>One of the most difficult cases is the intuitive introvert. The intuitive extrovert you find in all kinds: bankers, gamblers… The introvert is more difficult because he has intuitions as to the subjective factor, namely the inner world. And that is very difficult to understand because what he sees are the most uncommon things. He doesn’t like to speak of them if he’s not a fool because people won’t understand it… If the introverted intuitive would speak what he really perceives, practically no one would understand him. He would be misunderstood... They learn to keep things to themselves. You hardly ever hear them talking of these things. This is a great disadvantage. But in another way, it is an enormous advantage… For instance, they come into the presence of somebody they don’t know…and they see inner images. And these inner images give them a more or less complete information about the psychology of the partner... They know an important piece out of the biography of that person. So the introverted intuitive has, in a way, a very difficult life…although one of the most interesting lives.
I hate this retard cause my friend took his idea of the collective unconscious and convinced he is somehow contributing to it by being antisemitic online.
>>25236224>tractatus logico-philosophicusIf words can't describe your thoughts-- "inner world"-- you should keep silent. >>25236232>unsettled and hatefulYou seem to be the retard.
What are some good works by Jung I should read?I have only ever seen bits and pieces from him but I remember reading some of his quotes on shame and he was absolutely spot-on with my own experiences in life.I would like to read more of his works on shame if possible as I've always struggled with feeling like I need to withdraw and hide parts of my self in social settings, even though I'm not really sure what part of me I'm even ashamed of. I also struggle with talking to strangers sometimes and have a fairly crippling fear of driving. I like to think I'm pretty chill and carefree when hanging out with my friends and doing stuff that I know doesn't really matter, but some part of me deep down absolutely freaks out when I'm about to enter a "serious" situtation where I know people are watching me and there's the chance I might make a big mistake.
>>25236232That should technically in theory work.Individual sentiments affect subliminally by osmosis the entire universe. This is what it means that we are the demiurgoi immanent in emanation. The lesser Younger Gods of Timaeus.Free Will is Creation.
It's ok bro, the extraverted intuitives exist almost for the sole purpose of discovering their introverted variant and turning themselves into their biggest supporters/promoters.Anyways nice, Jung thread.Reading him has been genuinely one of the best pursuits in my life, I'd go as far as arguing he had exactly the kind of ideas we would need to bring back today to counter and balance the attempt to turn psychology fully into giving you meds to "fix" your behavior, or purely judge disorders on the basis of cultural/social standards.And no, the irony of my post isn't lost on me. Even if Jung is primarily an introverted thinking type as he said, I'm sure. He also just happens to have a very considerable intuition and I'm surprised it took him so long to notice.
>>25236341just read modern man in search of a soul it's the best introduction has a variety of essays
>>25236375And when you finish that one, read Memories, Dreams, Reflections, his beefed-up pseudomemoir
There's no normal way to act anymore. You just have to intuit how others want or expect or in extreme cases NEED you to act. When you make reciprocal demands you are disappointed because they are not as intuitive as you, but still feel their position is superior and thus act however they like, usually treating you like the scum of the earth. A real case of cruelty they perform daily, or, when the intuitive prosocials make their demands, a complete lack of reciprocation ergo forfeiting the mutual agreement upon a social contract acknowledged by both parties and that's when violence comes into the equation.
>>25236397There's always the option of not giving a fuck, realistically you don't have to adapt to everyone's bullshit and you can either call it out or just continue your day as if it didn't matter.
>>25236232Your friend is orders of magnitude more based and redpilled than you.
>>25236353Psychology is not a science If it was a science, it would be innate rather than insist on itself being considered a science
>>25236547It's not hard/natural science, it's not meant to be, and this is perfectly fine.Unchecked scientism only makes any attempts at a psychology that's actually meaningful to individuals way worse.
