What does /lit/ think of Jung?

[Anonymous No.14183562]

[Anonymous No.14183564]

Archetypes-as-such and Archetypal images.

[Anonymous No.14183613]

>>14183562
He's dope. Not well understood without giving him more investigation than someone who isn't actively interested in him is likely to do. He also doesn't fit very neatly into any particular kind of popular intellectual channel. He's not concerned with the particular kind of empiricism that modern psychology is chasing, but he's also not quite a philosopher, although that's what he's most closely related to in my opinion. He's really his own thing, and totally worth reading. But it definitely helps to know some German philosophy

[Anonymous No.14183629]

i wonder how much of an outcast he must of been or felt like.still love him though

[Anonymous No.14183776]

>What do you think of Jung?
lol

[Anonymous No.14183794]

>>14183776
i was a biggest jung cock sucker in 2017 tbqh

[Anonymous No.14183839]

He abandoned Freud by falling for the religion meme and working on his idea of archetypes instead of seriously investigating or continuing the trends of late-stage Freud. As such, I say he is the most entertaining but least innovative successor to Freud, compared to someone like Lacan.

[Anonymous No.14183845]

>>14183839
Jung himself was a disciple of Sigmund Freud. And the reason they had to part was a very funny one. Sigmund Freud was very much afraid of ghosts. Even the word "ghost" was enough to make him go into a fit, and he would start foaming at the mouth. So every disciple knew that the word "ghost" was never to be mentioned before him. And this is the founder of psychoanalysis! These people are sick themselves. Because Jung continued to use the word "ghost," and three times made Freud go into a fit, that was too much. The third time, when he came out of the fit, Freud told Jung, "You just get lost! I don't want to hear anything that makes me sick."

But what is the fear in ghosts? Why is he so afraid - such trembling, such fear? And Freud was psychoanalyzing hundreds of people's dreams, but he never allowed any of his disciples to psychoanalyze his dreams. He himself was not psychoanalyzed. Strange_the founder should be available for his own method.

The reason is clear. Freud knew what his dreams were, and how he had been interpreting others' dreams - making everything symbolic of sexuality. If somebody sees a rocket in the dream, that is a phallic symbol. Anything! He was very clever at making symbols, interpreting them as your repressed sex. And that was the fear: because these disciples have become experts, now they will interpret his dreams as repressed sexuality - which he never wanted the world to know. But this is not the way of the seeker, the way of truth.

Psychotherapy's days are numbered

[Anonymous No.14183854]

>>14183776
What's wrong with him?

And bruh, how many fucking photos of Osho do you have?

>>14183794
Yea, I may not be as hardcore a Jungian as I was when I was younger but I still admire him and his work.

[Anonymous No.14183861]

Who's side are you on, son?

[Anonymous No.14183864]

>>14183839
Incorrect, Jung was the most different as well as revolutionary of Freud's disciples. Also "falling for the Religion meme" lol ok fedora. Obvious dumb materialist here.

>>14183845
Freud literally let Jung interpret his dreams, what are you on anon?

[Anonymous No.14183867]

>>14183854
>What's wrong with him?
i read too much osho, thats what happened.
>how many fucking photos of Osho do you have?
couple
>Yea, I may not be as hardcore a Jungian as I was when I was younger but I still admire him and his work.
dumbass never looked into his personal life. stay ignorant.

[Anonymous No.14183869]

>>14183861
Still not sure if that was a deconstruction of Jungianism but it most definitely wasn't an endorsement whether Kubrick liked Jung or not.

[Anonymous No.14183874]

>>14183864
>Freud literally let Jung interpret his dreams
link me or fuck off
>what are you on anon?
weed soon.

According to legend, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung once traveled together on a train, and during the journey Jung began to analyze Freud, probing deeper and deeper into the man's psyche in an attempt to pinpoint the origin of his neurosis. Freud was being his evasive self, so when Jung came to within a hair's breadth of Freud's essence, he impatiently asked Freud to reveal his innermost being, his true, real self.

