Actual Jung Thread

He is for writing purposes.

>>8926776
Yes. But read Schopenhauer and Freud first

>>8926776

Moreso than Freud but fuck no, and don't read Freud either. Try "The Rise of the Meritocracy" instead.

>>8927028
i don't understand people who hate freud like that. he always stated that his ideas were just that - that they were far out, models, working theories. maybe people took him a little too literally but you can't blame a guy for his influence. i like his stuff. it's interesting. just read it as the musings about soul and psyche by a man with a broad knowledge of the classics, mythology etc.

i've never read jung, curious about him, i find the archetype concept pretty interesting.

>>8926997
i want the frogposters to leave

>>8926776
>The last thread got ruined by /pol/
No, /pol/ is great. It was lefty falseflag shills trying to make /pol/ look bad.

>>8927121
i feel like it's just one post ironic pepe posting /pol/lack who has made it his mission to derail every single thread on /lit/

we'll just have to wait and hope he gets tired soon

>>8927053

Same

>>8927132
See:
>>8927128

>>8927132
Bro, just talk about the thread subject. There's been a serious reply.

>>8927132
>>8927148
>>8927177
Leftists fuck off back to wherever you came from. I'm so SICK of getting invaded by you. I just want real intellectual /lit/ discussion

File: epa00689399-books-and-a-bust-of-sigmund-freud-the-father-of-psychoanalysis-fhcbhd.jpg (68KB, 640x474px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x474px

>>8927177
>read Freud
Can you maybe be more specific?

>>8927132

I will never get tired of fucking communists in the ass with a rusty shovel.

>>8927118
>i don't understand people who hate freud like that. he always stated that his ideas were just that - that they were far out, models, working theories. maybe people took him a little too literally but you can't blame a guy for his influence. i like his stuff. it's interesting. just read it as the musings about soul and psyche by a man with a broad knowledge of the classics, mythology etc.
This, and it applies to Jung doubly so. He is a brilliant scholar, and his "far out" ideas seem to be more a consequence of giving valid consideration to nearly every worldview we know about throughout human history.

>>8927118
>he always stated that his ideas were just that - that they were far out, models, working theories.
He tried to fit them into a new scientific worldview in his later years. So no he difinitely felt there was something more there. Fairish description of Jung though.

>>8926776
He is an interesting author. His concepts are partly inspiered by Nietzsche and German Romantik combined with mythology from all over the world.

>>8926776
what did he think about the blacks and the homos?

was he a cuck like frued?

>>8927283
this isnt a commie board, we have mishy and evola threads every other day, it's just not a turboautismal pepeposting shitfest, so very sorry, please fuck off

>>8927344
>was he a cuck like frued?

no he's an alpha male who had numerous affairs while married and managed to keep his wife. he also has a harem of smart women

You can spend your entire life writing reading Jung. Unless you plan on holding a doctorate in Psychology I'd just read an appraised summation of his work.

>>8928062
You'll leave soon enough, there's only so much you can say about books when you never read them

there's really no way to argue whether or not he's right, because his theories are built on irrationality, which he himself acknowledges

he's excellent for understanding modernist art, as well as the general intellectual landscape of the early 20th century

i'd say that he's undoubtedly worth a read unless you've succumbed to your own ego like the poltard shitting up every thread

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Read his response to Job, that particular opinion, perhaps with less of the spiritual underpinnings, is held throughout academia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C16eiQH06RE

Zizek even believes it ffs watch the first 20 seconds


Also read A man and his symbols for a very easy way to understand Jungian archetypes and some forms of sleep analytics.

>>8928199
What do you think about dream analysis personally?
It was one of the things that turned me off Jung initially, but after having dreams that fit exceptionally well into his theory i had to come back for more
i have a few dreams that've stuck by me since i was a child, and man and his symbols was a total eye opener. its hard not to hang on to every word he writes when refuting his theories seems synonymous with refuting my own being

File: innerWork.jpg (40KB, 332x499px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 332x499px

>>8928266
Not him. But Jung's take on dream analysis has been unbelievably useful to me.
Pic related is a very practical one.

