/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16863656]

What is /lits opinion on C.G.Jung?
Could he predict the future?
Are myths a collective unconscious way to show reality?
Does our Aion end soon?

[Anonymous No.16863754]

>>16863656
Built for BBC

[Anonymous No.16863779]

>>16863754
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.16864301]

>>16863754
>>16863779
cringe and reddit

[Anonymous No.16864964]

>>16863656
>could he predict the future?
yes
>does our aion end soon?
yes, synchronistically linked to the major conjunction between jupiter and saturn occurring on the winter solstice this year, seriously.

[Anonymous No.16864991]

>>16864964
>yes, synchronistically linked to the major conjunction between jupiter and saturn occurring on the winter solstice this year, seriously.
How are you so certain it's this year? Still, preddy scary that the technocratic satanic elites are gaining control over the Aquarian age.

[Anonymous No.16865332]

>>16864991
The star of bethlehem heralding the birth of christ was allegedly the saturn/jupiter conjunction in the sign of pisces occuring in 7BC. This year it is in the sign of aquarius, and on the solstice... Of course the collective psychological shift is gradual rather than a definite line in the sand, but synchronistic cosmological events provide interesting markers. But all that aside, 2020 has been fucked and it feels palpable that there has been a collective shift in consciousness during these unprecedented times, in one form or another.

[Anonymous No.16865395]

>>16865332
A shift in ages always causes a stir; but we have to determine whether they are growing pains, or the pangs of death.

But I would like to know where you got the sauce for the connection between saturn/jupiter and Christ's birthday. Not to knock you with "muh proof", but I do just want an origin.

In any event, even if it only has an origin in the folk mind, making that connection, there should be at least some significance to it; or could be. For the same reasons Nietzsche's hugging of the horse, and Aristotle's riding by the woman are culturally significant, though one of a reaction to the person of Nietzsche, and the other as a pseudo-historical reaction to the intellectualism of the day, personified who better by than Aristotle. They are natural interpretations par excellence.

[Anonymous No.16865500]

>>16865395
Not him, but read Aion.

[Anonymous No.16865508]

>>16865395
Edward Edinger talks about the conjunction in his Aion lectures I believe. Its probably something only esoteric Jungians discuss though, I haven't verified any other historians perspectives lol.

But yes, Jungs secret visions of apocalypse feel closer than ever. The aquarian conjunction of opposites will occur, the christian split between good and evil will dissolve, but will it be brought about by great destruction? And will it be too late?

[Anonymous No.16865554]

>>16865508
>The aquarian conjunction of opposites will occur, the christian split between good and evil will dissolve
This is likely true, but I see no truth wherein those mighty moral developments are not transmuted into it. Like is very obviously comparable in Heidegger, when looking at the lesser known (but now, still very known) influence of Schelling (who of course had a radical dualism of good and evil).

[Anonymous No.16865620]

>>16865554
Exactly. In Jungian Alchemical terms it will be a conscious integration of the purified opposites, rather than a falling back into the unconscious "prima materia" state.

[Anonymous No.16865630]

>>16864301
>cringe and reddit

[Anonymous No.16865650]

>>16864301
This.

>>16863656
>Could he predict the future?
Yes and no, because "predicting the future" isn't really an active faculty at your disposal at your will, or that's how it seems to me. It's more or less a spontaneous and cryptic/symbolic image (often a dream), the content of which is dictated by the collective unconscious. The meaning of those visions or dreams become discernible mostly in retrospect, so seeing prophetic dreams doesn't do you much good anyway.

>Are myths a[nd] collective unconscious way to show reality?
Depends on how you mean it.

>Does our Aion end soon?
Dunno.

[Anonymous No.16865709]

>>16865508
>>16865554
Read Jung.

[Anonymous No.16865736]

>>16865620
Very based, but what will come? How new and how different to our current, who knows.

What new religion Heidegger predicted will there be? As he said himself, "the greatness of which is to be thought is too great for us today."

[Anonymous No.16866764]

>>16863656
He is seemingly only becoming more right as time goes on

[Anonymous No.16866770]

>>16865332
succint and based thanks

[Anonymous No.16867682]

>>16865620
Dion Fortune, Head of the Fraternity of the Inner Light and a reader of Jung wrote in her war letters that WW1 was the pains of the death of the Piscean age and that WW2 was the birth pangs of the Aquarian age. In her letter dated April 26th 1942 she writes "Aquarius is the breaker of barriers, the disturber, the bringer of new influences and impulses."

[Anonymous No.16868189]

>>16867682
Sounds legit... Do you have any recs on where to start with her work?

[Anonymous No.16869068]

>>16864991
Le great reset time

[Anonymous No.16869074]

>>16865332
I'd say the largest shift in living memory would have been the end of the second world war, and the events proceeding it

[Anonymous No.16869231]

>>16864964
Sorry, I'm a neophyte, but doesn't the idea of predicting causal outcomes from synchronous coincidences like the alignment of astral bodies go against the basic principle of synchronicity as acausal, meaningful coincidence?
In other words, if there's a replicatable causal connection between astral bodies and the collective psychology of the masses then we ought to be able to study and replicate it; it becomes science rather than theory at that point.