"I cannot," Freud answered. "To do so would be to give up my authority."

At that, Jung sat back and sighed, "Then you have already lost it."

The real man is always ready to expose himself to the very core because he is not afraid. By saying: "I cannot expose my real self because to do so would be to give up my authority," Freud is simply saying that he is carrying a pseudo self around himself. He carried it his whole life. Although he was the originator of psychoanalysis he was never psychoanalyzed. Many times his disciples approached him and said, "We can psychoanalyze you," but he always refused. He was afraid.

This legend is very symbolic. Out of the fear of losing authority, he was afraid to expose himself as he was. But a real man of authority is never afraid of losing it. He cannot lose it; there is no way to lose it. This is the difference between a man of authority and an authoritative man. The authoritative man has no real authority; he is a pretender. The man of authority can expose himself absolutely because his authority is not something imposed from the outside; it is his very core, his experience, his authenticity.

Jung did well when he sat back and said, "Then you have already lost it."

It is said, that day was the beginning of the rift between Jung and Freud; later it could not be bridged again. I cannot say that only Jung was responsible for the rift; in fact, basically Freud himself was responsible. Freud was suffering from many kinds of neuroses but he would not allow himself to be analyzed.

[Anonymous No.14183882]

>>14183867
>i read too much osho, thats what happened.
Le not an argument.

>couple
>29
>77b
Lol.

>dumbass never looked into his personal life. stay ignorant.
I have anon, I didn't see anything extraordinarily wrong to make me discourage him or his works. Let me guess, you read the Aryan Christ by some kike that exaggerated and made up half of what was in that book and now you think you're an expert on him?

[Anonymous No.14183890]

>>14183874
>link me or fuck off
Where's yours pal? If you've ever actually read Jung's works/private letters and even some interviews you can see that both Freud and Jung talked about each others dreams.

>dude weed lmao
ok.

>According to legend, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung once traveled together on a train,
I've heard it, however I hope you did not mistake me for being a Freudian. I detest his theory.

[Anonymous No.14183921]

>>14183882
>Aryan Christ by some kike
what
>>14183890
its an osho link. u prolly dont want it
>off
>Where's yours pal? If you've ever actually read Jung's works/private letters
wouldn't trust those, they are prolly boring. you're gullible as shit. now link me or kys

[Anonymous No.14183933]

>>14183921
>>14183921
>wouldn't trust the private letters because they're boring
Apart from your retard attention span apparently defining truth, do you really think Jung is part of some grand conspiracy with Freud to state that he interpreted his dreams? Really?

[Anonymous No.14183937]

>>14183890
>I've heard it, however I hope you did not mistake me for being a Freudian

Sigmund Freud was obsessed, but continues to represent the whole Western attitude. That is why Carl Gustav Jung could not stay with him for long. The reason is simple; Jung's obsession was not sex but death. He needed a master in the East not the West. Yet such is the complexity of things that he was very proud of the West, so much so that when he visited India somebody suggested he should go and see Maharshi Ramana, who was still alive, but Jung did not go.

It was only one hour's flight away, and he went everywhere else. He was in India for months, but he had no time to go and see Maharshi Ramana. Again, the reason is simple: it needs guts to face a man like Ramana. He is a mirror. He will show you your real face. He will take away all your masks.

[Anonymous No.14183948]

>>14183933
>do you really think Jung is part of some grand conspiracy with Freud

Carl Gustav Jung was going to be his successor - Freud himself had chosen him - and he was a man of great intellectual possibilities. But he was too interested in ghosts - that was the reason he was thrown out of the psychoanalytic movement. Freud tried to prevent his talking about ghosts. He said, "Don't bring up that subject." He could not even mention the name of the subject - "that subject." But Jung was so interested that once in a while he would bring up the subject and the whole scene would be repeated.

