/x/ — >everything is all just psychological >spirituality is just

File: sss.jpg (15 KB, 292x222)

>Masturbate
>This pleasures the "woman in side me"
>I therefore made a woman cum
Later virgins

>>42525831 (OP)
Not a reading for hylics, OP. No theory is supposed to be taken as a reality manual, you know.

File: 133818.png (122 KB, 344x281)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YvLBYnUYAw

>>42525831 (OP)
>>42525852
I laughed. Which makes me wonder.
I'm going to assume these were bots. Not people, not shilling or sliding. Just bots.
So...why? How does this get monetized? Is it to keep me clicking, even as I have the ads blocked? Does it change my poor ass buying habits?
I don't see how this is at all an AFFECTIVE use of processing, not even worried about EFFECTIVE. Does this affect anything at all?
I guess so. I laughed.
(I don't really care if you aren't bots. That isn't the point.)

>>42525831 (OP)
Basado

I'm a woman

File: pepe-laugh-pepe-lol.gif (192 KB, 632x640)

>>42525852

File: 1781027323877461.jpg (44 KB, 659x421)

"We call it: retard-projection."

File: Real.jpg (98 KB, 1080x1048)

>>42525852

>fucks a bunch of hysterical milfs and young broads
>figures out reality
this is your reminder to read Jung.

>>42525831 (OP)
>everything is all just psychological
Yes and psychology comes from two Greek words: Psyche (Soul) Delos (Study). Study of the soul

>Spirituality is just archetypes and symbols
Spirituality inspires archetypes and symbols. You would be a fool to dismiss spirituality for the sake of symbols. "Water is just ice cubes". That's how you sound.

>It's just a deep layer of your unconscious that comes from biology
The unconscious is not a biological concept, it is psychological. Most hard line materialists don't even believe in the 'unconscious'.
>Every man has a woman inside of him
No he does not.
>Every woman has a man inside of her
No she does not
>Literally everyone is naturally transgendered
No they are not. Are you listening to yourself? Just a moment ago you call the unconscious purely biological, that spirituality isn't transcendental but physical. The next moment you believe in anima/animus, a purely mental/psychological concept? Make your mind up.
>Even your personality is just a "persona" that isn't really "you"
Then why bother making any claims about you or me or others? Why believe in anima/Animus? Why say anything about the human condition of there is no-one to attribute it to?

Here is the true matter of reality:
Everything is spiritual
Spiritually is the cause of symbols, symbols are not the cause of spirituality
The unconscious is not a matter of spirit but of mind. Spirit and mind are separate.
Every man's mind has a female role model (mother)
Every woman's mind has a male role model (father)
No one is transgendered for having an opposite sex parent.
Personhood/personality exists, it is just not static. It grows and matures, that is why clinging to it is foolish. Denying it is even more foolish. You are supposed to just leave it be.

You're either misinterpreting Jung, or Jung is a barking idiot.

>>42526233
Not OP but i am clueless of jung and was a bit curious of what he talks and means.

Could you give me a few ideas? I think if i go reading about him in the dark i won't understand anything.

>>42526238
Jung is a hard read for anyone who is 'face-value'. When Jung speaks, he uses a shit ton of metaphor and allegory and idiom and simile. This is because Jung's whole thing is to try and speak of the unspeakable, to use language in an attempt make visible that which is invisible, (spirituality, the unconscious, the things in your mind that move you and you can only ever sense but never define).

Everything Jung talks about has already been understood of thousands of years within theology. Jung is only good reading for people who are unwilling or unable to readily accept spiritual doctrine at face value. Jung's works introduces these things in a tip-toe way for the reader using real lived experiences we all might have. The problem with Jung is sometimes his tip-toeing wanders into dead ends, like anima/Animus, the concept of shadow, and typology.

>>42526233
why the fuck are you addressing me? I didn't come up with this shit and no I am not misinterpreting Jung, google it yourself nigger

fuck with Jung or go fuck yourself but leave me the fuck alone you dumb fucking schizo faggot

>>42526247
>Makes a thread
>Forwards an idea or set of ideas
>Gets a reply
>Why are you addressing me?

