13609091]

>>13609086
I'm not a semite. Now what?

[Anonymous No.13609119]

>>13609091
Then you reread Jung until you reconnect with your non-semetic roots.

[Anonymous No.13609131]

>>13609119
that doesn't tell me anything
what difference is there between jung and freud?

[Anonymous No.13609136]

>>13609119
bruh we all are africans

[Anonymous No.13609140]

>>13609131
Does a lack of sex and anger at woman rule your life?
Read frued and ignore Jung

[Anonymous No.13609145]

>>13609136
More like
>bruh all religion evolved out of animism

[Anonymous No.13609151]

>>13609140
me being an incel has nothing to do with this. I'm just asking, is there anything anyone can get from Jung that they wouldn't be able to get from reading Freud?

[Anonymous No.13609158]

>>13609151
Yes literally everything

[Anonymous No.13609162]

>>13609151
yes. just read a little a bit about both and see whats interesting to you. no wrong way to do it as long as you actually read some of their work.

[Anonymous No.13609167]

>>13609162
okay which work should i read?

>>13609158
it's more like only an incel would bother even asking you, people that have sex just do that, have sex.

[Anonymous No.13609172]

>>13609167
Man and his symbols

[Anonymous No.13609182]

>>13609172
literally what could I get from reading this work other than "dude stuff in dreams means different things than what they are and they also talk about something you're thinking"?

[Anonymous No.13609183]

>>13609131
>what difference is there between jung and freud?
Freud is read for understanding your semetic roots.
Jung is read for understanding your non-semetic roots.
How do you not understand that?

[Anonymous No.13609186]

>>13609075
It was universally taken by Freud's company that Jung was his successor until he started hating on Jews (Freud was thought as a father figure and there was the whole oedipal divine drama people went on about between them). His take on religion was light years ahead of Freud, he structured the psyche and with more consequences, generally more fair to intuition and femininity.

[Anonymous No.13609192]

>>13609182
Yep looks like it’s not for you

[Anonymous No.13609196]

>>13607833
More like a whole heap of schizophrenic word vomit.

[Anonymous No.13609197]

>>13609182
Aion and Two Essays on Analytical Psychology are what you want

[Anonymous No.13609199]

>>13609192
next time maybe I'll be lucky enough to meet someone that actually knows a thing or two about selling his product, oh well looks like I'll stay ignorant about my none-semitic roots because I was unfortunate enough to meet some droll asshole

[Anonymous No.13609214]

>>13609199
I gave you a suggestion when you asked for one.
You can either take it or fuck off

[Anonymous No.13609218]

>>13609172
No not that one, that book is barely even jung

[Anonymous No.13609226]

>>13609214
Yeah man and how about I invite you to read the whole talmud.
Oh wait you won't do that cause it's boring drivel and I'm giving you absolutely no reason other than this suggestion? well fuck oyu and fuck off!

[Anonymous No.13609237]

>>13609226
T. Shadow Warrior

[Anonymous No.13609255]

>>13609237
cuck

[Anonymous No.13609262]

>>13609255
Why are you so angry?

[Anonymous No.13609269]

>>13609262
I'm not angry, I just wanted to reply. I'm sorry I won't use the c-word anymore. Instead, take this
poopyhead!

[Anonymous No.13609271]

>>13609226
You literally came in and asked for a suggestion.
A suggestion was given.
And now
You’re saying no reason was given for you to read what you asked for.
Am I reading this right?

[Anonymous No.13609275]

>>13609269
wait I forgot that I'm an incel. Nevermind, I'm angry cause I'm an incel. there we go

[Anonymous No.13609281]

>>13609271
refer to this sequence of posts
>>13609172
>>13609182
>>13609192

[Anonymous No.13609320]

You don't just read Red Book

You need frameworks to understand what he's saying to think in different or higher levels of abstraction

Saying Jung is schizo blanket stated is as fair as saying a different language is schizo

[Anonymous No.13609349]

>>13609320
See >>13608675 it's not a negative statement.

[Anonymous No.13609383]

>>13609349
Schizophrenia and depression both become bullshit derivatives of mere reason under the herald of behavior following your approach

[Anonymous No.13609387]

>>13609383
is this the most convoluted way of saying nothing at all, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.13609396]

>>13609383
Depression doesn't exist outside of civilization. It's not an individual disease but a symptom of environmental neglect of what humans actually need. Intelligent animals get depressed in the Zoo as well.

[Anonymous No.13609398]

>>13608179
So it’s like the Bible?

[Anonymous No.13609400]

>>13609383
botpost

[Anonymous No.13609411]

>>13609398
Read more Joseph Campbell. He and Jung were friends. If you read Jung's memoirs the absolute coolest part is him struggling with being different as a child and his visions. It's exactly as Campbell describes children who would have left their parents to be under the tutelage of the tribal shaman.