Finally it was thought that Jung should be removed from the movement, and he was expelled. But he himself was not in a better position. He wanted to go to Egypt to see the old mummies of ancient queens and pharaohs - three thousand years old, four thousand years old. He was very much interested in how they were preserved, how they looked. He was interested in death - that's why he was interested in ghosts.

On the one hand he was interested in the mummies, and on the other hand he was afraid. It happens always: things you are very much fascinated with, you are also afraid of - because too much fascination means you are getting caught in something which may prove beyond your capacities, and you may end up in something you never wanted.

Ten times Jung booked a ticket to go to Egypt, and every time he would find some excuse not to go. He would fall sick, he would have a fever, and the ticket had to be canceled. And he knew perfectly well - he was a very keen observer - he knew perfectly well, "Why does it happen only when I book a ticket? Otherwise I am perfectly healthy - no fever, nothing. As the time comes closer, when I have to leave the next day, I cannot sleep the whole night, and in the morning I have fever. Just an excuse so nobody can say that I am postponing it."

https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/sigmund-freud-c.g.-jung-inconceivable-39b7da64-21d?p=514f5d9dac46961fc370e0eae964f5b3

[i'll come back when im on dude(...) No.14183952]

>>14183948
Once Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung, another great psychoanalyst, were traveling together from Europe to America to deliver lectures on psychoanalysis to many universities. And on the deck of the ship, Carl Gustav Jung mentioned death. Immediately Sigmund Freud fell on the ground.

And that was the reason Sigmund Freud expelled Jung from the psychoanalytic movement and he had to found another school. He called it analytical psychology. Just a different name, but it is the same process. But the reason for his expulsion was the mention of death.


https://www.osho.com/osho-online-library/osho-talks/sigmund-freud-c.g.-jung-zen-48ff9b89-a45?p=48a2fa7f4aea6d862e0a74bc4263120f

[Anonymous No.14183960]

>>14183937
Anon you're hallucinating, Jung's obsession was "death"? He isn't an edgy 12 year old for crying out loud. You are misrepresenting someone with a philosophical interest in the religious conception of death. And your whole story about Raman is completely made up. "Didn't have the guts" yea bullshit.

>>14183948
>Jung was expelled
Apart from everything else about Jung like you stating him being obsessed with ghosts(it is true he had an interest in parapsychology and the real validity of spiritual experiences but not an obsession) or Freud having a fit over ghosts or Jung being afraid of mummies. It just is plainly wrong saying Jung was expelled from the movement. You're practically shitposting at this point.

[Anonymous No.14183968]

>>14183960
>You're practically shitposting at this point.

yes i am nigger

Carl Gustav Jung was going to be his successor. Freud had already declared, "Jung is going to be my successor." And Jung was the most intelligent, scholarly, impressive, charismatic personality among all Freud's disciples, but there were a few things which were troublesome. One was that Jung was interested in ghosts; that was a constant trouble.

One day Sigmund Freud was sitting in his office with Jung in front of him; they were talking and somehow the topic of ghosts came up. Jung said, "Whatever you say, I still suspect that something like ghosts exists." Sigmund Freud became red with anger - and at that very time, in the cupboard behind, there was a sound almost like an explosion. Sigmund Freud fell from his seat.

Jung opened the cupboard: there was nothing. He closed it again, put the seat right, placed Freud there and said, "There is nothing. I don't know what happened, what caused this explosion." They started talking again, and again the ghost thing came up. Sigmund Freud said, "I don't believe in it and you stop talking about it" - and the explosion!

This was too much: Sigmund Freud fell into unconsciousness. And that was the breaking point. He simply informed Jung, "Either you drop me, or you drop your ghosts."

So knowledgeable, so much a pioneer, a great scientific mind_. But if you really know that there are no ghosts then there will be a different response. You will not fall unconscious, you will not fall from your seat. It is just knowledge, belief. Freud wants to believe that there are no ghosts, but deep down he is just an ordinary human being like anybody else, with all the fears.