Nigga when you post a philosophy or idea or ideology and then make a giant green text about it with your own inferences it gives the impression that you believe in it or partly take it seriously. Is it a surprise you get addressed?

>>42526246
I see
Thank you!

>>42526262
No problem. The tl;Dr of
Anima/Animus
Is Jung believes the self to be a psychological construct. One that took a man & a woman (dad and mom) to nurture, raise and influence. The anima would be your mom parts in your mind. And dad parts is Animus.

For trannies it's neither anima or animus it is anime. Blame japan!

The shadow is the idea that your whole life you are raised to create a psychological 'self' that is good, nice, orderly, civil, humane, stable. But your mind also wants bad, mean, chaotic, wild, unhumane things. Your mind suppresses all of the negatives for long enough that a shadow self is created, a 'dark side' everyone has that has its own ego and hidden identity or archetype.

And typology is the idea that people can be fit into different archetypes. He didn't go far with this idea and abandoned it, but from it we know of extrovert and introvert. MBTI was the fanfic made by two retard women ages ago that took Jung's typology and tried to expand it.

File: PepeLaugh.jpg (25 KB, 600x314)

>>42526273
>For trannies it's neither anima or animus it is anime. Blame japan!

>>42525947
Kek

>>42525831 (OP)
no wonder trannies love this fake schizo larper so much

>>42525831 (OP)
What’s the difference thenbeit? If you just change one word out for another the concept still exists just under a new name. Like how magic is science now, you can cast fireball by making a Molotov.

File: 1769293237650712.gif (3.04 MB, 500x281)

>>42525852
top kek

I see her in dreams sometimes, but she is not me. She has brunette hair, and reminds me of Lucy from the peanuts. I saw my doppleganger in bed with her, and I saw my self look at the mirror and smile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoscopy

My shadow can actually harm me physically in dreams. I was choked one morning and I said, "Leave me alone" next to the door of my bedroom, The next night I dream I grabbed a girl by the neck in the same place of my house and woke up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

I change sex in my dreams and also shapeshift into fish forms, like dreams of my old homes underwater where I am eating food out of the sink or masturbating my "pussy" to a full body orgasm in my sleep. I wake up and am back to be a normal guy, but it's funny how they fuck with you in these out of body hallucinations with "impersonators" (family, friends, and animals) One time I was a woman in a full head dress and gown and wearing a crimson color shawl, my nephew was standing in front of me next to the pantry shirtless, and goes, "My gallbladder!" and his stomach begins to protrude whereby I them cover it with my hand and call out to my mom and that's where the hallucinations ends and I'm back in my bed.

I've been raped a few times by shapeshifting demons, and "invisible" people.

>>42526262
Do not listen to this midwit.
>>42526246
>>42526273
He clearly has never actually read nor understood Jung's works. Probably just watched a few videos and assumed the rest in his ignorance.

It's difficult to do a summary of Jung because of the intricacies of his ideas. My best recommendation is the YouTube channel Eternalised. His stuff is some of the very best explorations of Jung I've ever heard. There is no real best place to start btw so just jump in and go from there.
https://youtu.be/2wyb0OKwY2g?si=cWWLV36BxevAY8e-

>>42525831 (OP)
did jung say all this? was he really gay?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FgxacX72snA&ra=m

>>42526233
WRONG

Symbols birthed spiritualism obviously since symbols are found in construction older than the human body.

GEOMETRIC SHAPES NIGGUH
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE UNIVERSE BRAH
FOUNDATIONS OF REALITY SON

Also, unconscious not being matter? WRONG. Unconscious thoughts manipulate the surroundings, thus they have to have a material state in order to interact with other material.

You understand science too poorly to provide frameworks.

>unconscious is not a biological concept
holy lmao
you’re one of them that shouldn’t be reading at all. zug zugger

File: microphysical psyche.png (343 KB, 677x924)

>>42525831 (OP)
>>everything is all just psychological
It's not like everything is psychological, it's that Jung is specifically exploring the psychological angle.