[Anonymous No.16869245]

>>16869231
>... study and replicate it;
Study and reproduce*

[Anonymous No.16869410]

>>16869231
What makes you think that the connection is causal?

[Anonymous No.16869420]

>>16869410
Perhaps causality is the wrong term to use, but a phenomenon is predictable and replicatable, even foreseeable, how can it be a meaningful coincidence? Or a coincidence at all?
Surely there must be some regulatory law to ascribe to or derive from it, which to me suggests causality.

[Anonymous No.16869562]

>>16869420
Well, the planetary alignments might be foreseeable, but the psychological events are not as clear cut. Does the meaning stem from the planets or from psyche? Seeing as dreams and the moon tend to coincide, are we to assume that dreams are caused by the moon? They might well be, but not in any ordinary sense of "caused".

[Anonymous No.16870282]

>>16869068
Pls no.

[Anonymous No.16870526]

>>16863656
Genuine mystic

[Anonymous No.16872067]

>>16868189
I've only read 'The Magical Battle of Britain.' I commend it to you.

[Anonymous No.16872111]

>>16869562
Go back to /x schizo.

[Anonymous No.16872188]

>>16872111
Go back to /sci naïve materialist.

[Anonymous No.16872227]

>>16872188
FUCK YAAAS I LOVE OCCULTISM IT'S SO BASED AND REDPILLED!!!

[Anonymous No.16872259]

>>16863656
Prove the unconscious even exists.

Psychology is shit.

[Anonymous No.16872277]

>>16863656
Subversive bastard who crippled many traditional ideas by rehashing them as modernist psychoanalytical garbage.
>>16872259
>prove the conscious exists
>prove that sensory impressions exist
>prove that the material world exists
OH NO NO NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.16872280]

>>16872277
I am.

[Anonymous No.16872311]

>>16872277
Understanding religious phenomenon as products of the psyche is the only way to talk about them without sounding like a complete retard. You should be kissing Jung's ass for giving even a shred of credibility to your occult bullshit. Without him all your meme beliefs like astrology, alchemy, and God would be in the dustbin of history.

[Anonymous No.16872337]

jung is new age. he also subverted all that had value as a product of the unconscious which is sacrilege. the unconscious is not the highest part of the mind but the lowest.

do not reply to me, jungians

[Anonymous No.16872343]

>>16872227
The anon isn't talking about Occultism (though that does have its value to be looked into sometimes), he's just talking about observable and recordable phenomena.

[Anonymous No.16872353]

>>16872337
well yes that is why it's called the sub

[Anonymous No.16872362]

I read every single books of his when I browsed reddit, lived in a capital city and thought women rights were a thing. never got to read the ufo book though, its the only one i havent touched

Now I live in the forest and I can see Jungian psychology for the satanic effort it really is

[Anonymous No.16872365]

>>16872277
>Subversive bastard who crippled many traditional ideas by rehashing them as modernist psychoanalytical garbage.
Not at all, he said his main aim was to provide an adequate frame of perception to understand these essential things in the future harder times. Though undoubtedly he did just like the knowledge of research in these things, he never "rejected" traditional metaphysics or religious worldviews in place of a psychological one.

This is a misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.16872372]

Guénon gets discussed but nobody ever mentions Wolfgang Smith and his dismantling of jungian psychology.

[Anonymous No.16872373]

>>16872362
>Now I live in the forest and I can see Jungian psychology for the satanic effort it really is
tell us more about it. guenon calls analytical psychology satanic too

[Anonymous No.16872378]

>>16872337
>it's a Freudian
Retard.

[Anonymous No.16872387]

>>16872277
>Understanding religious phenomenon as products of the psyche is the only way to talk about them without sounding like a complete retard.
The fact you think it's a product of the psyche and not the other way around makes Jung and genuine spiritualism mutually incompatible.
>Without him all your meme beliefs like astrology, alchemy
Who cares.
>and God would be in the dustbin of history.
Hahahaha give me a fucking break, no one would dare turn to JUNG of all people to validate their belief in a God! The very Jungian conception of God is inherently an atheistic one!

[Anonymous No.16872395]

>>16872372
>Wolfgang Smith
Interested, tell me more please.

[Anonymous No.16872402]

>>16872378
i'm not. psychology is jewish psyop science. for a critique against freud everyone should read his former associate rudolf allers

[Anonymous No.16872452]

>>16872280
That's what I would say, too. That's subjective proof, though - it's not objective at all.
>>16872311
Kind of correct, I am thankful to Jung for serving as a gateway to the Traditionalists. Unfortunately, in many cases he acts as a roadblock instead.
>>16872365
What he did was reduce traditional metaphysics to a purely naturalistic and Darwinian plane. In other words, he retained the form without any of the essential content.
>>16872387
You tagged the wrong guy, anon. Although dismissing Alchemy is a pretty plebeian take, I must admit.