Jung was not different either. He was interested in ghosts, but he was very much afraid of death. Now look at this strange thing. You are interested in ghosts; if you are really interested in ghosts, you should be interested in death too, because without death ghosts can't exist. A ghost is nothing but a man who was once in the body and is no more in the body. If you are interested in ghosts, you should be logically interested in death, in the very process of death.

But Jung was so afraid, more afraid than Sigmund Freud. Sigmund Freud at least had some excuse in the explosion to fall unconscious. Jung was so afraid that even the word death was enough. Thrice in his life he became unconscious just because the word death came into the conversation.

[Anonymous No.14183974]

read the red book over a four month pill binge this year & it's convinced me to begin dreamwork myself although I hopefully won't go completely insane

also some more recs from him, man and his symbols seems interesting

[Anonymous No.14183990]

>>
>>14183974
nice try nigger. jung got btfo by osho

[Anonymous No.14184005]

>>14183960
>Freud having a fit over ghosts
>Jung being afraid of mummies
I have never come across a single man whose psychoanalysis is complete. In fact, even Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, is an unpsychoanalyzed person. I have been trying to psychoanalyze him, and I am finding treasures. I would not have believed it if somebody had told me that Freud was so afraid of ghosts that even the word "ghost" was enough, and he would freak out.

Once he was talking to Jung, his most intimate follower at that time, who was very much interested in ghosts. Jung started talking about ghosts, and Sigmund Freud fainted. These are your founders of psychoanalysis. That was the point where Sigmund Freud and Jung parted. Jung could see, "This man, who cannot even listen to what I have to say about ghosts without fainting, is not going to be my master." And Sigmund Freud also realized, "This man is not going to be my successor." Sigmund Freud and Jung parted.

Listening to me, you may be thinking that Jung was very much more courageous than Sigmund Freud, because he was so interested in ghosts, but that is not true. He was interested in ghosts because he was very much afraid of death, and afraid of becoming a ghost!

[Anonymous No.14184010]

>>14183968
>yes i am nigger
Then why do you keep quoting Oshie? You're just exposing his stupidity.

[Anonymous No.14184013]

>>14183974
Man and his Symbols if very bad from my experience, it's written for the layman and as a result simplifies a lot of his concepts to sounding silly. He also only wrote the introduction so there's that. Read Modern Man in Search of a Soul for a beginners read, it's the best possible introduction. If you want more book recs ask.

I don't know what you were thinking reading the Red Book first.

[Anonymous No.14184014]

>>14184010
read nigger
>>14184005

[Anonymous No.14184028]

>>14184013

>I don't know what you were thinking reading the Red Book first.

a friend passed it on to me out the blue after I had been reading about it online so I took it as a sign to read it. will say I've never so deeply connected with a piece of writing or had it so acutely change my thinking as the red book did yet people always make out like I jumped in at some incomprehensible deep end

[Anonymous No.14184029]

>>14184028
dumb ass retard. its normal shit

[Anonymous No.14184042]

i literally just btfo all these jungian niggers

[Anonymous No.14184055]

>>14184005
>I have never come across a single man whose psychoanalysis is complete.
I have, Jung's. Though Psychoanalysis is far too particular and modern to ever be a "whole" system it is none the less a whole psychoanalysis(that is Jung's). For psychoanalysis on a whole to ever be "whole" it would have to incorporate the mode of general [unconscious conscious] 'being' which has been past down by Western civilisation and the European peoples themselves for so long, rather as an intrinsic character of the European peoples. For I cannot comment on the non-Europeans as it would only serve to complicate my statement further, and would be something I myself have not experienced.

This ideal of mans self subject/object (to look at himself as the object there of and attain it/'s Grail) completion.

[Anonymous No.14184068]

>>14184014
I did nigger.