>>25236353>he had exactly the kind of ideas we would need to bring back today to counter and balance the attempt to turn psychology fully into giving you meds to "fix" your behavior, or purely judge disorders on the basis of cultural/social standards.I think it goes way deeper than that. After having read a few of his books, the way I understand it is that his intention - even if he did not explicitly put it into those words - was to give the modern man a replacement for what religion was doing until this point. He watched his father, a Catholic priest, essentially die of depression due to not having answers to the deepest of questions about meaning and purpose of life, and from that he concluded that Christianity, or all Abrahamic religions are done for - the dogma they provide was sufficient to give meaning to generations a millennium ago, but the interpretations and the actual understanding of those teachings has been lost entirely. He was of the opinion that not even priests understand the things they are parroting anymore, and if it ever made sense in the past, it is not good enough for the modern man. Then he started doing the whole psychology thing, but over the decades he bridged psychology to Gnostic teachings (of Jesus), eastern religions, and what I find the most insane about him - quantum physics. He corresponded for I believe 20 years with Wolfgang Pauli, and while I don't think either of them published anything official about the relationship between the psyche and say, the collapse of the wave function, I think we can intuit where that discussion was heading. So individuation is not just a way to fix your mental health problems, it was intended to be a full on paradigm of the world. picrel I haven't read it yet, but it's some Jungian discussing that - since archetypes are not just fundamental organizing principle of the psyche, but of the universe itself - they can perhaps be described as attractors in chaotic systems. For me personally, the more I get into Jung the more glue I feel I'm sniffing, but I like it.
>>25236673>So individuation is not just a way to fix your mental health problems, it was intended to be a full on paradigm of the world.Sort of. Individuation goes obviously beyond merely a therapeutic method, but I think Jung himself was careful enough to not speak of anything beyond the psyche itself. You will find he constantly denies trying to lead the discussion into the field of metaphysics or raw spiritualism, and the point he's trying to make is about how these things give you hints on what kind of "treatment" the psyche actually needs, once you interpret them as psychic facts and dynamics as opposed to something that would exist entirely outside of ourselves.What's exactly the purpose of an "archetype" or where it might have originated form beyond merely stating that it is present in the collective unconscious, that's up to speculation. Same with the entire idea of the Self acting as if it were a center of gravity between conscious and unconscious.
>>25236563Then dont call it a science.Its just philosophy without God and with body chemistry (a science)
>>25236698Who called it a science ITT?
>>25236673Thank you for the book rec, I won't be paying for it however nor recommending it to anyone who might.
>>25236673his father wasn't not Catholic he came from a free mason protestant family his great uncle or something was one of the heads of freemasonry
>>25236547I see the STEMtards are feeling threatened by a Jung thread once again.
>>25236673>and what I find the most insane about him - quantum physicsQuantum physics establishes that the observer affects what is observed. The psyche is an active participant in the formation of reality. Cope moar.
>>25236849>the observer affects what is observedWith your eyes though, not with your psyche.>The psyche is an active participant in the formation of realityOf the subjective image of reality, sure. The psyche does not have raw unfiltered access to external reality, and for that matter it also does not have raw unfiltered access to the collective unconscious.
>>25236849>Quantum physics establishes that the observer affects what is observed.This guy blocks your path, WYD?
>>25236232lol , you two are retards
>>25236341You should get a decent shrink and show him a screenshot of your post here. Don't try and analyze yourself.
>>25236795/thread
>>25236224Astrology for men
>>25236984im also into astrology
>>25236993im into astrotheology
>>25236232>>25236352>>25236461None of you understand what the collective unconscious is. It is not some sort of online mind. It is simply the basics of the psyche that we all share. Imagine lots of differents buildings, every single one with the exact same floor but with different walls. The floor is the collective unconscious.
>>25237011The High Priestess, representing the subconscious, is also given the position of the "floor" in the Cube
>>25237011Its fair to call thr internet an observable and easy to interact with manifestation of the collective conscious which is a reflection of the collective unconscious
>>25237011Finally somebody who gets it.It's supposed to be the ground of the unconscious itself, supposedly containing common "collective" archetypes.The claim is easy to explain this way: regardless of your age, culture, experience etc., you were basically born knowing what a "Mother" is.Not the word itself, but the meaning this concept carriers is already there without anyone needing to explain it. And it has what Jung terms a "numinous quality". It's not an abstract kind of knowledge, specifically it carries a certain charge.That's common to any other human, hence we can say it's an impersonal "collective" layer of the unconscious that already has something in it before you can possibly form the personal layer unconscious, and finally conscientiousness.While the collective unconscious is argued to be dynamic, and thus new archetypes could be discovered endlessly as time passes and generations evolve, it should be noted that the influence wouldn't be felt in your times - no one can operate directly on this, it's some sort of ancestral imprint.