[Anonymous No.16872487]

>>16872452
>alchemy
Factually irrelevant precursor to chemistry.

[Anonymous No.16872488]

>>16872373
>>16872395
The shadow is nothing more than the attempt at sacralizing evil. I never put much thought into it at the time, I thought the shadow was a second rate concept of his. Thing is, the jungian world is obsessed with the shadows, look at jungian works, jungian forums etc... it seems the main appeal of Jung nowadays is his work on the shadow. This can't be coincidental so I looked into diverging perspectives on jungian psych.

https://archive.org/details/pdfy-8rVQ3zCB6UcGCBny/page/n121/mode/2up read this quick chapter by Smith on the deification of the unconscious. Smith has some insights overall but it's either quantum physics phd tier explanation which I don't understand or superficial stuff.

[Anonymous No.16872513]

>>16872487
What'd I tell you? Plebeian take. Alchemical texts are just a coded manual to inner transformation lol. None of it is about actual materials and scientific operations.

[Anonymous No.16872524]

>>16872488
>the shadow is nothing more than the attempt at sacralizing evil.
yes. im not as versed on jung but the whole "shadow integration" seemed shady.

people who get into jung adhere to his stuff as dogmatic. i had a very precious friend who fell for his traps. it is a cult in the end

[Anonymous No.16872542]

>>16872524
I think integrating the Shadow should refer to accepting parts of yourself that are repressed, but not necessarily "evil" in the objective sense. Though certainly no distinction is drawn in Jungian psychology between the repression of just anything and the repression of evil elements of the (sub)personality.

[Anonymous No.16872549]

>>16872280
Speak for your own conscious

[Anonymous No.16872741]

>>16872452
>What he did was reduce traditional metaphysics to a purely naturalistic and Darwinian plane. In other words, he retained the form without any of the essential content.
That's ridiculous, you don't know what you're talking about and you didn't even reply to what I said.

Jung is providing a frame of reference, which is no more "darwinian" than Nietzsche. At the very least, he made unique developments in thought which cannot be denied.

[Anonymous No.16872832]

>>16872513
>Alchemical texts are just a coded manual to inner transformation lol.
Yes, schizo occultist autism.
>None of it is about actual materials and scientific operations.
Of course not, that's why there's a separation between alchemy and chemistry in the first place midwit.

[Anonymous No.16872872]

>>16872741
You are actually a perfect example of the way Jung obfuscated traditional metaphysics. You have such a poor understanding of them that you don't even see what's wrong, since Jung is your ONLY frame of reference.
Here's the issue: Jung reduces myth, religion and tradition to a product of the biological human collective. He takes the perspective of the mass - both material-naturalistic mass and the numerical mass. Evolutionary drive rather than divine inspiration directs everything. The unconscious is the true source of the conscious. According to Jung, the higher is derived from the lower, not vice versa. This is complete overturn of traditional metaphysics. The Jungian worldview leaves some room for Mystery, but this Mystery is thoroughly and totally profane - there is nothing divine in it.

>Jung is providing a frame of reference, which is no more "darwinian" than Nietzsche. At the very least, he made unique developments in thought which cannot be denied.

Nietzsche isn't exactly a paragon of traditionalism himself. Some traditionalist authors have done some good work in rehabilitating him and some of his ideas, but much of the rest of his work is subversive.

[Anonymous No.16872895]

>>16872832
"Schizo occultism" didn't even exist at the time alchemy was a thing, lmao. Do you think the Neoplatonists were schizo occultists too, bro? Since they practised ceremonial magic and all other sorts of stuff?
>Of course not, that's why there's a separation between alchemy and chemistry in the first place midwit.
>if I restate exactly what you said but in a condescending manner and then call you a midwit, it makes me look smart
Sad!

[Anonymous No.16873007]

>>16872872
No retard, I just see a use for Jung-- how could you not? If you take Jung as absolute, then obviously yes, not to mention that the value which exists in these religions exists independentantly by themselves and not in the theory of a psychology, but as he said himself he's not asserting anything absolute, he's just providing a frame of reference. I don't actually look at God as something psychological, I'm probably closest to someone like Heidegger if you want to articulate it, but again, you just don't understand Jung.

I agree there are too many youths who just know Jung and nothing else, but it's better him than nothing at all.

>Jung reduces myth, religion and tradition to a product of the biological human collective.
Blatantly false, it isn't biological. But no one can deny that if we have a different genetic makeup ; the phenomenological is all that you must appreciate here to see that Jung is not a modern materialist as you wrongly think. That's ridiculous, when he was fighting against materialism so much. Just take Heidegger's early interpretation of Christianity and its history phenomenologically, rather than theologically, but at that point he still strictly believed in a Christian God (he never ceased believing in God, but it transformed significantly enough to not call him a Christian anymore). Phenomenology (what Jung is doing) is not opposed to traditional spiritual ideas.