>>8928266
Try actually reading Jung directly on dream analysis. He makes excellent points but you have no idea about his thinking really.

>>8928292
Please elaborate.
I've barely scratched the surface on Jung. I've read Man and his Symbols, and I've started on Symbols of Transformation and the Red Book, but I doubt I'll finish that one for quite some time.
I'm planning on reading Erich Fromm's the Art of Loving next, it seems to be influenced by Jungian ideals.
For a logical next step, what would you suggest I read? Symbols of Transformation has been very insightful so far, but it seems a bit to expansive.
Have you read Memories, Dreams, Reflections?

>>8928315
No, I read Man and his Symbols, The Red Book, Aion
However, I read other stuff by other people like Inner Work or Jung's Map of the Soul.

Can't really help you where you should go.
It depends how practical you want to be or theoretical, or mystical/alchemical.

People who hate Jung belong in the spergshed.

>>8928374
I know why people hate him tbqh. They are too materialistic. It's hard to even imagine that symbols can even have an effect on people when you've been raised in a society where science is the perfect word of the Creator of the Universe, and nothing else exists.

Does /lit/ like Jordan Peterson? He's made me want to read some Jung.

>>8928396
You're right. It's still insanely funny to see "real thinkers" bouncing off Jung like he's not deserving any serious examination.

Disregarding Jung is easy, taking him seriously is very hard.

>>8928403
They probably don't now, since he's too popular, and seemingly right-wing.

>>8928412
>It's still insanely funny to see "real thinkers" bouncing off Jung like he's not deserving any serious examination.

They think he's too mystical. It's actually quite ironic that people like Dawkins have created concepts like "memes", but has completely discounted(Or maybe isn't even aware of) Jung's theory of the archetypes.

>>8928415

That's a shame, I only see him mentioned on /pol/ much and that's just to go 'holy christ he mentioned Pepe literally /ourguy/!' which doesn't really do him justice.

>>8928315
The key thing with Jung is that there is no totalizing framework for dreams to fit into. He points out that we feel a need to talk about our dreams and as such they are a social phenomena, interpretation is both personal and tied to our friends rather than directly to some out there framework like Freud's. It's like you cannot always see the thing in your dream, just like we don't know parts of ourselves as well as our friends.

The whole archetype and collective unconscious are really much more subtle and less mystical (in a sense) than are commonly made out.

My most go to texts have been the collected Dream Analysis Seminars, the Red Book (which is quite dense for sure) and Psychology of the Unconscious. I woukd recommend having a look at his two essays on analytic psychology if you haven't already

>>8928434
Honestly, I care more about his deep ideas than the whole debate surrounding him in Canada.

But as usual the things that are actually interesting about people usually gets ignored when they get more known.

I can't deal with people who take Jung far too seriously, and I mean the people who are fucking Jungian mystics, and those who just utterly dismiss him as quackery. The people that often dismiss him so quickly of quackery is straight up because they don't understand certain principles like the psychic truth

>>8928460
>I can't deal with people who take Jung far too seriously

Where do you cross the line though?
Shadow, Anima/us, Archetypes, Dreams, Collective Unconscious, Gnosticism, Alchemy as a psychological discipline?

The more I read, the harder it is to see what's mystical and what's not.

>>8928454

I just about popped wood when I first read a bit of Maps of Meaning, so much stuff that's been rattling around my head for years articulated beautifully. Anyway it's not a Peterson thread so I'll stop derailing.

>>8928474
That's that.