>>42528553
The word you are looking for is "microphysical"

>>42525831 (OP)
How many times have you used “just”? Your reductionist mindset can’t comprehend that Jung didn’t come up with anything new and that he simply projected his own semantics on already existing frameworks. The universe “being mind” and thus reality operating through “mind” is an ancient model with its own axioms.

>>42530581
Indeed
From the man himself:

>[Dr. Jung:] Suppose you were quite alone in a room, and suddenly something stirred, something which could not be accounted for and which you have not moved; you can say it is a ghost or it might be a human being or an animal-God knows what-but you instantly have the feeling of not being alone in the room. And so the experience of a trans-subjective reality gives you suddenly the feeling that you are not alone in your psychology. There is something else that seems to come from outside, yet you clearly know it is nowhere outside.
>Question: Is this not just the unconscious?
>Dr.Jung: Oh yes, you can call it "the unconscious." Just what the unconscious is we don't know. To call it "the unconscious" is merely facon de parler. You can call it "the dark continent," or "heaven," or "hell," or anything you like: it is simply something from the unknown. When you recognize the unknown as a really existing thing, you have had the trans-subjective experience

>>42525831 (OP)
>literally everyone is naturally transgendered and just projecting it onto the opposite sex
I think what Jung was talking about was the incomplete duality of the soul being what draws us to the opposite gender to couple with, and the reason we project characteristics of the opposite sex onto things we admire or appreciate (vehicles art, etc)

>>42525923
So what is it suppose to be taken as then?

>>42530828
A way to name things that are already real, as well as the relationships between those things which would otherwise be observed in isolation without us being able to see a rational connection.
This is "Thinking", in Jungian terms, but Thinking is only indirectly based off reality rather than dictating reality itself.

>>42530633
Yes, but when you put it that way it's not as inflammatory or insulting to people who worship him.

>>42528403
It's difficult to do a summary of Jung because of the incoherence of his ideas. If you have to ease through woo and interpret his ideas as though they were an abstract painting, it means his ideas were incoherent. Jung is to psychology as Tesla is to science, both of them are mythologized to the point of absurdity.

>>42530836
So in a way it is sort of a manual then.
>as well as the relationships between those things which would otherwise be observed in isolation without us being able to see a rational connection.
A manual to recognizing the things happening in your own mind better?

>>42528553
>Symbols birthed spiritualism obviously since symbols are found in construction older than the human body.
Symbols are only symbols until a conscious mind recognizes and identifies them as symbols. Symbols depend entirely on our mind's pattern recognition. We call them symbols, the rest of reality doesn't call it anything at all.

>Geometric shapes nigguh
There's nothing innately special about those
>Building blocks of the universe brah
Atoms
>Foundations of reality
Our mind interacting with the formation of atoms

>Unconscious thoughts manipulate the surroundings
No they don't. Demonstrate a single time when a human being's unconscious mind successfully manipulated physical matter I'll wait.

>You understand science too poorly
The human mind as an emergent phenomena is immaterial and transcendental. The brain is physical, but the mind that we have experience from it is non-physical, which is why theologians, philosophers and scientists all of them have been hell-bent in figuring out the nature of consciousness. How can a physical thing [the brain] generate a non-physical phenomena [the mind]? That's the heart of every query for all three camps: of religion, of philosophy of science.

If you tell me that you have worked it all out, I will demand proof. So give me proof, show me an instance where the unconscious mind has manipulated material outside of that mind.

>>42530852
It's a complex issue.
In reading Jung, I noticed he tends to use terms in a certain way, and then in a different way given another context. Sometimes "unconscious" has to do with "undirected"(or rather, directed by a will that's not "yours"), while other times it simply means "unaware"(but you can be aware of the aforementioned phenomenon). Sometimes "collective" refers to social and cultural(or collective consciousness), there's also primal and pre-cultural(usually the context for collective unconscious and archetypes)
Another thing that he claimed to not be operating under any definite and closed system, his theory is very experiential(or "empirical", but in the way we use the words nowadays since we are talking about observing "psychic facts").
And finally, scientific bias. Many people are convinced that science equals truth, and what doesn't fit within the method isn't "real", even if it happened. Jung's theories cannot really be made to fit scientific criteria, due to the lack of falsifiability or physical evidence.