>>14184028
I'm not saying it was the wrong choice, as signs matter and I most definitely follow them intuitively, as well as lay my own life out upon intuition. However in the general sense of the ideal way to act around the writings of Jung it would of been better if you had read at least the majority of his works prior. None the less it's an amazing book that can, or rather should be understood both from the Jungian psychoanalytical perspective as well as the traditionalist Idealist perspective as I very partially lay out within>>14184055 . Though it is a far more complex idea which I have been thinking on so do not take this as a summary, only an explanation.

[Anonymous No.14184071]

>>14184042
ok.

[Anonymous No.14184077]

>>14184055
Wrong. Just read this bro.

https://endofthegame.net/2012/01/24/oshos-critique-on-western-psychology/

[Anonymous No.14184110]

>>14184077
Read>>14184055

And where's my check em?

[Anonymous No.14184122]

>>14184110
checked
>>14184055
>For psychoanalysis on a whole to ever be "whole" it would have to incorporate the mode of general [unconscious conscious] 'being


I don't place much value on Freud and Jung because my attitude is on how to drop the mind. It can be dropped, and it takes less time to drop it, it is easier to drop it. In fact, it can be dropped without anybody's help.

The East stumbled upon this fact about five thousand years ago. They must have interpreted because in ancient Eastern books there are interpretations of dreams. I have not come across a single new discovery that has not already been discovered in the East somewhere in the past. Even Freud and Jung are nothing new. It is a rediscovering of old territory. Interpreting must have been discovered in the East, but at the same time they discovered that you can go on interpreting the mind and there is no end to it: it goes on dreaming, it goes on creating new dreams again and again.

In fact, no psychoanalysis is ever complete. Even after five years, it is not complete. No psychoanalysis can ever be complete because the mind goes on weaving new dreams. You go on interpreting, it goes on weaving new dreams. It has infinite capacity; it is very creative, very imaginative. It ends only when life ends, or it ends with meditation if you take the jump and die on your own. Death is needed for the mind, not analysis. And if the death of the mind is possible, what is the point of analyzing it? Analyzing and self-realization are two absolutely different things, and you have to be aware of that. Jung and Freud are geniuses gone astray: great intellects, but wasting their time. The problem is they discovered so many things about the mind, but they themselves couldn't use it. And that should be the criterion.

[Anonymous No.14184135]

>>14184122
>checked
Based.

>I don't place much value on Freud and Jung because my attitude is on how to drop the mind. It can be dropped, and it takes less time to drop it, it is easier to drop it. In fact, it can be dropped without anybody's help.
That was part of my point about psychoanalysis being a particularly modern "ism". None the less there is nothing wrong with placing the centre of choice in the mind, or psyche, in the brain, or whatever the cranial region. Rather it's quite natural.

[Anonymous No.14184144]

>>14184135
dude why u hate osho?

[Anonymous No.14184216]

>>14184144
cause he gay

and checked; because I give checks to anons that deserve it.

[Anonymous No.14184263]

>>14184144
Probably because he was an exhypnotist turned hack cult leader who, due to spiritual naviety and inexperience in the west bamboozled them and took them for a ride. Just look at everything you post dude, he comes off as a true narc, disparging everyone he comments on.

[Anonymous No.14184272]

>>14183562
He basically just took magic and reworded it under the guise of a psychological system that could appeal to both naturalism and idealistic philosophy. But he's definitely the best psychologist, and I'm a fan of his works.