>>8928472
I believe in the traditional Jung, i.e. I absolutely believe the Anima is is a common archetype that can be observed in men's dreams throughout the globe, and has also manifested itself into our 'conscious' world through the feminine diety/personification of wisdom 'Sophia', for example. I do not, however, believe this view is synonymous with mysticism; there are potential rational explanations for archetypes, however empirically hard it is to observe the human unconscious. Alchemy and Gnosticism are useful to study as the progression of psychological anthropology and nothing more.

>>8928472
>The work on the unconscious has to happen first and foremost for us ourselves. Our patients profit from it indirectly. The danger consists in the prophet's delusion which often is the result of dealing with the unconscious. It is the devil who says: Disdain all reason and science, mankind's highest powers. That is never appropriate even though we are forced to acknowledge the existence of the irrational.

>>8928315
Reads Frueds book on Interpretation of Dreams first, always remember that Jung's work takes for granted quite a detailed knowledge of Frueds (and many other thinkers) theories.

After that, you can read Jung's book about psychotherapy, or Memories, Dreams, Reflections. This is more a book outlining his philosophical approach to life than an outline of the events in his life (just read the introduction to get a sense of this).

Basically, Jung placed equal emphasis on the experiences we have in our psyches as experiences we have in the external world. In other words, dreams, fantasies, and visions are just as valid a source of experience as events in waking life, but they require a different sort of mentality to understand.

>>8928472
Not that anon, but taking it seriously is not about what ideas are accepted or not. They can ALL be accepted, but just as one way of interpreting the world.

>>8928501
What do you see as mysticism, though? Mystical experiences are those that don't fit into the framework of understanding that we currently have for the world. Jung, in a way, spent his life de-mystifying his mystical experiences.

>>8926776
Yes. Jung was a genius.

>>8926997
Skinheads, just go. Stop pretending you're intellectuals.

>>8928454
This Desu. He has an interesting world view and is very well articulated.

File: 14590231_10209071985470576_7845725491554702464_n.jpg (19KB, 383x367px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 383x367px

I do like him a lot, but he was kind dickish for not admitting how linked some of his concepts were to freudian works. Also his scientific value is pretty low. Anyways, I recommend "Man and his symbols" as a introductory work.

File: 15697854_385736501759985_1948040222123661553_n.jpg (65KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x960px

His book on UFO's is what me an my Luciferian occult group were able to verify.

>>8931184
The fuck are you talking about. Jung had a falling out with Freud but he looked up to Freud like a father and respected him when they first met

Then he realized Freud is a degenerate and he has a vastly different outlook on the subject

>>8927118
>I'm a great world-builder
>what-if

yeahh, nah fuck off with that shite

>>8926776
a dude with some insight into the human condition shrouded within a whole load of straight up bullshit catered for intellectual new-agers.

He believed that dreams could tell the future and that his friend dying in the night miles away caused him simultaneously to wake up. I guess Jung never heard of confirmation bias.

Very interesting writer, takling questions still very relevant today. But massive question mark over his reasoning.

>>8933298
>He believed that dreams could tell the future and that his friend dying in the night miles away caused him simultaneously to wake up.

if you actually read jung and this is what your interpretation of his work is you should actually kys

File: image.png (452KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

452KB, 1136x640px

>>8928591
Which of his books are specifically about psychotherapy?

File: the-portable-jung.jpg (19KB, 371x566px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 371x566px

Just stick with this, Man and His Symbols, and Liber Novus, desu.

>>8928415
He isn't even right-wing, he is pro freedom of speech. Which might be considered rightwing in these ridiculous times.

You should definitely read his original work. Also you might wanna read an introduction to his ideas.

>>8934007
Well, I think he's a kind of idiosyncratic Christian. Which might put some people off, because it's usually associated with being right-wing.

Also, his in-depth explanations of dominance-hierarchies and status among humans, might make people think he trying to morally justify it's existence.

>>8926776

Freud > Lacan > Klein > Reich > Adler > Jung

>>8927148
>>8927128
>>8927121
>>8927201
>>8927331
>>8927028

love people who haven't read who think they know what the person they haven't read has to say

>>8934040
Indeed, people might THINK that. He refers to dominance as biological fact so if is kind of irrelevant if they are legitimate or not.