>>42530854
Only as much a dictionary is a manual. The man himself explains it here: >>42530592
He will call it the unconscious, but what you have to know is that there are experiences beyond the conscious and individual mind.

>>42530867
>a human being's unconscious mind successfully manipulated physical matter
It wouldn't be unconscious if you could direct it by will.
So it's more like precognition at best, an image arrives in your mind before it happens in reality, and now you can't tell whether the unconscious had caused the event or saw in the future. What you know for sure, is that it proves the psyche is relative in time/space.

>>42530871
>but in the way we use the words nowadays
but NOT in the way we use the words nowadays*

>>42530871
>In reading Jung, I noticed he tends to use terms in a certain way, and then in a different way given another context.
I know, and that's Jung's fault. I can 100% say this is a mental error on his part because I speak in the same way as Jung when I am not focused. Using words liberally and applying them in contexts known only to myself and forgetting about the reading or listening experience of the other person. That's why I am not as bowled over by his works than others might be, because I can tell he is sloppy in the way he talks. He could very easily make his concepts more concise and clear but for whatever reason he never does. And whenever someone else does, Jung fanatics chimp out and claim it's a misinterpreting of Jung. For example when I wrote: >>42526273

About Jung's concept of the "Shadow". All it is in summary is all your suppressed negative thoughts feelings go somewhere and it takes the form of a shadow self or dark ego, or compartmentalized thought structure resembling a suppressed 'self'.

Unfortunately Jung fans have this almost esoteric/occult-like enthusiasm where they need his works to validate their personal fanfics about themselves or life and his works are often hijacked.

File: Jung individual.png (255 KB, 698x571)

>>42530919
>I know, and that's Jung's fault.
Tru dat.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a good idea behind it, don't mix expression with the substance.

>About Jung's concept of the "Shadow". All it is in summary is all your suppressed negative thoughts feelings go somewhere and it takes the form of a shadow self or dark ego, or compartmentalized thought structure resembling a suppressed 'self'.
Slightly more complex than that, for the sake of keeping it simple, imagine the Ego as the center of the conscious personality while the Shadow is the center of the unconscious one.

>>42530934
Yeah I understand but what I don't get is the idea that it's unconscious. Some of us are wildly aware of why we are motivated or inclined towards negativity or even certain benign behaviours. For example when I wanted to become a psychologist, I decided against it because I understood plainly that the desire was just using inclinations I had developed during childhood (trying to mediate, placate and understand two belligerent dysfunctional parents). And that my entire interest in figuring others or myself out was just a continuation of that, and I decided to not pursue it because I don't enjoy being in behavioural cycles. My problem with the idea of the shadow being unconscious is it implies it's unknowable.

>>42530950
Unconscious(undirected) rather than Unconscious(unaware).
Though you might say it's a time-sensitive issue(unaware when something happens, but awareness can be gained in retrospect)

>>42530955
I'd say it's a bit of both in reality. Humans are addicts for control, so if it's undirected it's only because clearly they're unaware. If they had been made aware they'd direct it since that's what humans enjoy doing the minute their minds become aware of anything.

>>42530981
>If they had been made aware they'd direct it
You can do that with unconscious contents once they have at least reached consciousness, but with some caveats:
First of all, the unconscious as a whole is larger than the individual. Things such as the archetypes don't really belong to you as much as humanity itself, and an attempt to identify with them would be a particularly inflated Ego.
Second, the unconscious never truly disappears, and as such the Shadow can't either(since it's always the center of the unconscious).
And finally, the goal isn't total control but rather a division between the individual and the collective - the establishment of the Transcendent Function(a way to mediate between the opposition of conscious and unconscious, through the creation of "symbols") - and thus the realization of a more complete Self that's between Ego and Shadow.

