• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Any Jungian psychology people on here?

Zopiclone bandit

Zopiclone bandit

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
14,545
I took a Test & came back as INTP (Myers-Briggs) & when I met an INTJ we hit it off like I've never known with another Human.
I began to look into Jung on a very shallow level I admit & came across this & it blew my mind, it is ME!!!



I'm VERY EAGER to be "read" by someone who knows Jung very well, I've never "fitted in" to what people accept & except.

Sometimes being this way can be so lonely as nobody gets you & thinks you are being rude or blunt for the sake of causing deep offence when it isn't the case, I just say things as they are & refuse to play by "Social acceptance" as it's bullshit to say the least.
 
and we do it because we must, then mask the whole time we do, then hide away while we recover

i've done myers briggs a lot of times, it's mostly insightful and correct, but it's still quite shallow. people are more complex than this, relationships even more so, in relationships it takes far more time to identify the subtleties that give these characteristics recognition & therefore meaning.

underlying all this for me is that this has been much more about me accepting who I am, it's taken me a long time to accept me than I thought.


Zopiclone bandit said:
Sometimes being this way can be so lonely as nobody gets you & thinks you are being rude or blunt for the sake of causing deep offence when it isn't the case,
Click to expand...
it's very lonely.

you can be honest to yourself though without being as blunt (because other people aren't as thick skinned), be true to yourself but bend like the willow in the wind when you can, the experience will make the willow stronger (if that's not some Confuses saying thing it fucking should be)

it's possible to be friends with someone while not agreeing with everything they believe - e.g i think you're a twat but consider you a friend
 
yeah im diggin into a bunch of different takes on the subject of psychology and whathaveya.
his (jungs) inner child perspective really hit home to me. took years to come back around as i brushed it off as hogwash (no offense to porcine). it was one of the first thing my first dr brought up.... i wasnt havin it. too woo woo i guess they say these days. idk. just seemed contrived at the time.
it came back to bite me in the ass and hard.
that shadow work is something else ive been dealing with lately. i know the beast is there but have quelled it the last decade or so to try to rein it in so to speak. my mistake was trying to bury the mf. didnt quite work out.
i am now stuck with finding a balance in this journey. maybe jung would call this individuation but in my mind i just call it being me and/or "healthy". havent been me for a looooong time. the real me, anyway. dont even know if i know what that looks like tbph.

in jungs red book there is a lot of symbolic references to the life of christ (imo) and he even mentions him in the volume.

i do feel he had help with his finding via psychedelics or like substances.
i mean yes depression can bring tons of insights but he brought the experiences back.
 
Read a fair bit of Jung but was ages ago now, enjoyed 'man and his symbols' a lot

Have also done myers briggs a few times over the years and agree that it's kinda 'shallow' but also probably the best thing of it's kind, not that any of those systems are that helpful imo. Came out as INFP every time. Have also had to learn to keep an eye out for being overly blunt/direct while still remaining authentic.

I much prefer people who are direct/blunt with me though, I can relate to it and you (I) know where you are with that type of communication.
 
The Red Book is particularly engaging because it is an intelligent professional account of a man sliding into madness. Jung's description, including drawings and artwork, provides a detailed look into his world, taking on new information that replaces the logic of the accepted normalcy of that time period.

I listened to one of YouTube's descriptions of The Red Book; it was not like anything I've experienced, which leads me to think the human experience varies from person to person, even though, under the duress of madness, experiences differ.
I think the human experience is shaped by the environment and how we interpret it. There lies the dilemma.

Who is right? Is it that simple? Life is not black and white; the sooner we accept the infinite variations of what life offers us collectively and individually, the more we might survive. What will it take for us to understand we are not isolated individuals? We and everything we know and understand are intricately connected in ways we don't fully grasp, but this connection is real and it is living.
 