>>8927383

no, you have "right wing intellectual" threads, and when people tell you (correctly) that there aren't any, you sperg out.

>>8933570
There is a book Practice of Psychotherapy which is a collection of his essays on the topic. The Portable Jung is also a good collection but less focused.

>>8926776
Read him alongside Joseph Campbell.

>>8933298
>massive question mark over his reasoning.

"I can't say whether these thoughts are true or false, but I do know they are there, and can be given utterance, if I do not repress them out of some prejudice. Prejudice cripples and injures the full phenomenon of psychic life. And I know too little about psychic life to feel that I can set it right out of superior knowledge."

>>8928431
You do know Dawkins didn't create the concept, right? The term comes from genetic theory, ffs. And I'd eat my own testicles for breakfast if Dawkins doesn't know about Jungian archetypes. Stop trying to make it into some ideological battle; we're all trying to make sense of the same fucked up world, and the only way we lose is when we turn on each other.

File: unnamed.gif (2MB, 383x383px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 383x383px

>>8935918
>Stop trying to make it into some ideological battle; we're all trying to make sense of the same fucked up world, and the only way we lose is when we turn on each other.

>>8935642
>psychic life
Awkward moment, here: you are aware that the word "psychic" in terms of psychology has nothing to do with the supernatural, right? He's not talking about telepathy when he says that. You can replace the word "psychic" with "psychological" or even "mental" and it would convey the meaning he's going for.

>>8935929
The only awkward thing here is you thinking you needed to explain that.

>>8935937
Good, then. Just checking. You *have* read the other comments on this thread, haven't you?

>>8935995
Yes. I've posted a few times throughout.

My posting that quote was in response to that other anon, in defence of Jung. People seem to incorrectly assume that he didn't have an amazingly level head.

>>8936012
Yeah, I think people just like being contentious shits about him because people who have seen the astonishing depth and insight of his work into the human condition also tend to provide really good reactions when they lose their shit over bait. It's unfortunate, we who care the most are exactly the ones who are the most entertainment for those who are jealous of our ability to feel at all.

>>8926776
>last one had people telling me no
>I'll create new threads until people tell me to read him
Huh just go read it then, faggot.

>>8933530
That is literally the whole deal of synchronicity, even with Wolfgang Paulis agreeing with because when he was around lab equipment would break.

>>8936070
It's a radical oversimplification.
Jung believed dreams could "tell the future" insofar as they were a reflection of the collective unconscious, which, if you study art leading up to WW1, holds at least a shred of truth.

As for synchronicity, it makes sense for us to take notice of coincidences that seem meaningfully related. I agree, and Jung does as well, that allowing this to influence our understanding of reality is highly dubious, but there is undoubtedly something to be gained from studying such events, if only because it highlights what we find to be meaningful, which reflects our own self.

The problem with Jung is that he was trying to understand a psychological reality that has defined our perception of the real world throughout history. He always insisted that people shouldn't run off with his ideas and regress to a pre-scientific worldview, because in doing so they fall prey to their own irrationality. He was merely trying to understand the irrational as a universal aspect of the human condition, rather than brush it aside as something meant for children and the intellectually immature.

>>8933530
It's in his autobiography. He also wrote a paper on it, "synchronicity".

When he visited Freud Jung had a stomache ache and the bookshelf creaked. He told Freud that this was a "catalytic exteriorisation phenomenon". Freud said "that's bullshit" Jung said OK, if you don't believe me, I predict that the shelf will creak again. The bookshelf creaked again and Jung said "deal with it" while strutting away. Freud later wrote to Jung reiterating that he thought Jung was being silly and that it was just a creaky bookshelf.

I honestly don't know whether such logical leaps should call into question the rest of Jung's work. The work is necessarily very personal, so it requires quite a lot of trust on the part of the reader.