[Anonymous No.13609418]

>>13609387
>>13609400
I think I said it more to myself. All that is known is the modality of the knower

[Anonymous No.13609438]

>>13609396
It seems like a product of civilization like a mechanism of capital or a rock someone wrote an infinite loop on, or rather the word connotes too much inconsistency for what it tries to contextualize

[Anonymous No.13609478]

>>13609438
No, you're not getting it. Civilization is inherently unnatural to our atavistic needs. We are lonely because we evolved for tribal life. We live in isolated little bubbles where we do not do what we were meant for. Go hunting and camping with friends and you will see. You feel a part of you awaken when hunting. Cars, houses, modern jobs, all are unnatural and poisonous to the psyche. We were made to share things tribally and have very few possessions. That is why people find minimalism addicting once they start. That is why communism makes sense to us in theory. The top down hierarchical structure is fundementally unwell with our minds, bodies, and souls.

[Anonymous No.13609483]

>>13609438
>>13609383
Also you are textbook bombastic.

[Anonymous No.13609494]

Will the cumbrain pass on to the collective unconscious as an archetype produced by civilization?

[Anonymous No.13609594]

>>13609478
>>13609483
What I'm saying is that depression no longer makes sense in a conceptual schema when you leave the awareness of society. I've been backpacking for about a month, that was the longest. Yes nature called for my name, but honestly something like society has never happened before and I'd entertain that it is worth hedging the bet of destroying everything to find out where it leads. Why would anything graze on pastures for eternity? I'd rather reach to possess a monad than to let it possess me.

[Anonymous No.13609668]

>>13607833
>>13608307
>>13608504
>>13608508

I've never met a Jungian who had made even a scrap of progress in developing any sense of purpose or self-satisfaction. They all still clearly suffer the brunt of their mental health issues.

99% of the time they become arrogant pricks who talk down to everybody else because "you just don't get it man" like aggressive hippies. No Jungian I know is willing to read widely and disavow the classics, usually in favour of boomer spirituality like astrology. My Jungian friend once said 'I'm bored of Plato, it's been done. We have a new age of philosophy." They are all cultists. Evidently Jung himself believed that he was a prophet and the reincarnation of Mithras with a superior understanding of psychology and spirituality so I guess it's just a Jungian tradition to be insufferable.

Plugging your emotional states or fantasies into fairy tale archetypes to then arrange your thoughts in a way to help you interpret them is an interesting idea, but it's also overly restrictive. There are a lot more to human beings than simply being a knight or hermit or some shit.The only advantage of Jungianism is creating beautiful art. Evidently, although Herman Hesse was writing the greatest novels of the 20th century while being Jung's buddy, he certainly wasn't fucking happy and his philosophy didn't help him recover from his breakdown.

[Anonymous No.13609692]

>>13609668
>99% of the time they become arrogant pricks who talk down to everybody else because "you just don't get it man"
Maybe they're just talking down to you because you have obvious hangups that keep you from understanding his ideas.

[Anonymous No.13609712]

>>13609692
This.
>>13609668
Cope.

[Anonymous No.13609729]

>>13609692
>Maybe they're just talking down to you because you have obvious hangups that keep you from understanding his ideas
Oh I beg your pardon, I didn't realise we were supposed to disregard any and all other philosophers that don't resemble a narcissistic variety of self help. 99% of Jungians I've met are also into crystal healing and astrology, so I guess I'm glad I'm not reading between the lines.

Tell me, why is this psychology not supposed to help people? Because they seem more deprived from meaning and happiness, not less.

[Anonymous No.13609731]

>>13609668
This is why Jung writes an entire saga in the book op posted about the book "the imitation of christ"

This is why Jung writes in a very krishnamurti-like sense in like the first chapter of the book op posted "go your own way, my way is not your way"

This is why Jung writes on like the first page or so in the book and multiple times throughout the entirety of which op posted "read the ancients"

I can't imagine the idea of being a "Jungian" is something Jung would recommend nor is it conceptually sound

[Anonymous No.13609736]

>>13609668
Also Jung's god is Phanes

[Anonymous No.13609774]

>>13609729
>Oh I beg your pardon, I didn't realise we were supposed to disregard any and all other philosophers that don't resemble a narcissistic variety of self help.
I have no clue what you're trying to say here. It's readily apparent from your last post that you don't understand Jung's ideas but you think you do. You unironically would have a better understanding of Jungian archetypes if you made a /lit/ thread asking to explain them or even just read a fucking Wikipedia article as opposed to whatever bullshit you're trying to spew. You seem to be more concerned with criticizing the Jungians you've anecdotally met rather than Jung's actual writings, which is a pretty retarded thing to do on a board that's focused on reading. I have no idea who you've met in your life and I'm not going to fucking argue with you about your own personal experiences you sperg. If you have an actual criticism on the ideas he's written I'm open to hearing them but otherwise I don't know what you're trying to do here.