>Evolutionary drive rather than divine inspiration directs everything. The unconscious is the true source of the conscious.
Again, a complete misunderstanding. I will post some quotes in a second that may help explain.

>Nietzsche isn't exactly a paragon of traditionalism himself.
I'm aware, that's why I chose him, but the point being that he is by no means a modern materialist. Jung is a modern, he must work within his times nonetheless, and his use has and no doubt will be undeniable. But as I also said, he made many unique developments in Western philosophy which will have a positive effect on future generations ever more. It can have a negative effect, but so can anything in misunderstanding. If the positive is ideally what is always left, in the positive discourse of the future, he will have had an effect.

CONT

[Anonymous No.16873015]

>>16872872
>“The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of his life. Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite can we avoid fixing our interests upon futilities, and upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance. Thus we demand that the world grant us recognition for qualities which we regard as personal possessions: our talent or our beauty. The more a man lays stress on false possessions, and the less sensitivity he has for what is essential, the less satisfying is his life. He feels limited because he has limited aims, and the result is envy and jealousy. If we understand and feel that here in this life we already have a link with the infinite, desires and attitudes change.”
Or
>“All that is outside, also is inside,” we could say with Goethe. But this “inside,” which modern rationalism is so eager to derive from “outside,” has an a priori structure of its own that antedates all conscious experience. It is quite impossible to conceive how “experience” in the widest sense, or, for that matter, anything psychic, could originate exclusively in the outside world. The psyche is part of the inmost mystery of life, and it has its own peculiar structure and form like every other organism. Whether this psychic structure and its elements, the archetypes, ever “originated” at all is a metaphysical question and therefore unanswerable. The structure is something given, the precondition that is found to be present in every case. And this is the mother, the matrix—the form into which all experience is poured.
??? These are traditional mystical concepts, if anything(and of course that is not all Jung is), and figures like Plato or functionally similar have said the same for that reason. And as for any overarching spiritual ideal, for Jung it was to help man in his modern lifeless, belief-less despair, to save him from that, unlike his father.

[Anonymous No.16873112]

>>16873007
>No retard, I just see a use for Jung
So do I - that's how I was introduced to Traditionalism. This doesn't somehow make any of the things you say not wrong, because they are.
>I'm probably closest to someone like Heidegger if you want to articulate it, but again, you just don't understand Jung.
Not a fan of Heidegger either, if I have to be frank.
>but it's better him than nothing at all.
Not necessarily, since they get all these fallacious preconceived notions and don't necessarily progress beyond Jung. I dislike Heidegger, but they'd be much better off reading him, since he's one of the few non-left existentialists.
>he phenomenological is all that you must appreciate here to see that Jung is not a modern materialist as you wrongly think.
The phenomenon in this case is specifically attributed to undifferentiated biological mass; to matter. He's not a dry, 17th century rationalist clown, if that's what you are referring to, but few people still are today.
>Phenomenology (what Jung is doing) is not opposed to traditional spiritual ideas.
Conceptually, yes. In the Jungian case? It is. I can't speak for Heidegger, but from what I know, his framework is far more open to traditionalist interpretation rather than Jung.
>I'm aware, that's why I chose him, but the point being that he is by no means a modern materialist.
This is really difficult, because that's precisely what he is - Nietzsche is a naturalist and the father of modernism. I know what you are referring to here, but the language you are using is completely inappropriate.
>>16873015
The issue here is that this "infinite" is defined in quantitative terms - it is the infinite of the "collective unconscious", not the infinite of the One (the hierarchical superconscious). In a sense, it's the ideal liberal-democratic form of metaphysics. This is also why it's wrong. Do you see what I mean? The obfuscation is very subtle, but also crucial and nevertheless really extant.

[Anonymous No.16873377]

>>16872452
Anon you have to understand Jung comes from a different tradition than the traditional metaphysicians. Starting with Schopenhauer, an effort was made to reformulate and make sense of traditional metaphysics in light of the limitations of knowledge drawn by Kant. That Jung is an empirical psychologist does not imply that he believes there is nothing but empirical psychology. He frequently acknowledges that many of the ideas he discusses psychologically also have a higher, metaphysical reality (which is not his domain of research). And if you want empirical metaphysics, Schopenhauer would tell you the truths he discusses have a reality higher than empirical (though he is only interested in conveying them empirically). So here we see that these men who are trying to make sense of higher realities by empirical means are attacked on two fronts: by materialist bugmen and by metaphysicians who favor the methods of the past. In reality though, the difference between Jung and Traditionalists is the difference of method and not of aim. This antagonism is uncalled for.