>>8936127
I find that pretty hilarious.

>>8936127
>It's in his autobiography. He also wrote a paper on it, "synchronicity".
Yes, we know of synchronicity, it's just your understanding of it is basic af.

>Freud later wrote to Jung reiterating that he thought Jung was being silly and that it was just a creaky bookshelf.
No, they actually never spoke of it again. Freuf was legitimately spooked. He also had several fainting spells during conversations with Jung, often when Jung was inadvertently speaking about things that were bothering him. Fjus is another manifestation of synchronicity, in which the unconscious is synchronised with the external world in a way that our conscious mind is unaware of.

>I honestly don't know whether such logical leaps should call into question the rest of Jung's work.
What is the logical leap, exactly? Jung spent his whole life exploring this stuff, both physically in the different cultures of the world, mentally, by recording and extrapolating dreams and visions, and intellectually, by applying his scientific training and writing extensively. He was VERY sure to not jump the gun.

You are the one trying to claim you understand it after reading (perhaps) a couple of books.

>>8935918
I wasn't trying to make it into an ideological battle at all, but it's pretty clear that someone like Dawkins finds memes more salient than archetypes, even though he thinks memes are trivial concepts.

>>8926776

>When Carl Gustav Jung was between three and four he had a dream which remained with him throughout his life.The vicarage in which the family lived stood near the Laufen castle, and there was a large meadow stretching back from the vicarage's farm. The child found himself in the meadow where he found a rectangular, stone-lined hole in the ground. Having never seen it before, he curiously peered down into it. There was a stairway leading down by which he hesitantly and fearfully descended. At the bottom was a doorway having a rounded arch and closed by a green curtain. It was a big, heavy curtain of worked stuff like brocade, and it looked very sumptuous. Curious to see what was behind it he pulled the curtain aside.

>He saw before him a dimly lit rectangular chamber about thirty feet long. The ceiling was arched of hewn stone. The floor was composed of flagstones with a central red carpet running from the entrance to a low platform on which stood a wonderfully rich golden throne. He was not certain but perhaps a red cushion was on the seat. It was a rich throne, like a king's throne in a fairy tale. Something was standing on it which he thought was a tree trunk about twelve to fifteen feet high and one and a half to two feet thick. It was a huge thing reaching almost to the ceiling. But it was made of a curious composition: it was made of skin and naked flesh, and on top there was something like a rounded head with no face and no hair. On the very top of the head was a single eye, gazing motionlessly upward.

>It was fairly light in the room, although there appeared to be no windows and no apparent source of the light. Above the head, however, was an aura of brightness. The thing remained motionless but the child felt that at any moment it might crawl off of the throne like a worm and creel toward him. He was paralyzed with terror. At that moment he heard his mother's voice calling from outside, "Yes, just look at him. That is the man-eater!" That intensified his terror even more and he awoke scared to death. For nights afterwards he was afraid to go to sleep for fear of having a similar dream.

>>8936127
This seems tongue in cheek.

In his book on Archetypes, he actually lays out a quite scientific view of the whole thing.

It isn't farfetched to believe that evolution has inculcated cognitive categories in the minds of human beings that can only be represented as symbolic or mythological pictures, and that these exist in all humans and can be awoken given the right social circumstances.

>>8937201
>No, they actually never spoke of it again. Freuf was legitimately spooked.

I refer you to Freud's letter to Jung of April 16, 1909.
>Now I am afraid that I must fall back again to the role of father towards you in giving you my views on poltergeist phenomena. I must do this because these things are different from what you would like to think.
...
>My credulity, or at least my readiness to believe, vanished along with the spell of your personal presence; once again, for various inner reasons, it seems to me wholly implausible that anything of the sort should occur. The furniture stands before me spiritless and dead.
>I therefore don once more my horn-rimmed paternal spectacles and warn my dear son to keep a cool head.