[Anonymous No.13609808]

>>13609774
>It's readily apparent from your last post that you don't understand Jung's ideas but you think you do

Sorry this is the understanding given to me by Jungians, lol.

>If you have an actual criticism on the ideas he's written I'm open to hearing them

You are so mad at me for implying your daddy isn't as perfect as he seems you didn't realise that I am mostly talking about Jungians. The only criticism I gave for him specifically were:

>Evidently Jung himself believed that he was a prophet and the reincarnation of Mithras with a superior understanding of psychology and spirituality

And

>Plugging your emotional states or fantasies into fairy tale archetypes to then arrange your thoughts in a way to help you interpret them is an interesting idea, but it's also overly restrictive

On a thread about the fucking Red Book, so I think I've been pretty fair. Calm down and just read the comments next time.

[Anonymous No.13609824]

>>13607833
Meh writing
Good drawings
6/10

[Anonymous No.13609830]

>>13609808
> archetypes
These aren't accessible because they are by nature unconscious. It's only restrictive if a person believes in their own correspondence and neither is it a permanent thing. Philosophy as rebirth (see the part about the egg) ties into the stuff about psychical ego/persona adaption later on
>reincarnation of Mithras
I haven't seen that one but he seemed to liken himself to Jesus and Abraxas throughout the thing too. I'd like to say it follows from "we're all God, make contact with your God so you can become the true neighbor to the God in others" which somewhere about 1/3 in. I believe he thought the God of our age would be a frog as well, that was in an appendix.

[Anonymous No.13609837]

>>13609830
>These aren't accessible because they are by nature unconscious
Then what was Jung doing by entering an altered state of mind?

[Anonymous No.13609840]

>>13609808
>Sorry this is the understanding given to me by Jungians, lol.
Why the fuck are you talking about the understanding you have through secondary and tertiary sources? This is a thread about a book written by an author on a literature board, what is your understanding of his works as he's written them? If you haven't read him then why are you flapping your gums about shit you don't actually know?

>You are so mad at me for implying your daddy isn't as perfect as he seems you didn't realise that I am mostly talking about Jungians. The only criticism I gave for him specifically were:
No, I'm mad because you're talking about shit you don't know. "DURRR SOME RETARD GAVE ME A RETARDED INTERPRETATION SO INSTEAD OF READING THE AUTHOR I WENT ON A LITERATURE BOARD TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE RETARDED INTERPRETATION I GOT FROM MY RETARD FRIEND HUURRRRR". Maybe you talk to so many retards because you are a retard.

>On a thread about the fucking Red Book, so I think I've been pretty fair. Calm down and just read the comments next time.
Yeah the problem is I did read what you wrote and you sound like an idiot. Your first sentence is just character assassination with no substantive explanation for what his "psychology" and "spirituality" entails and your second sentence where you end up saying
>There are a lot more to human beings than simply being a knight or hermit or some shit
is just flat out wrong and not anything Jung pushed at all.

You're sitting here quoting like 4 people at a time and writing a ton of bullshit and then saying "lol why are you made that I wrote a ton of bullshit". Fucking read him or don't. If you're going to read him start with pic related, if you're not then just don't fucking comment on it you dumb nigger.

[Anonymous No.13609850]

>>13609837
You could try and put it to words, but it would sound like grating your nails on a chalkboard, which is how he put the word archetype in his memoir

[Anonymous No.13609859]

>>13609840
>Why the fuck are you talking about the understanding you have through secondary and tertiary sources?
Again, at no point did I presume to be an authority on Jung himself, you are just triggered.

>No, I'm mad because you're talking about shit you don't know
>Waaaaahh you ruined my thread :/

>is just flat out wrong and not anything Jung pushed at all
Interesting how you haven't decided to correct my ignorance unlike the other Jung poster in this thread, but insist that "you just don't get it man, you don't understand daddy!' I guess I have to clarify now that 99.1% of Jungians I've met are brainless cultists.

[Anonymous No.13609868]

>>13609850
I should also point out I am aware it's a lot more complicated than just archetypes, and using mythological figures is a type of projection for other unconscious elements, but again I find it very restrictive and have noticed that it's easy to get hung up on the symbolism rather than making any kind progress in mental or spiritual improvement.

