What do you guys think about Jung

[AION]

His work has infinite depth. I have been studying him for years and there is still uncharted depths that I’m coming across. He was a guy well before his time. Basically today’s music psychology is a cheap rehash of his work. Most psychologists are an insult to his work. And imo you can’t really do spirituality without his work. One really needs to understand the mind and have the ability to give therapy to yourself because nobody else will do it. 

[jimwell]

I’ve studied his work a bit and uncovered some truths. His work has some alignment with the Law of Attraction. When I have more time, I’ll explore it more deeply.

[Hojo]

I bought his red book to feel smart read 4 pages and never touched it again. Too many words.

I really want an Ai that can caveman peoples books.

Me carl jung me see picture in head. Me see personalities in head. One play trick on me. One pick on others.

Edited June 29 by Hojo

[PurpleTree]

A very sensitive interesting man with a deep connection to the universe although also troubled.

[theleelajoker]

I am only superficially familiar with his work. But his idea of the collective unconscious is something that resonates strongly with me. After some recent meditation retreats, I have the feeling that in certain situations I can get access to this, being aware of far more then just my personal experience and personal past. It feels more like a stream of information that is in a order of "personal, family, cultural, global" 

I think he also talked a lot about shadows, which makes sense for me too. 

 

[AION]

Psychologists have disowned Jung and that is why they suck ass most of the time while the good spiritual gurus respect Jung but unfortunately most of them teach a bastardized version of Jung’s work which does more harm than good. 

Edited June 30 by AION

[aurum]

Worth learning about, but ultimately overrated.

You can do much better than Jung.

[Schizophonia]

@AION

It's an interesting point of view, but if you're looking for the simplest, most solid, most effective model, then Freud is clearly superior.

[AION]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

@AION

It's an interesting point of view, but if you're looking for the simplest, most solid, most effective model, then Freud is clearly superior.

Freud is too busy with libido to care about the real gold: the unconscious 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I enjoy his work. I haven't done a deep dive. But respect for him for diving into really unknown territory. He appears to be unafraid by the fact a lot of his work is outside the scope of science (topic cannot be harvested [data wise] so easily, and draw conclusions). Based 

[Guest Nilsi]

19 hours ago, AION said:

Freud is too busy with libido to care about the real gold: the unconscious 

That’s not accurate at all.

The main difference is that the wish - or as Lacan called it, le désir - in Freud is condemned to remain unfulfilled. Desire is constitutively lacking. In contrast, Jung imagines that, through the integration of the “archetypes,” the subject can supposedly attain a state of “wholeness.”

In Freud, you have the tragic split in the subject. In Jung, you get the vulgar holism of Self-Actualization. Jung reduces life to a set of operations - non-linear as they may be - to be carried out in pursuit of fulfillment. Freud, by contrast, opens up the possibility of a genuine vector of creativity: life as a creative act of defiance rather than a march toward completion.

Why do you think Freud has inspired such a vast and diverse lineage of philosophy, while Jung has mainly produced a closed circle of Jungian ideologues? Because Jung’s analytic psychology is a dead end. There is nothing beyond the archetypes - only the “Self,” that great castrated Zero.

Edited July 2 by Nilsi

[_Archangel_]

Great mind and body of work, but He just leaves you wishing because you can clearly see that he was still anchored to a materialistic frame ("what?! Jung?" Yes). Nontheless, his model is very insightful: Concepts like the Persona, the Shadow, the Anima, The Archetipes, The personal/collective Uncouscious are very useful in personal developement as well as in spiritual work.

[AION]

2 hours ago, Nilsi said:

That’s not accurate at all.

The main difference is that the wish - or as Lacan called it, le désir - in Freud is condemned to remain unfulfilled. Desire is constitutively lacking. In contrast, Jung imagines that, through the integration of the “archetypes,” the subject can supposedly attain a state of “wholeness.”

In Freud, you have the tragic split in the subject. In Jung, you get the vulgar holism of Self-Actualization. Jung reduces life to a set of operations - non-linear as they may be - to be carried out in pursuit of fulfillment. Freud, by contrast, opens up the possibility of a genuine vector of creativity: life as a creative act of defiance rather than a march toward completion.

Why do you think Freud has inspired such a vast and diverse lineage of philosophy, while Jung has mainly produced a closed circle of Jungian ideologues? Because Jung’s analytic psychology is a dead end. There is nothing beyond the archetypes - only the “Self,” that great castrated Zero.

So how would you describe yourself? A Freudian ? I’m not to familiar with him tbh. 

Edited July 2 by AION

[Guest Nilsi]

11 minutes ago, AION said:

So how would you describe yourself? A Freudian ? I’m not to familiar with him tbh. 