>>8937467
Thanks anon, I stand corrected in the face of some awesome evidence! Jung said they never SPOKE if if, how misleading.

Although what I find interesting here is that Freud says his readiness to believe vanished, which implies while Jung was there he WAS spooked. Only while left to his own devices did he recede into scepticism (as did Jung on many occassions).

Care to respond to my final point from that post?

>>8937467
P.S. Where is your source for this letter? Not being accusatory, but if there is a collection of correspondence I would like to see it!

>>8937548
i read that letter in my idiom, and i slightly remember that he never send it. he said that the furniture was broken or something and that in the next weeks the same furniture make the same noise several times without any kind of feeling related. and for what i read, is like he was skeptic even with jung presence.
(totally different from jung storytelling)

>>8937548
It's in the back of the Harper Perennial edition of Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

>>8936123
>He always insisted that people shouldn't run off with his ideas and regress to a pre-scientific worldview, because in doing so they fall prey to their own irrationality. He was merely trying to understand the irrational as a universal aspect of the human condition, rather than brush it aside as something meant for children and the intellectually immature.

he was a psychologist not a philosopher (and it´s a pretty common bad assumption with psychologists, specially jung) , his last goal was to make people "sane". (real and awful physical people)
he never embrace irrationality because literally his work and the image he make to himself was the contrary of irrationality.
he still believe the irrationality is for the intellectually inmature, and that the real man is basically someone rational.

>>8937536
>Care to respond to my final point from that post?
I don't think it's really arguable. One's sense of how careful Jung is when drawing conclusions is not really a black and white judgement, it's a matter of taste.

Despite later calling such synchronicity "acausal", the context, it rather seems Jung thinks that the death of his friend caused him simultaneously to wake up with a headache, and that his stomach ache caused the shelf to creak. Whether you commend him for having an open mind, or criticise him for credulity is a matter of taste.

Anyway, I honestly can't decide if such issues in Jung are important or trivial. Maybe trivial.

>>8937721
Fuck yeah, then I'm only a handful of pages away!

>>8937684
You seem a bit mixed up, but I'm not sure if that's just in communication. Jung had several experiences of furniture spontaneously breaking apart in his family home. This is different to the incident with Freud, which was merely a loud sound located NEAR the piece of furniture.

>>8937765
Thanks for the response, friend! I'm reading his work at the moment so although not OP I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss.

>Despite later calling such synchronicity "acausal", the context, it rather seems Jung thinks that the death of his friend caused him simultaneously to wake up with a headache, and that his stomach ache caused the shelf to creak. Whether you commend him for having an open mind, or criticise him for credulity is a matter of taste.
I actually find the acausal explanation extremely satisfying. People go on about the mystical connotations of QM being bullshit, because formulas such as Bells Theorum are not quantifiable on the scale of our everyday lives. But synchronicity, that is, acausal connections between seemingly disconnected events, is evidence of it occurring at that level. It's not that one event causes the other, it's that they are both actually part of the same event, and the aspect of the event that connects them is unconscious and therefore invisible. BUT in dreams and fantasies we have (limited) access to that aspect and can therefore tap into those connections a lot more.

>Anyway, I honestly can't decide if such issues in Jung are important or trivial. Maybe trivial.
Depends on the day of the week, and whether you have ever experienced any similar phenomena.

Serious question - which of Jung's archetypes would suit Charles Foster Kane? I'm writing a paper on it.

>>8933298
>He believed that dreams could tell the future and that his friend dying in the night miles away caused him simultaneously to wake up. I guess Jung never heard of confirmation bias.
I woke up in the middle of the night when my friend died too. Looks like that proves it.

>>8937761
please read Jung before engaging in discussion

>>8937862
The orphan hero and then the tyrannical King.

>>8938260
Thanks senpai

>>8938094
believe me, i read it.
>do you remember his fear to be like nietzsche?
>do you remember his thoughts in modern art?