[Anonymous No.13609877]

>>13609868
>it's easy to get hung up on the symbolism
https://youtu.be/p1a4kPwyZPo

[Anonymous No.13609889]

>>13609859
No you stupid nigger, I'm pissed off that retards like you come to a LITERATURE board and talk about "WELL I HEARD THIS PERSON SAY THIS THING ABOUT THIS BOOK AND THAT JUST SOUNDS STUPID" instead of, you know, actually reading the book yourself contending with the actual ideas yourself, and forming your own opinions on it yourself. You're sitting here telling me that I haven't even tried to "correct your ignorance" when I gave you a book recommendation in my fucking post. But you probably don't even read so you didn't even recognize that as me trying to help you by giving you a way to fix all of the wrong bullshit you've spewed. Why even comment? Nobody cares that you have stupid friends who don't know how to read, people come here to talk about things THEY read THEMSELVES with other people who read it themselves.

[Anonymous No.13610776]

>>13609668
>I've never met a Jungian who had made even a scrap of progress in developing any sense of purpose or self-satisfaction.
You have now. Pleased to meet you.

[Anonymous No.13610780]

>>13609075
Freud's work is a sidenote compared to Jung's. Jung literally sums up Freud in his theory of the Shadow.

[Anonymous No.13610784]

>>13609183
>semetic
Go on, type it again. The whole thread is laughing at you.

[Anonymous No.13610802]

>>13609824
The paintings are uninronically the best part of the book.

[Anonymous No.13611276]

>>13609668
Hello Theo

[Anonymous No.13611558]

>>13610784
>t. semetic

[Anonymous No.13611570]

Time to remind y'all.

Bertha Pappenheim (Anna O) - based and ballsy, made full recovery from her mental breakdown (by means of technique she invented essentially on her own) as evidenced by her latter career.

Freud - a scoundrel, who passed his fantasies for facts, and twisted facts to fit his biases. Established a cult as the means of earning coin.

Jung and Lacan - literal schizopheniacs.

[Anonymous No.13611687]

>>13611570
Bertha sounds like she was doing psychoanalysis

[Anonymous No.13611699]

>>13609199
fuck off retard. no one is here to spoon feed you. if you are interested google the book name and decide for yourself if its for you or not.
>"hur please tell me why should i read this"

[Anonymous No.13611736]

>>13611699
Not worth my time then. And keep your tramp to yourself.

[Anonymous No.13612140]

>>13609668
"Recover" is the wrong word. Breakdowns are there for a reason. They are almost always symptom of something else not the problem in itself.

That said, after learning his dream analysis I've had wonderfully profound insights.

In my wildest one I was in an institution, a loony bin, an old folks home, a prison. In this place there were docile and lonesome old men. I was working as a reporter, doing a story on thr place. A tall woman of about 6' (I'm 6'2 mind you) was giving me a tour and she was the head mistress of the place. The men sat in locked rooms watching televison. The place was meant to be a safe haven from the dangers outside. I soon realized that it was actually a prison and I attempted an escape, running through the facility. I heard the mistress coming, searching for me. I hid in a room behind a door and waited for her, terrified as her presance was terrible and evil. She came into the room and I tackled her. We scuffled and then I soon ravaged her to her contentment. Then she thanked me and suddenly we were outside the jail and all of the inhabitants were at a long table and there were green trees and grassy pastures. Everyone celebrated and ate a feast of bbq and the mistress was happy that I had freed everyone.

At this time I had been dating a girl who was vulnerable enough that I caught feelings. Prior to this I hadn't let myself have any for any girl for years on end and this was an unconcious way of freeing myself from my safe haven and prison with my anima alone to keep me female company. That was 2 years ago and I'm still with thr girl.

[Anonymous No.13612192]

>>13609075
Jung is much better as he has a much deeper understanding of humans. Jung thinks humans have atavistic depths. Freud thinks people are purely experience and have nothing more than what they have lived personally. Jung is more accurate and more profound.

[Anonymous No.13612222]

>>13612192
The conviction you can imagine what you haven't lived is literally what leads to psychosis (inability to distinguish between fantasy and senses).

Hallucination differs from real deal in that at the end of the day you can describe hallucination (it being based on your past) perfectly, while the real deal you can not.

[Anonymous No.13612229]

>>13609668
Here is someone with a take on Jung that is not hippie bullshit. Quite entertaining and good memes as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihOEz-y-Pg

[Anonymous No.13612235]

>>13608847
That's because he thought it would be used to discredit his work by the spiritually inept as is the nature of the scientific mind.

[Anonymous No.13612289]

>>13611276
What's her last initial?

[Anonymous No.13612332]

>>13609692
You literally just proved him right with what you say here, he says arrogant lricks who aggressively say you just doooonnttt understand maaannn