Zopiclone bandit said:
Most Dangerous book ever would be by Robert Anton Wilson Promethus Rising.
Click to expand...
Robert Anton WIlson is hugely influential on me. Model Agnosticism being the only healthy response to illumination is something that reading the illuminatus trilology as a boy really impressed upon me. As opposed to zealotry, we must be open and cruious without ever buying any truth whole cloth. All things are subjective.
 
en.wikipedia.org

Phenomenology (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The term phenomenology derives from the Greek φαινόμενον, phainómenon ("that which appears") and λόγος, lógos ("study"). It entered the English language around the turn of the 18th century and first appeared in direct connection to Husserl's philosophy in a 1907 article in The Philosophical Review.[9]

In philosophy, "phenomenology" refers to the tradition inaugurated by Edmund Husserl at the beginning of the 20th century.[10] The term, however, had been used in different senses in other philosophy texts since the 18th century. These include those by Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728–1777), Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831), and Carl Stumpf (1848–1936), among others.[11][12][13]

It was, however, the usage of Franz Brentano (and, as he later acknowledged, Ernst Mach[6]) that would prove definitive for Husserl.[14] From Brentano, Husserl took the conviction that philosophy must commit itself to description of what is "given in direct 'self-evidence'."[15]

Central to Brentano's phenomenological project was his theory of intentionality, which he developed from his reading of Aristotle's On the Soul.[16] According to the phenomenological tradition, "the central structure of an experience is its intentionality, it being directed towards something, as it is an experience of or about some object."[17] Also, on this theory, every intentional act is implicitly accompanied by a secondary, pre-reflective awareness of the act as one's own.[18]
Click to expand...
 
placebonaut said:
it's possible to be friends with someone while not agreeing with everything they believe
Click to expand...
absolutely agreed.

as a matter of fact, i feel it to be more healthy to interact woth those of opposing ideas otherwise we wind up in an "echo" chamber so to speak and there is no growth for any involved.

week, then.
whattaya do?
argue... 🤣

🫂
 
crystalhorizon said:
Without Dostoyevsky no Sigmund Freud. Without Freud no Jung
Click to expand...
You're forgetting that Freud shared space with Hegel and Heidegger too.

Such heady times. They didn't have psychedelics so they journeyed inward through literature, philosophy, and the study of man in the world, to quote Rollo May.
 
Jung was famously anti- psychedelics

Carl Jung held a cautious and skeptical view of psychedelics, acknowledging their power to induce visions of the collective unconscious but strongly opposing their use as a shortcut to spiritual or psychological transformation. He warned that substances like LSD and mescaline could overwhelm the ego, leading to psychosis or inflation if the individual lacked the necessary preparation, discipline, and capacity for integration.

In his 1952 letter to Father Victor White, Jung explicitly cautioned against the "reckless use" of such substances, arguing that the path to the Self requires patience and cannot be bypassed by artificial means. He believed that confronting the unconscious without proper grounding risks destabilization, as the psyche must be approached with reverence to avoid being overwhelmed by dangerous or chaotic forces.

While Jung recognized that these drugs could reveal archetypal imagery similar to dreams and active imagination, he maintained that true individuation is a slow, lifelong process. He feared that without the ability to integrate these experiences into conscious life, users would merely gain knowledge without the moral or psychological maturity to handle it, potentially increasing their burden and isolation rather than healing.
Click to expand...
 
It's partly why despite my enthusiasm for psychedelic use, I'm not an advocate for psychedelic medicine. I land in the middle with psychedelic integration - if you want to take drugs that is your business, I'm here to process it with you. But I won't take part in your trips while I'm on the clock.
 
tryptakid said:
Eastern European Men
Click to expand...
That imlpies a shared world view that is somewhat different than "Western" tradition, while sharing much of it at the same time.
My first wife was a first generation Lithuanian American. I learned a lot from talking with her grandparents.
 
I think that MAPS is misguided and full of zealots. It's also why I think RFK's heart might be in the right place but he's deluded in his application of all of his nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top