[Anonymous No.16873465]

>>16873377
This would be a valid point to make, if Jung's systems were formulated as an expression of higher metaphysical principles on a lower, non-metaphysical plane. This is not so, as I explained to another anon in this thread. The Jungian system is deliberately antitraditional, because it takes as its point of reference a collective, unconscious and quantitative perspective. In every way, this is a total inversion of traditionalist metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.16873581]

>>16873465
I take it this is your concern:
>Here's the issue: Jung reduces myth, religion and tradition to a product of the biological human collective. He takes the perspective of the mass - both material-naturalistic mass and the numerical mass. Evolutionary drive rather than divine inspiration directs everything. The unconscious is the true source of the conscious. According to Jung, the higher is derived from the lower, not vice versa. This is complete overturn of traditional metaphysics.
If this is so, I believe there is a misunderstanding. Of course, as an empricist you would have to start "from the mass", or better said, pure experience. Starting elsewhere would mean not to be an empiricist. Similarly, the One (or whatever you call it), as Schopenhauer showed, manifests itself in the empirical realm as the evolutionary drive (or the Will in Schopenhauer's terms, or Libido in Jung's), but it is emphasized that this is the empirical manifestation and not the metaphysical reality. This is also not so that the unconscious is derived from the conscious. Rather, the conscious is taken as the epistemological basis with the aim of knowing the unconscious. Jung and other empiricists of the sort give epistemological priority to experience, but metaphysical priority is given to the unconscious.

[Anonymous No.16873611]

>>16873581
>Of course, as an empricist you would have to start "from the mass", or better said, pure experience.
This does not necessarily imply materialism as you seem to suggest.
>Starting elsewhere would mean not to be an empiricist.
Not by modern "scientific" standards. That much I can admit.
>Similarly, the One (or whatever you call it), as Schopenhauer showed, manifests itself in the empirical realm as the evolutionary drive (or the Will in Schopenhauer's terms, or Libido in Jung's), but it is emphasized that this is the empirical manifestation and not the metaphysical reality. This is also not so that the unconscious is derived from the conscious. Rather, the conscious is taken as the epistemological basis with the aim of knowing the unconscious. Jung and other empiricists of the sort give epistemological priority to experience, but metaphysical priority is given to the unconscious.
This is incompatible with traditional metaphysics. From the Traditional point of view, the unconscious has nothing of value to provide for us. The focus of Traditional metaphysics is always the highest point, not the lowest. The contrast between the One and the Many is one succinct way to demonstrate the contrast between the Traditional and Jungian point of view.

[Anonymous No.16873686]

>>16863656
Last night I had a dream of the apocalypse. I took it on myself to steal a mech suit from my old neighbor and travel to Tokyo to the site where an alien invasion would begin. The shores of Japan could be seen from San Fransisco. It was my job to close the portal, but when I arrived at the site I could see that the destruction had already begun to take place. I did not know how to close the portal, and the invasion began. Japan was destroyed. Huge waves carried the destruction and debris across the shores to San Fransisco. I watched the sea carry away infrastructure and collapse buildings, and I knew that the end of modernity was upon us.

Then I found my Qtard mother who kept saying "We have to wait for the election results in Georgia. Trump could still win this!" And then I woke up.

Godzilla is coming for us.

[Anonymous No.16873698]

>>16873611
>This does not necessarily imply materialism as you seem to suggest.
I don't suggest that empiricism means materialism, quite otherwise. But the starting point of empiricism is direct experience, which is very close to matter.
>This is incompatible with traditional metaphysics. From the Traditional point of view, the unconscious has nothing of value to provide for us.
According to Schopenhauer (which I take Jung is following), the unconscious is source of the One. When Schopenhauer was looking for a way to penetrate the thing-in-itself, he realized the only "thing" he could know from the inside was precisely himself. By this I don't mean the inward experience (which is still the realm of phenomena), but the willing and striving that originates behind this seeming veil. This willing is, so to speak, the thing-in-itself, or in other words the One. But if you object to volition as a way of knowing the One, I should remind you that this is not exclusive to these empirical metaphysics. Willing as a way of knowing the One is also recognized in Sufi traditions and also in Buddhism, and probably other traditions that I'm not aware of. Again, as I said, the antagonism is uncalled for.

[Anonymous No.16873718]

>>16873698
>According to Schopenhauer (which I take Jung is following), the unconscious is source of the One.
Yeah, well, that's wrong.
>When Schopenhauer was looking for a way to penetrate the thing-in-itself, he realized the only "thing" he could know from the inside was precisely himself.
Is the Self unconsciousness itself? I wouldn't say so.
>Willing as a way of knowing the One is also recognized in Sufi traditions and also in Buddhism, and probably other traditions that I'm not aware of. Again, as I said, the antagonism is uncalled for.
That's a very different thing from the unconscious. Refer to the second response I made here: >>16873112
Instead of moving up towards the One, engaging with the subconscious moves us further away.

[Anonymous No.16873770]

>>16873718
>Is the Self unconsciousness itself? I wouldn't say so.
Yes, the Self is the collective unconscious. When we are born and gain consciousness, we are differentiated from the One. The goal is to return to the Self. Notice that Jung's term for enlightenment is the integration of the Self, which means bringing into consciousness everything that is unconscious, which also includes the knowledge of Oneness with the world. I think the point of disagreement is that you view the unconscious as something below the conscious, while I view it as something above. I have put forth my reasoning for this, maybe you could provide your counter-reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16873782]

>>16873718
>Yeah, well, that's wrong.
Also, how is it wrong?