I’m not a psychoanalyst or anything like that, so my interest in Freud is naturally limited by the fact that he developed his theories exclusively through his clinical practice.

That’s also what makes his work so powerful and surprisingly accessible - the epistemology is completely transparent and doesn’t defer to any prior concepts or texts, except when he draws parallels to his own empirical findings.

But I’m extremely interested in desire - how it structures life, business, relationships, politics, art, and ultimately reality itself. In fact, I’d say it’s my main theoretical interest. So I take Freud’s discoveries very seriously and find them incredibly productive.

Edited July 2 by Nilsi

[Guest Nilsi]

11 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

I’m not a psychoanalyst or anything like that, so my interest in Freud is naturally limited by the fact that he developed his theories exclusively through his clinical practice.

That’s also what makes his work so powerful and surprisingly accessible - the epistemology is completely transparent and doesn’t defer to any prior concepts or texts, except when he draws parallels to his own empirical findings.

But I’m extremely interested in desire - how it structures life, business, relationships, politics, art, and ultimately reality itself. In fact, I’d say it’s my main theoretical interest. So I take Freud’s discoveries very seriously and find them incredibly productive.

I work in sales and marketing in the advertising industry, so that’s a big bias running through everything I do - just so you know.

But using that as an excuse to take what I’m saying less seriously would be a mistake.

Edited July 2 by Nilsi

[AION]

@Nilsithat sounds interesting. Jung is such a deep well, it is easy to get lost in it. I will try to look into Freud too. I always refrained from it because he gets poo-pooed on a lot. But to be honest he has some weird theories like the Oedipus complex.

Edited July 3 by AION

[Guest Nilsi]

3 hours ago, AION said:

@Nilsithat sounds interesting. Jung is such a deep well, it is easy to get lost in it. I will try to look into Freud too. I always refrained from it because he gets poo-pooed on a lot. But to be honest he has some weird theories like the Oedipus complex.

The Oedipus complex is basically Freud’s model of how early desire gets structured: the child forms an unconscious attachment to the opposite-sex parent and hostility toward the same-sex parent as a rival and figure of authority. This conflict generates anxiety and eventually produces an internalized prohibition - the superego - that regulates desire in line with social norms. Freud treated this as a universal mechanism underlying conscience and culture.

Like any developmental model, it has limitations and tends to impose a fixed pattern onto complex experiences. Deleuze and Guattari, in the polemically titled Anti-Oedipus, challenged this sharply, arguing it reduces all desire to a narrow, culturally specific family drama and overlooks the broader social, economic, and productive flows that shape desire.

But honestly, is it really weirder than Jungian ideas that everyone is secretly carrying around the archetype of the cosmic Mother or some primordial Magician haunting the unconscious?

[AION]

@Nilsi it is not weird because you are half your mother and half your father so it would kind of makes sense. And I wouldn’t say we carry the archetypes. They are part of the fabric of the psyche, like a carpet with different forms/patterns woven into it which one might call archetypes. 

[theleelajoker]

@Nilsi @AION Very interesting for me to follow your discussion and lines of thought about Jung and Freud. Makes me questions some of my understanding of the psyche...and my relationship to my parents

[Schizophonia]

On 01/07/2025 at 9:41 PM, AION said:

Freud is too busy with libido to care about the real gold: the unconscious 

Freud speaks of the unconscious.

Jungian epistemology is based on archetypes (anima/animus for gender, mythological figures, simpler and more precise roles such as "the teacher," "the victim," "the one who tells the truth," etc.) which tacitly correspond to survival strategies; because of personal history and, by extension, that of the collective, the ego habitually identifies with a set of compulsively repeated behaviors called persona, composed of these archetypes. Pathological behaviors appear when there is a contradiction between what tends towards the "true" biological self and the social mask (the persona); the cause of the conflict is repressed (in the unconscious precisely) to dull the pain of the conflict and function best in the direction of pleasure and efficiency.

Freudian epistemology is more fundamental; it's the one you'll prefer if you want to get to the "cause of causes of causes." People seek the insignia of power, of survival; it's the phallus.
(We say phallus in reference to children; children tend to interpret the difference between the sexes when they discover it as a castration of the genitals in girls; it is one of the first biographical events that awakens, symbolizing the loss of power, of "self," and by extension the fear of death/mutilation.)
Most pathological behaviors, called neurotic, stem from what has been recorded as an effective strategy to obtain/keep the phallus.
Everyone is more or less neurotic.
The Oedipus complex is a biographical event and therefore relative, even if common to most people who grew up in a nuclear family, but it can be substituted by other scenarios depending on the people who introduce the concept of the superego.

I know little about hysteria, but I know quite a bit about obsessional neurosis; this type of neurosis is particularly present in men (but also in many women), especially in "scrupulous" circles such as spirituality, positions of power, teachers, etc.