>>25237063Ahem*consciousness
>>25236852>With your eyes though, not with your psyche.The one is attached to the other.>>25236855Ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
>>25236232>I hate this guy because my friend effectively operationalized one of his ideasQuit kvetching kike
>>25236673There was a lot of that going on (looking for a scientific replacement for religion)Georges Bataille made a whole secret society that seriously considered human sacrifice in order to make a new religion for the modern age. Spiritualism was all the rage from the latter half of the 19th century till WW1 made everyone get real serious about shit again. The rich and well-to-do spent like 40 years getting high and doing seances for fun.
>>25236341
>>25236911Meaning... there's no reason to discuss anything he ever said because he was related to a freemason?>>25237305This just reminds me how reading him was like three parts utter snooze, him rambling about who knows what, three parts decently interesting, and then one part 'bam!' serious shots of fascinating thoughts and ideas.
>>25237063>>25237011Nope, wrong. On a deeper level it is supernatural/mystical. Stay hylic
>>25236232I mean... He is actually correct because the internet is the collective unconscious. Your friend is higher IQ than you.
>>25237709hey dumbass how is it any kind of unconscious when you can literally directly look at it and consider it using your conscious mind
>>25236341Memories, Dreams, Reflections. There are so many parts of if that I remember vividly. You don't have to read far before you realise hes deeply schizo.
>>25237713Because it influences you and anyone who uses it...? Without the internet do you think people would be just as women hating as people are now?
>>25237718>Because it influences you and anyone who uses it...?just like literally everything else???
>>25237718You are mixing up the collective consciousness with the collective unconscious. See:>>25237011
>>25237709>the internet is the collective unconsciousClose enough, but let's be more specific just for the sake of: the internet is a good tool to notice how certain *external manifestations* lead back to the collective unconscious, but we must be extremely careful to not confuse the external observable manifestations with the actual essence of the archetype.Which is to say, internet itself is NOT the collective unconscious, you CANNOT write things here and expect it to become part of it. It helps you acknowledge the existence of archetypal ideas in our times that might have not originated from a specific culture or your personal unconscious, but that's all it does. >>25237701"Jungians", as in, the one who revere him as if he was some sort of spiritual figure, are as bad as the ones he accused of "scientism".What Jung did boils down to understanding that all these symbols, religious practices, and so on, conceal a deeper truth about the psyche. He doesn't know what exactly it means, he won't give you a specific practice to perform, he just said that it seems to lead back to the attempt to establish a "Self".
>>25237719Yeah except without it I can't usually influence burgers in America by being racist on the streets of Paris.
>>25237755Your unconscious mind is different from the collective unconscious. Just because something influences you unconsciously doesn't mean it came from or is part of the collective unconscious, which consists of things like symbols, archetypes, instincts, etc., not political ideas specific to your particular era and environment. I thought it was interesting finding out Freud had similar ideas to the collective consciousness, but it was less about it being shared and moreso these memories and symbols being embedded in your dna/psyche from your actual biological ancestors
>>25237831>but it was less about it being shared and moreso these memories and symbols being embedded in your dna/psyche from your actual biological ancestorsFunnily enough, it's not exactly too far from Jung's idea.Only problem was making it about "your actual biological ancestors" as opposed to "ancestral" in general. Collective unconscious is basically just the logical extreme: you have two hands exactly like primitives, and a part of your psyche is exactly like primitives as well - which is sort of required to establish the ground before man eventually became capable of abstract thought and individuation (although one could argue the evidence of these capacities in the average normie is pretty weak).
>>25236353>It's ok bro, the extraverted intuitives exist almost for the sole purpose of discovering their introverted variant and turning themselves into their biggest supporters/promoters.Best support for the introverted intuitive is the extraverted sensor, who is the best at balancing the neuroses of the former.>Even if Jung is primarily an introverted thinking type as he said, I'm sure. He also just happens to have a very considerable intuition and I'm surprised it took him so long to notice.There is still some disagreement on whether Jung was able to understand his type correctly. His free-flowing, rather abstract style conflicts with the idea of the leading introverted thinking function, whose intellectual products are the most structured of all types.