>>8938494
Do you remember how to construct an argument that conveys something of substance?

>>8938526
i disagree with the first post in the assumption that jung want to integrate the irrational in the world.
i think that in the better he want to integrate a little part of the irrational in the modern man.
i think he want (and i refer in her psychologist side, not in his prospective theories) his patients to not be irrational (or maybe he say something like not being drive by the strings of unconscious or something like that) he intrinsically believe the irrational side is inferior to the rational side. (the difference is that for him the rational man is someone who accept his irrational side in tiny and almost controllable parts)
(i know this is an excessive and simplistic overview, i hope you understand)
the modern art is the contrary of that rationalist thinking and therefore he loathed in it.
he literally said he have fear of nietzsche because nitzsch was a mirror of his irrational side. what is something he dont want to be.

>>8938675
Your english is a bit hard to digest but I'll give it a shot

Jung didn't want to integrate the irrational into the real world, I never said this. You also don't seem to grasp that Jung literally spent his entire life attempting to understand the irrational, and to speak of it in terms of inferiority to rational thinking is absolutely nonsensical.

I really have no idea why you believe he loathed modern art. If you'd read Man and his Symbols, you'd see that he uses several modern artists (Klee, Kandinsky) to explain the unconscious, irrational world. I mean, honestly, how could you think this? Where could you possibly have picked up this idea?

And how on EARTH can you consider Jung to be a rationalist? I mean, I'd love to spend a week explaining how that is wrong on the most basic level, but it would be easier if you just read literally anything ever written by him.

>>8938781

maybe you are right, i only read his autobiography and saw him in interviews.

what i want to say is that he is a rationalist in his deep self. (personal opinion what i try to explain in my lame english and maybe too stretched ideas)


>This art (modern) is a flight from the perceptible world, from the visible reality. What does it mean, to turn one's eye inward?
The first thing people see there is the debris of destruction, and the infantilism of their own souls.
That is why they imitate the tyro.
People admire the art of the primitives.
True, it is art, but it is primitive.
Or one imitates the drawings of children.
The schizophrenics do that too.
To the extent that it is a manifestation of a yearning for the primary it may have a positive value.
But dissolution demands synthesis.
And I am always concerned with the pile of wreckage, with the ruins of that which has been, with infantile attempts at something new.

to me synthesis means: dissolution is wrong.
i tell him rationalist because he make a system (something intrinsically rational) where this dynamic between rational/irrational can be pacified.
sorry for my fucking english and bad expression in general.

>>8938876
The problem with calling him a rationalist is that he believes our irrational aspect, the world of dreams, of art, of the self, can not be understood rationally. Yes, he explains it in a way that is understandable and meaningful, but it is not rational, it is not scientific.
You have a fairly shallow understanding of his actual theories. I can understand why you would think of him as a rationalist, but you're using the term in a way that isn't correct for discussing Jungian psychology.

>>8938989
you are right. but i think isn´t correct because dismiss and devalue the theory of jung, not because you cant understand it from this (tiny) view. we are discussing jung not sucking his dick.
is a sui generis rationalist or, to better understanding, a man uncomfortable with pure irrationalist thinking (despite his deep interest in it), i am aware that i push the concept too much. is not a rigorous term for him, i know.
>it is not scientific
when he renounce to being considered a psychologist?.
>Yes, he explains it in a way that is understandable and meaningful
meaningful for you.
i dont want to sound arrogant with this. but basically i am saying he is a psychologist not a poet, not a philosopher, not a mind bohemian adventurer. he want facts, he want to make something out of his views. he assume too much.

Robert Bly used Jung to pretty good effect. All his Iron John stuff can help modern dudes sort their shit out, especially since baby boomers were such wanker fathers.

>>8939090
>he assume too much.

projecting much there buddy?

you haven't read any of his work

>>8939136
projecting what?.
maybe you are projecting too?.