[Anonymous No.14184278]

>>14184216
how is he gay when he fucked 200 girls
>>14184263
you sound like a fat fuck

[Anonymous No.14184294]

>>14183968
>One day Sigmund Freud was sitting in his office with Jung in front of him; they were talking and somehow the topic of ghosts came up. Jung said, "Whatever you say, I still suspect that something like ghosts exists." Sigmund Freud became red with anger - and at that very time, in the cupboard behind, there was a sound almost like an explosion. Sigmund Freud fell from his seat.Jung opened the cupboard: there was nothing. He closed it again, put the seat right, placed Freud there and said, "There is nothing. I don't know what happened, what caused this explosion." They started talking again, and again the ghost thing came up. Sigmund Freud said, "I don't believe in it and you stop talking about it" - and the explosion!This was too much: Sigmund Freud fell into unconsciousness. And that was the breaking point. He simply informed Jung, "Either you drop me, or you drop your ghosts."

Dying over here, this is almost as good as the fake Wittgenstein memoirs

[Anonymous No.14184295]

>>14184278
Haha and you sound like a little sniveling contrarian faggot xp

[Anonymous No.14184298]

>>14184278
>how is he gay when he fucked 200 girls
200 girls, 200 men, what's the difference when ur gai.

>you sound like a fat fuck
haha

he wasn't me btw.

[Anonymous No.14184307]

>>14184298
Osho is pre gai, not as gai as neo osho fags who drink the kool-aid nearly 30 years after Rajneesh died a disgrace lol

[Anonymous No.14184338]

>>14184307
lol hahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaahahahahahahahahaahaahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.14184352]

>>14184338
Whens the last time u got so booty blasted? Sometime after ur dime bag hustler of a guru got dead? When that netlix doco pissed on his corpse? Xp

[Anonymous No.14184384]

>>14184352
I hate Oshie, what are you talking about? I've benis arguing with that Oshie pic psoter for the whole thread

I WAS IN THE THREAD WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN WICH! I AM THE OP!!!

[Anonymous No.14184407]

>>14183874
You can find all that in the Jung movie...

[Anonymous No.14184495]

>>14184122
wtf are you trying to prove? freud literally kicked out jung from his circle. jung is a pseudo-psychoanalyst, retroactively a new age obscurantist. you better read 'the secret' instead.

jung's thinking as a whole, similar to spinoza's 'feminine' god, reject the ultimate phallic effect as instability and meaningless in itself, the non-interpret-able 'x'. so instead, the world collapse on itself as ever-meddling mud without absolute boundaries of entities; symbols are from unconsciousness, unconsciousness are from past experiences, past experiences from myths and astrology and all over again.

[Anonymous No.14184521]

>>14184495
But could that not be said to be of mans experience, and that in woman's from her totally unknowable perception to ourselves -- as men -- finds the defining of the 'x' in the masculine? Never the less your ultra-attribution of this to the feminine alone gives way to something highly beautiful and relatory to mans relative experience asserting itself by its opposite as only possibly can be be existent dreamed in the romance of the tragedy.

Though this part
>so instead, the world collapse on itself as ever-meddling mud without absolute boundaries of entities; symbols are from unconsciousness, unconsciousness are from past experiences, past experiences from myths and astrology and all over again.
I only understand from the intuitively aesthetic stance and fail to see a systematic process, yet by this intuition know one to be there. Could you extrapolate as though you explain yourself here I feel there is also much to be said on this systemised understanding of the world-history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z417pTeaCws&feature=emb_title

[Anonymous No.14185562]

>>14183968
I've read some of Jung, and Jung actually spoke about their professional separation and why their friendship ended. Freud only ever touched upon it briefly it seems. Neither of them mentioned something as fake and gay as this. Please stop posting your retarded faggoted Osha shit and your made up history with Jung. You are not even a psued at this point, just shut the fuck up man.

[Anonymous No.14185574]

>>14185562
Literally every single one of Jung's patients killed themselves. None of them lived to tell the story.

[Anonymous No.14185575]

>>14183562
somatotypes > archetypes

[Anonymous No.14185729]

>>14185574
Jung only spoke of a few of his patients and most died from natural causes. Wolfgang Pauli died of cancer, Sabina Spielrein died in the war, etc. In fact you haven't said a single god damn thing that is true ITT. Just shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.14185745]

>>14185575
You have to wonder if this was spontaneous or not.