>>25237889>who is the best at balancing the neuroses of the former.Was thinking it more in terms of what kind of types would end up getting interested in understanding intuitive stuff, engaging on similar terms, and possibly communicating and ultimately promoting them. They wouldn't be able to provide more personal support though since extraverted intuitives are also struggling with sensation on their own end - that would indeed be somebody who is as grounded and realistic as the extraverted sensation type.>There is still some disagreement on whether Jung was able to understand his type correctly.To me the question is very silly in the first place: Jung defined the introverted thinking type based on himself, as the starting point to discover the extraverted feeling type by contraposition, and eventually the other function-types, then finally into arguing you can have any combo of attitude-type + function-type(so for instance the introvert can also be a feeling type).As for his writing style, I'd like you to read this one:>I discriminate between the ordinary ego-consciousness of the man and his creative personality. Very often there is a striking difference. Personally a creative man can be an introvert, but in his work he is an extravert, and vice versa. … Adler, whom I met as a young man, being of my age, gave me the impression of a neurotic introvert, in which case there is always the doubt as to the definite type. … Freud as well as Adler underwent a change in their personal type. …>Adler, I suppose, was never a real introvert, therefore as soon as he had a certain success he began to develop an extraverted behavior. But in his creative work he had the outlook of an introvert. The power complex which both of them had showed in Freud’s personal attitude, where it belonged. In Adler’s case it became his theory, where it did not belong. This meant an injury to his creative aspect.
>>25237715He didn't even write that book, champ.
>>25237011>what is synchronicity
>>25239796Roughly speaking, a clue that could be interpreted in many ways as opposed to simply dismissed as mere coincidence.It could prove the activation of archetypal ideas, or it could prove cultural influence, it means something on a psychological level but the "what" depends on the specific case.
>>25237905>Was thinking it more in terms of what kind of types would end up getting interested in understanding intuitive stuff, engaging on similar terms, and possibly communicating and ultimately promoting them.Right.>Jung defined the introverted thinking type based on himself, as the starting point to discover the extraverted feeling type by contraposition, and eventually the other function-types, then finally into arguing you can have any combo of attitude-type + function-type(so for instance the introvert can also be a feeling type.A hypothetical inventor of a in itself correct theory of chemical elements may not necessarily be able to apply that to himself to understand that he is made out of mainly carbon. That Jung was an introvert seems obvious to almost everyone from his description of his reclusivity and his tendency towards speculation. >As for his writing style, I'd like you to read this oneHis books are a structural mess and he spends 9(!) chapters in 'Psychological Types' before he actually gets to the presentation of the basic theory. Leading Ti would normally be more concise and present more systematically with the basics before the more exemplary sections.
witchcraft thread
>>25238833Yes he did?
>>25239956>His books are a structural mess and he spends 9(!) chapters in 'Psychological Types' before he actually gets to the presentation of the basic theory.Well firstly, the argument I wanted to make with the quote is that your output, especially a more "creative" one such as writing a book or proposing an innovative theory, does not necessarily lead back to the person's own type. In fact, it might be the perfect opposite: with Freud being an example of a standpoint given from the PoV of "extraverted thinking" despite him being an introverted feeling type supposedly.Secondly, but arguably more important in general terms imo, is that the main point of Psychological Types isn't Chapter X and he had insisted multiple times on this claim.The entire book is basically him showing how you can discover the extraverted and introverted types in many different places, fields, time periods, etc. And then bring up what the existence of these types implies, in this one context, or this other context.And finally, people focusing so much on Chapter X to build theories such as MBTI and Socionics(and on these, I'd like to add they are pseudo-Jungian, so I won't give them any real merit for the purpose of understanding Jung, as they operate almost fully divorced from his ideas) is something that happened afterwards. He, himself, did not bother especially because he wasn't interested in building a solid typological system.In my opinion, honestly it was already fine taken on its own. The "problem" is that people really wanted to formalize it into a more testable and fully systemized theory where you can construct a method of typing people, rather than something that allows a certain degree of dynamism and requires interpretation. If we want to be accurate to Jung, then you couldn't go around categorize behavior at all because it's completely pointless and says nothing much about the subject behind it until we add the question of what's "conscious" and "unconscious".
>>25237746>What Jung did boils down to understanding that all these symbols, religious practices, and so on, conceal a deeper truth about the psyche. He doesn't know what exactly it means, he won't give you a specific practice to perform, he just said that it seems to lead back to the attempt to establish a "Self".why are you lying like this? Youre a sort of pseudo-jungian yourself by misrepresenting his ideas and transforming them into easily digestible truthisms.
>>25240016>easily digestible truthismsInsane claim. There is nothing digestible about >He doesn't know what exactly it meansThat specifically leaves it open to speculation, beyond merely establishing the presence of certain psychic facts/patterns.