>>42531001
Which is why I said way earlier what I said, Jung is great for those who don't want to accept spiritual doctrine at face value. Because:

>and thus the realization of a more complete Self that's between Ego and Shadow.

The shortcut to this is to just say the words "I am a sinner". To reconcile the shadow to yourself etc. it's the act of admitting "I am a naughty bastard and have always been a naughty naughty. I will no longer run from this fact, not can I pretend I am above it either, I will instead carry my naughty cross and own it and accept it but firmly intend to do better despite that."

>>42531007
The problem with that is an "objective" vilification of the shadow, but the only "bad" thing about it would be opposing your own conscious will(who's to say that's "good" though?).
You don't have to "do better", it's more about realizing that the "Self" would include both.

>>42531011
The self includes both. But obviously we can't express the contents of shadow on a whim. Because there's other beings with a self to tip toe around, lest we all step on each other's toes. However you can do better with the shadow, without eradicating the negativity and allowing it to exist. You just take the "bad" and transmute it into a good outcome. Let's say you feel extremely angry and even violent, you could feel you could kill someone who pissed you off recently. Instead of letting that sort of energy fester, you can use it. Without killing anyone. Just take an axe and chop some wood aggressively and you got a good outcome, firewood and kindling to warm other people with.

That sort of logic y'know. Just using the supposed 'shadow' energy for noble outcomes. That's how I always handled my shit anyway

No tree can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell․

>>42531025
Sounds like a nice cope to justify personal suffering and it is a nice cope. Sociopaths love it more though. "I twisted that nigga cuz he allowed it, he let me do that. If anything I taught them a lesson. People need evil fucks like me. No dark without light bro"

Psychopaths commonly justify their behaviours to themselves like that. Some wacky dualism thing to tell themselves their ill actions were necessity

>>42525831 (OP)
>literally everyone is naturally transgendered and just projecting it onto the opposite sex
YWNBAW

>>42531021
This one is fine. Issues only happen when there is a very one-sided personality that doesn't allow the unconscious to express itself naturally.

>>42531025
Also yes.

>>42531075
>No dark without light bro
To be fair that's accurate to Jung. Though it doesn't have much to do with what you do to others as much as the dualism existing in any individual who has anything resembling a conscious attitude.

File: 1778400035186877.png (336 KB, 405x720)

>>42525852

>>42531136
I will only kneel when anon writes an entire VN in his mind about dating the anima.

File: rage in his heart.png (389 KB, 417x609)

>>42525831 (OP)
You are a retard and have never read Jung. Jung believed in ghosts and never tried to deny spirituality. Why must I suffer like this? Just once, just once I want to come up on a thread that is not made by a retard, illiterate or Fed/Mossad.

>>42530919
>>42526273
>>42526233
pseudo-intellectuals in this thread
pseuds who speak of substances that require elaborate expression once theyve reached the crucible.


its a christian interpretation of great authors that weve seen many times before,
because christians was excluded from the most elite of intellectual groups who researched spirituality and ancient cultures.

these kinds of replies doesnt even deserve serious answers, they cant even process the idea of what "shadows" is.
shadows is something that needs harmony in bith the self and the community as a whole to prevent stagnation.

This is why Evola kicked out so many fucking pseuds to actually reach something even slightly constructive from the research.
The christian knights was the first recorded mass psychosis and mentally broken in history
> KNIGHTS WERE BEHAVING WOLFLIKE!
> THE SCIENTISTS ARE WIZARDS, DEMON WORSHIPPERS!
> THOSE WHO DONT BELIEVE, IS DAMNED!
This outright refusal to recognise where the living stone isnt born or is broken down, in a crucible that isnt hot enough.

>>42531245
*The crucible never reaches the right temperatures ever, whenever it was ever needed in all of recorded history.
so other cultures was hired to protect and shoulder the burdens of the christian failures.

if this doesnt ring any bells, you can keep downwards spiraling with the same threads on repeat forever.

>>42531245
>>42531295
holy schizo

>>42531320
what's schizo about what? i didnt even get into anything meaningful of what he has addressed in not even his red book.
absolute reactionary pseud commentary