[Anonymous No.14186582]

>>14183562
He may have had too much fun

[Anonymous No.14186850]

>>14186582
Looking extremely mischievous here.

[Anonymous No.14188301]

interesting but kind of a faggot

[Anonymous No.14188302]

>>14183845
literally afraid of spooks

[Anonymous No.14188306]

>>14188302
>Only individuals

Only "I" am real.

[Anonymous No.14188324]

>>14183869
>“If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded.”
That's a quote from Kubrick that should answer your question.

[Anonymous No.14188328]

>>14186850
it's just how he rolled, he banged all of his female proteges.

[Anonymous No.14188334]

>tfw no-one mentions Assagioli or psychosynthesis

[Anonymous No.14188457]

>>14183776
Rajneesh is a known swindler and charlatan.

[Anonymous No.14188492]

>>14188334
Redpill me on Assagioli, Psychosynthesis seems based

[Anonymous No.14188612]

>>14188324
I think you misunderstood my post, I was not saying that Kubrick did not endorse Jung, I was simply saying that he didn't put Jung in that film as an endorsement. Kubrick is better than that. And so it must of been there to further describe the world, but in this case the protagonist and the general.

However in regards to that quote I think he failed for this film, as it most definitely does not stir to the aesthetic level of the religious in which the likes of Wagner goes far beyond. His closest film which does so in an obviously systematic sense would be A Space Odyssey considering the common themes and ideas such as rebirth and the likes. I'll explain more simply; the movie has a "conclusion", a psychologically meaningful one and so has brought back some sort of aesthetic revelation to the psyche by its common motifs and images. The problem being that it lacks the correct spirituality of the genuine. And so even that lacks the correct spiritual achievement.

Which, is why I would state his Barry Lyndon to be his greatest film, the film itself all throughout has such genuine "meaning" to it, in the way that though some parts may be a bit simplistic it has a continual presentation of a truth, from the beginning, to the end in which it achieves that psychological, and greater than that, spiritual effect of a conclusion. But the true authenticity of each moment characterises this psychological recursion(the aesthetic has achieved itself and returned to the psyche from which it was created; the psyche creating something for itself)while still remaining within that systematic overhaul of a mans -- that is in this story's case -- rise and fall. Though as I did say prior its often simplicity in point can bring down the overarching structure to its actual experience, not something bad, it just can tend to do that some times. However at all peaks of this film, start, middle and end, it never fails to go beyond this simplicity to the story of a man, not a mans story. The greatest tragedy here is that we never got a movie about Captain Potzdorf.

I guess, although almost all of Kubrick's films were great, only Barry Lyndon really achieved in breaking away from his Jewish heritage.

[Anonymous No.14188616]

>>14188334
>tfw no one mentions Daseinanalysis

[Anonymous No.14188636]

>>14188612
>The greatest tragedy here is that we never got a movie about Captain Potzdorf.
Hallo

[Anonymous No.14188921]

>>14183562
Is oshoposting the new guenonposting?

[Anonymous No.14188926]

>>14188921
I think so, but at least Guenon actually had some valuable things to say sometimes.

[Anonymous No.14189020]

bump

[Anonymous No.14189050]

>>14188921
No because I think guenonposts are made by more than one faggot, unlike that Oshoshill

[Anonymous No.14189069]

>>14183776
Why us this guy being shilled

[Anonymous No.14189072]

>>14183613
what do you think about the mystical angles of his work, concerning the red book and the collective unconscious?

[Anonymous No.14189079]

>>14189069
Part shitposting(as you can see in the thread), part just some guy who partly enjoys his thoughts.

[Anonymous No.14189087]

>>14183974
what pills were you bingin?

[Anonymous No.14189092]

>>14184028
i'm with you here, i'm glad his writings managed to grab you and affect you during this part of your life