[Anonymous No.16873984]

>>16872111
Maybe you should leave the thread if this line of thought is too much for you to handle.

[Anonymous No.16874022]

>>16873770
Knowledge, by definition, can not be unconscious. To know something, you need to be conscious of it. If the standard mode of consciousness is insufficient to know the One, then a higher mode of consciousness is necessary. This is not unconsciousness - the absence of awareness, fragmentation, incoherence - but the perfection of consciousness in the form of clarity, awareness and total control. This has always been the traditional view. You can reject it if you wish, but I still have to inform you that the Jungian model is extremely subversive.
>>16873782
I more or less explained that in this post. The One is absolute wholeness and perfection - it has nothing to do with collectivity (or in other words, fragmentation) or unconsciousness.

[Anonymous No.16874045]

Nice thread thank you to all the anons who have participated

[Anonymous No.16874103]

>>16874022
>Knowledge, by definition, can not be unconscious.
You are now playing semantics. Knowledge is not unconscious, but Oneness is. My point was integration of the Self entails becoming conscious of what is unconscious: i.e, Oneness. Collectivity refers to the fact that every person in the depth of their unconscious is linked to the One. Fragmentation resides in consciousness, but Oneness in the unconscious. Perhaps we are construing the term "unconscious" in different ways. The unconscious is not incoherent, but it is supra-rational. The Jungian framework attempts to interpret this supra-rationality in a rational way.
>I more or less explained that in this post.
You didn't explain anything though, you just let us know you disagree. If you believe the One and the unconscious are different domains, you must somehow be able to justify your position instead of merely asserting it. The good thing about this empirical metaphysics is that since it is based on evidence and argumentation, it is able to justify itself. Merely asserting all sorts of speculative things is an outdated method of the past.

[Anonymous No.16874139]

>>16865332
What year will it be the next time they’re in conjunction?

[Anonymous No.16874154]

>>16864991
>Still, preddy scary that the technocratic satanic elites are gaining control over the Aquarian age.
Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it. I have extremely potent spiritual powers

[Anonymous No.16874181]

What kind of Nazi shit is this

[Anonymous No.16874201]

>>16874154
So do I anon, but that may not ensure everything. What will come of it, the world, when we are dead but happy? We may be forced to be so. As Heidegger said, he was preparing those for the coming of God or for the absence of the coming God, which is nothing other than death; even if there is no chance, we must go meaningfully (or courageously) as well truthfully facing our dissolution, neither fantasy nor nihilism.-- If we "decline in the face of the absent God", where we can only hope now.

[Anonymous No.16874218]

>>16874201
Heidegger was a careerist hack academic. Can you please stop bringing him up in my Jung threads?

[Anonymous No.16874232]

>>16874218
Okay. But I don't see how the last interview he ever gave in answer to controversies, but also the final statement of his life-long endeavour, which for both reasons he knew would cause a stir and a controversy of its own, only to be published after his death-- I do not see how these ideas in it are considered careerist.

[Anonymous No.16874283]

>>16874201
Don’t overthink it

[Anonymous No.16874396]

>>16870282
What's with this meme? I just read a wiki blurb on it and it pretty much just sounds like a broad proposal to increase sustainable tech, make things more equal, and invest in STEM shit aka the same things we've been hearing from the media and elite class for who knows how long now.

[Anonymous No.16874554]

>>16874396
>wiki blurb
The true intention is to abolish private property rights. Only corporations can own things.
The consumer is now dependent on leases rather than purchases. More debt. Less freedom of movement. More control from government. Less privacy. Forced unemployment leading to a UBI, which is still insufficient.

>bbbut cooler Vidya game tech and equality!
More distractions and more inequality. The gap between the ruling class and tbe working class widens. Imaginary non existent "inequalities" between people earning less than 60k a year is literally nothing.

[Anonymous No.16874592]

>>16874103
>You are now playing semantics. Knowledge is not unconscious, but Oneness is.
I am not and it isn't. That's what I have been explaining thus far - there's a subrational and superrational plane. One is unconsciousness the other is superconsciousness. One is a collective mass, the other is a perfect unity.
>Collectivity refers to the fact that every person in the depth of their unconscious is linked to the One.
If you think the One is constituted by fragmentary unconscious residue, then we are not talking about the same One.
>Fragmentation resides in consciousness, but Oneness in the unconscious.
No, consciousness interprets and moulds the fragmentary into something sensible - unconsciousness is the release of that mould and dissolution into pure chaos, in which no distinctions can be made. It carries the appearance of oneness, yet it's anything but.
>The unconscious is not incoherent, but it is supra-rational.
It is by definition sub-rational, because it is below the consciousness. Hence unconscious or subconscious.
>If you believe the One and the unconscious are different domains, you must somehow be able to justify your position instead of merely asserting it.
What is there to justify? I can't demonstrate the experience of the One for you. All I can do is point the discrepancies between your idea of what the role of the unconscious is and its actual function.
>The good thing about this empirical metaphysics is that since it is based on evidence and argumentation, it is able to justify itself. Merely asserting all sorts of speculative things is an outdated method of the past.
Everything about the metaphysics I'm espousing is empirical. It may is not "objective" in the sense that it is difficult (though not impossible) to compare it with other examples, but it is certainly empirical, if it is anything at all. It is also qualitative, which is precisely why quantitative comparisons will always exclude it from their considerations a priori.