>>8938989
>>8939090
Rationality was basically one aspect of the self that Jung thought should be integrated and valued but not overdone.

Remember, one of his basic models of the self was thinking vs. feeling, and intuition vs. sensation. The ideal is to be able to use all functions equally, because if you don't then the one being repressed will basically be out of your control.

So as a really crude example, if you are too rational, then it's likely your emotions are getting the better of you somehow (most likely indirectly and unconsciously), and if you are too emotional, then your ideas will feed into this in automatic and destructive ways.

So Jung was not a rationalist or anything else for that matter. He understood the reality of opposites and tried to stay in control of this throughout his life. It's why he was so based.

>>8938876
I admire your talent in English, because you have said something very important in a language you aren't very familiar with.
> i tell him rationalist because he make a system (something intrinsically rational) where this dynamic between rational/irrational can be pacified.

This is, in fact, a paradox. Trying to explain irrationality is actually a rational approach, and in that sense you are correct.

However, >>8939226 brings up the necessary shift in framework by referring to a dialectical approach. Thinking in terms of either/or (or a binary) is always going to lead to the paradox of rationality. This is mathematically embedded in the idea of 1/0 being undefinable, and represents the same paradox, essentially. Irrationality, as Jung acknowledges, is a fundamental aspect of human consciousness.

I hope this helps provide a way toward better understanding.

>>8927118

Jung is very tough to read but his ideas are very solid.

>>8927028
The actual content of his work is veerry heavy but he's got great concepts about the underlying components of the human psyche

>>8934071
Depends on your definition of intellectual. The right is about pragmatism, the left is about idealism. So if your definition of intellectual is to include "academics who spent their life in academia" then yes, it's going to be almost entirely leftists because lefties took over the Universities in the early 20th century. Pragmatists are typically working in respective fields and disciplines. You will find a lot more conservative and pragmatist views deep in the halls of industry than you will in the ivory towers of academia. There's no room for idealist criteria in a world of red and black, where the bottom line is survival, not government grants and gib me dats.

>>8940322
>Irrationality, as Jung acknowledges, is a fundamental aspect of human consciousness.
this is like the people who encourage you to shout with the hope that you let out your inner feelings or frustrations. this is not encourage the irrationality. (i know nobody here said the contrary, is an statement i make that i think is important)
jung thinks irrational is a fundamental aspect of the mind and should be controlled. (something that we (humans) try to make in various forms, he make this square system were you have to be well balanced to not let your shadow unconscious control your thoughts.
maybe all the irrationality is only an imbalance inside the model he make. (thinking/feeling etc..) i cant make a system to prove him wrong. but even jung said is something that should be a guide not a totalitarian form of judge people.
what i want to say is that he make an approach to irrationality or imbalance like it was something inherently "bad" or leading you to something bad. (i say it again, he is a psychologist, he want something to use with his patients)
and i think we should surpass this kind of thinking (maybe not). like we still are in the first steps to really acknowledge the irrational without judge it.
and thinking that jung is a kind of hero of irrationality flame my balls. (this is a circular thinking for my part, maybe nobody saw him like a hero of nothing)

>>8940475
>flame my balls
You have just coined my new favorite phrase.

Yes - we need to advance beyond binary thinking and "acknowledge the irrational without judg[ing] it." Thank you for putting it that way; it very much gets at what I was trying to say.

If you are studying psychology, this might remind you of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, or Dialectical Behavioral Therapy - these disciplines (if they can be called that) would agree with that idea, and suggest not attaching too much significance to any single emotional response to something, and suggest that looking for patterns would be a more useful practice.

People's misunderstanding of Jung is usually based on their assumption that he was some sort of complete metaphysicist, which you are right to push back against, I think.

>>8940475
pls either learn english or go to /int/

>>8941766

Shut the fuck up. His post was probably more insightful than anything you could put together, even in your own mother tongue.

just watch eva