CARL JUNG HELP WANTED

[Anonymous No.22714566]

my gut tells me this Fucker is based...where should I start?

[Anonymous No.22714636]

memories -> man and his symbols -> collected works -> red book

[Anonymous No.22714669]

>>22714566
don't even start... he is a waste of time

[Anonymous No.22714693]

>>22714669
most probably right, thought his work was more philisopphical, but mostly psycho analysis shit that can be condensed into a chart or smthn prrrrrrrrrrrt

[Anonymous No.22714949]

>>22714693
He’s pretty deep. Anyone into esotericism or the occult knows how important and right Jung was.

[Anonymous No.22715241]

>>22714949
and im very interested in all that, +plus+ theology, but the task of reading his extensive body of work proper is daunting. Is it worth it?

[Anonymous No.22715252]

>>22714566
>one time a patient relayed a story about a scarab and a bug flew in, mental innit? Maybe acausality and synchronicity are some sort of giant collective human mind *blows out big dope cloud*

[Anonymouṡ No.22715257]

I read him a bit and didn't get on with him but I'm going to take another look because Alicia in Stella Maris really hates him so I'm gonna read him just to spite her.

[Anonymous No.22715258]

>>22715241
It's not that daunting. He writes a really clear manner actually, even if he tackles insane shit. More clear than most philosophers. It only gets hard to read when you get to Aion or the Red Book.
Man And His Symbols should give you the basics.
Modern Man In Search of a Soul.
The Collective Unconscious and the Archetypes
Those are all pretty easy and fascinating to read. You'll have a grasp of what he's trying to get at.

https://youtu.be/j0KzUS0b_uc?si=GxMV73ufKxJ3DQaw
Is a good short video explaining his main ideas which get echoed throughout his whole work.

[Anonymous No.22715268]

>>22715258
I'll tell you what I found most interesting in Jung. It's mentioned in the 5 minute mark of the video.
Pretty much Jung discovers that all religions follow similar symbols and motifs. Things like parables, mandalas, crosses, characters, types of Gods and Goddesses all echo throughout seemingly different religions. There's 2 explanations as to how this occurred, that all religions branched from one and this is why they're so similar, or (and this is what Jung is tackling) is that people are all experiencing something universal and profound but interpreting it differently. You can go down an insane deep rabbit hole with the latter explanation.

[Anonymous No.22715305]

>>22715268
>insane deep rabbit hole
Insane maybe, but deep? The main problem with jung's collective unconsciousness hypothesis is having no mechanism for information transmission. The rest is just gibberish. "Spooky action at a distance" for psychoanalysts.

[Anonymous No.22715320]

>>22715305
>The main problem with jung's collective unconsciousness hypothesis is having no mechanism for information transmission.
Did you even read Jung? Symbols exist for this exact reason that human's can't parse the information. That's the very definition of a symbol is representing something other than itself. Might as well say 'not real because we cant talk about it.

[Anonymous No.22715353]

>>22714566
Modern Man in Search of a Soul

[Anonymous No.22715364]

>>22715258
it's more the page numbers that made me poop me briches, but I'll give it a go. Thanks to all for the suggestions

[Anonymous No.22715365]

>>22715320
Symbols are encoded information from one consciousness to another. If two civilizations do not interact, what is the mechanism for transmission?

[Anonymous No.22715376]

>>22715364
I'd start with the portable Jung by Campbell. Jung's prose is notoriously bad.

[Anonymous No.22715392]

>>22714566
watch short videos of Marie Louis von Franz first, she was one of his top students.

[Anonymous No.22715462]

>>22714636
>no synchronicity
NGMI

[Anonymous No.22715476]

>>22715462
Whoah, meta-schizocore literature

[Anonymous No.22715477]

>>22715305
>The main problem with jung's collective unconsciousness hypothesis is having no mechanism for information transmission
Wrong, the collective unconscious is the Unus Mundus or the "informational" well-spring that all of existence flows from. Archetypes flow from it and impinge upon our minds via their symbolic representations.

[Anonymous No.22715483]

>>22715476
more like the most profound exegesis of what Jung was all about

[Anonymous No.22715509]

>>22715477
>Archetypes flow from it and impinge upon our minds via their symbolic representations.
I feel like archetypes being "statistically significant modes of human response patterns originating from basic evolutionary processes" is more believable than some exterior well-spring driving the development of consciousness through some sort of mental downloads by some psychic symbolic representations. It's a fun to think that some god-consciousness is beaming information at us from another realm though.

[Anonymous No.22715540]

>>22715509
You're flat out wrong then. The collective unconscious is a metaphysical concept, more akin to the Eastern Dao/Brahman or the Western idealist/panpsychic Godhead than the gay post-modern genetic-evolutionary hand-me-down. Active imagination as Jung practiced allows you to submerge to a certain level your own consciousness into the collective unconscious to directly engage with it and its symbols. Same goes with lucid dreaming if done right. Never forget that Jung was a mystic first, a psychoanalyst second.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1399493 - Good article expressing that Jung was influenced by Daoism and that the collective unconscious is essentially the same as it.

[Anonymous No.22715552]

>>22715540
>collective unconscious is a metaphysical concept, more akin to the Eastern Dao/Brahman or the Western idealist/panpsychic Godhead
I get that. I'm just not convinced.

[Anonymous No.22715565]

>>22715552
Thats fine, maybe mull it over and critically consider it then. Even if you stick to your stance, you'll appreciate and understand the topic & Jung more by doing so.

[Anonymous No.22715590]

>>22714669
>>22714693
The retards have started early.

[Anonymous No.22715603]

>>22715365
>If two civilizations do not interact
Assuming they both consist of homo sapiens, then they interacted at some point.

[Anonymous No.22715645]

Easy on the archetypes Jung…

[Anonymous No.22715683]

>>22715252
that was one example, he goes on to break down the statistical probability of these occurrences alongside Wolfgang Pauli, the possibility that it's all mere chance cannot be excluded, yet the sheer frequency of these statistical aberations is something worth consideration, the overlook them entirely is sheer negligence