[Anonymous No.16874698]

>>16863656
discord
.gg
/5PnntDeBKQ

[Anonymous No.16874701]

>>16863656
discord
.gg
/5PnntDeBKQ

[Anonymous No.16875654]

>>16865709
which book?

[Anonymous No.16875741]

>>16874701
what is that?

[Anonymous No.16875750]

>>16875654
Two Essays on Analytical Psychology

[Anonymous No.16875810]

>>16863656
Seems like a crucial bridge for a developing east and west intellectual/spiritual synthesis.

[Anonymous No.16875826]

>>16875810
this. what schopenhauer started jung carried one level further

[Anonymous No.16876762]

>>16872872
>Here's the issue: Jung reduces myth, religion and tradition to a product of the biological human collective.
Jung's response to this point, the idea that he is reducing the divine to the human, is that the dismissal of the human soul implicit in such an accusation is itself symptomatic of the decay in western spirituality.

“ ‘...for this is how Western man, whose soul is evidently “of little worth” speaks and thinks. If much were in his soul he would speak of it with reverence. But since he does not do so we can conclude that there is nothing of value in it. Not that this is necessarily so always and everywhere, but only with people who put nothing into their souls and have “all God outside”

[Anonymous No.16877979]

>>16874139
5 November 2040. They are in conjunction approximately every 20 years. The big deal about this one is that it will be in an Air sign -- Aquarius. This ends a 200 year cycle in which they have only been conjunct in Earth signs. So they will now make conjunctions in Air signs for about 200 years.

[Anonymous No.16878015]

I cant take him seriously, I agree with a lot of what he says but his books read like unsubstantiated bullshit and I can never shake that feeling. The fact that he has to interpret dreams and even dreams from a third party in order to reach his conclusions makes him seem pretty unserious to me. His methods werent scientific enough to take seriously scientifically and he didnt know enough philosophy to express himself well in those terms either, so its this awkward middleground that does nothing for me.

Everything he says and talks about can be learned better by reading the things he himself read instead, if you are somewhat knowledgeable in things like comparative myth/comparative religion and philosophy, Jung will simply be redundant.

>dream 1
>The dreamer is at a social gathering. On leaving, he puts on a stranger’s hat instead of his own.
>The hat, as a covering for the head, has the general sense of something that epitomizes the head. Just as in summing up we bring ideas “under one head” (unter einen Hut), so the hat, as a sort of leading idea, covers the whole personality and imparts its own significance to it. Coronation endows the ruler with the divine nature of the sun, the doctor’s hood bestows the dignity of a scholar, and a stranger’s hat imparts a strange personality. Meyrink uses this theme in his novel The Golem, where the hero puts on the hat of Athanasius Pernath and, as a result, becomes involved in a strange experience. It is clear enough in The Golem that it is the unconscious which entangles the hero in fantastic adventures. Let us stress at once the significance of the Golem parallel and assume that the hat in the dream is the hat of an Athanasius, an immortal, a being beyond time, the universal and everlasting man as distinct from the ephemeral and “accidental” mortal man. Encircling the head, the hat is round like the sun-disc of a crown and therefore contains the first allusion to the mandala. We shall find the attribute of eternal duration confirmed in the ninth mandala dream (par. 134), while the mandala character of the hat comes out in the thirty-fifth mandala dream (par. 254). As a general result of the exchange of hats we may expect a development similar to that in The Golem: an emergence of the unconscious. The unconscious with its figures is already standing like a shadow behind the dreamer and pushing its way into consciousness.
Yeah no, fuck off, couldve been any reason to put on the hat, like remembering something that happened once.

[Anonymous No.16878209]

>>16872488
>The shadow is nothing more than the attempt at sacralizing evil.
This is bullshit. You obviously haven't read Jung. The shadow isn't "evil", it's compensatory for the conscious ego personality. An evil person will have a good shadow, and vice versa. The purpose of so called shadow integration isn't to become the shadow, but to become conscious of it. This is why Jung says time and time again that the shadow is an ethical problem. You're not supposed to give in to every inclination simply because you become conscious of it.

[Anonymous No.16878572]

>>16863656

He's one of the most amazing persons to have ever lived, imo. I really enjoy his ideas about psychology, most especially the mystical way he talks about them.

My favorite ideas from him: The Shadow- the darker primal side of our minds that leads to terrible things when repressed. (Best scene in the character of Tyler Durden from Fight Club) However when we harness our shadow, we will be able to better satisfy our human condition. (This is how i understand it at least)

The Archetypes, Collective subconscious are amongst the most fascinating ideas I've ever read. I personally enjoy his works and i consider him to be more beneficial to humanity than Freud.

[Anonymous No.16878611]

>>16873112
What is Traditionalism, what can I read about it and why do you agree with it?

[Anonymous No.16878626]

>>16878572
Bait

[Anonymous No.16879249]

>>16878015
>Yeah no, fuck off, couldve been any reason to put on the hat, like remembering something that happened once.
Sure, but isn't the point of that passage to show that he interprets a series of dreams, the development of a certain theme, and that you have to take the whole into account when interpreting the parts?

[Anonymous No.16879544]

>>16868189
Depends on which aspect of her thought/magic interests you. The Mystical Kabbalah is her most read book and the best introduction to Kabbalah there is. Can't go wrong starting there

[Anonymous No.16879693]

[Anonymous No.16879728]

>>16879249
Not him, but at that point why are you interpreting those specific dreams in the first place or dreams at all? If you could just conjure up any kind of image to do that interpretation in the first place or better yet express your ideas without needing dreams. Plus we are supposed to trust that the series of dreams was dreamt exactly like that and the subject didnt hide details, that he didnt make up any of the series of dreams, that he didnt ommit a bunch, and finally that Jung's assistant or Jung himself didnt make up some of them in order to make the series work to prove his point. Its just really unscientific and as anon says not expressed well enough to be philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16880152]

>>16879728
He uses dreams because they are an expression of the unconscious. In this particular instance, which I believe is taken from The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, I think he's trying to make a point about archetypes rather than dream interpretation. Sure, it's speculative, but I think that's the point. He's putting forth a hypothesis, namely that there are archetypes, but he doesn't test it in a rigorous way. It's more of a theoretical groundwork than it is an empirical study.

[Anonymous No.16880193]

>>16880152
Right, but anon's argument was that you can reach that same conclusion of a collective unconscious through the study of comparative mythology and comparative religion which is way more scientific and is mostly stating facts with a small degree of personal interpretation, and I definitely agree. I wouldnt go as far as saying Jung has no value but I definitely consider him overrated in some circles.

[Anonymous No.16880503]

>>16880193
He does that as well. The problem with mythology is that it is shaped by culture. It's a refined product. Dreams are closer to the sorce. Ultimately, Jung isn't interested in the products of the psyche, he's interested in psyche itself. He tries to show that there are real structures or properties of the unconscious, not that different cultures have similarities (which could be the case for a number of reasons).

[Anonymous No.16880655]

>>16880503
source*
>>16880193
And yes, he is overrated in some circles, but definitely not on the whole. He is, however, quite often misunderstood. If you read his own stuff and stay away from most of the "Jungians", he actually has some profound but subtle insights.

[Anonymous No.16881419]

Ahem

>Man’s task is to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious. Neither should he persist in his unconsciousness, nor remain identical with the unconscious elements in his being, thus evading his destiny, which is to create more and more consciousness. ~ Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections

[Anonymous No.16881457]

>>16863656
Carl Jung on Americans:

"Another thing that struck me [in the American] was the great influence of the Negro, a psychological influence naturally, not due to the mixing of blood. The emotional way an American expresses himself, especially the way he laughs, can best be studied in the illustrated supplements of the American papers; the inimitable Teddy Roosevelt laugh is found in its primordial form in the American Negro. The peculiar walk with loose joints, or the swinging of the hips so frequently observed in Americans, also comes from the Negro.[3] American music draws its main inspiration from the Negro, and so does the dance. The expression of religious feeling, the revival meetings, the Holy Rollers and other abnormalities are strongly influenced by the Negro. The vivacity of the average American, which shows itself not only at baseball games but quite particularly in his extraordinary love of talking – the ceaseless gabble of American papers is an eloquent example of this – is scarcely to be derived from his Germanic forefathers, but is far more like the chattering of a Negro village. The almost total lack of privacy and the all-devouring mass sociability remind one of primitive life in open huts, where there is complete identity with all members of the tribe."

[Anonymous No.16882370]

>>16880655
Yeah, I mean, I agree with a lot of the things he says, and I find him very valuable, its just that I cringe at his methods. If he had had a background in philosophy and just articulated his ideas without the need of trying to present a pseudoscientific/pseudoclinical account of patients dreams and such I think he wouldve been able to be more clear and be disregarded less. My opinion though.

[Anonymous No.16882734]

>>16882370
I see your point and to some extent I agree. Personally, it's not Jung the scientist that interest me the most. But to say that he didn't have a background in philosophy is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[Anonymous No.16882747]

>>16872542
this guy gets it
>>16872488
>>16872524
these guys don't