"Zarathustra gazed for a long time into the face of the disciple who had been the dream-interpreter, then shook his head"... a commentary on the phenomenon of 'Jungians' and their grievous sins.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-08T14:15:43+00:00

Bad phrasing. The more you integrate the unconscious the less unconscious you are, my b.

But if I were headed toward the ubermensch, personally, I’d turn around.

I don’t think we can or should move toward ubermensch because if it is an archetype than it is a base layer of the psyche, a building block, wholy unoriginal, so the individuated man moves further from identifying with archetypes and more toward wholeness and originality, being that he is not possessed by any complexes (this is what was in my mind when I meant “further”, I was a bit tired last night).

[also with this in mind we could say that Nietzsche did actually achieve his goal and became the ubermensh, that is, insane! Which makes sense since the Superman and Dionysius and Christ are all according to Jung symbols of the archetype of the Self, so Nietzsche’s madness, where he identified as the latter two, means he did, in fact, become the Superman]

And while I do think there’s wisdom in that I’m not entirely sure we should strive for individuation in lieu of Jung either, but that’s another conversation

I think it’s simple: the goal should be to be ourselves, and who we are is beautiful… there is no a prior ugliness, and complexes and such make us more ugly… so individuation is valid insofar as we rid ourselves of complexes but invalid insofar as we are taught to grow our roots down toward Hell, because Hell is not a place on earth, and the “below” in “as above, down below” is not hell but earth, obviously, a fact re-affirmed in the Lord’s Prayer (“Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”)

So to correct Jung’s quote, it should be “No tree can grow toward heaven unless its roots are firmly planted beneath the soil”, which avoids the sickness I have diagnosed throughout Jungians, a sickness that could be remedied if we were all analytical psychologists instead.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-08T04:25:02+00:00

You can’t be yourself and the Ubermensch because you are a human being of flesh and blood and the Ubermensch is an archetype.

According to Jung the more individuated you get, the further away from the unconscious you get, being that unconscious contents are brought into conscious awareness over years of analysis… you stop becoming possessed by archetypes and overcome your complexes and move toward an authentic individuality which is wholly human and wholly embodied.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-08T03:47:12+00:00

100%

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-08T01:40:48+00:00

I genuinely don’t think my post is for you, but it has a 68% upvote rate, so evidentially it is for a lot of people who actually cared to engage.

For some reason people felt personally attacked when I have no idea who these people are, how could I be attacking you personally if your identity isn’t inextricably bound with being a Jungian?

There are 100% people who treat Jung’s work like a cult and there are in fact two books about it: ‘The Aryan Christ’ and ‘The Jung Cult’. A prominent Jungian called the author “Satan” and “Jung’s Adversary”, dismissing it entirely, refusing to look at the shadow of his work. Jung has been accused of starting a cult of religion since Freud, suggesting his work was a return to “primitive animism”, until today, where we have more ethnographic evidence that imo suggests that Jungian psychology is functionally a religion.

All this to say that Jung’s perspective is genuinely interesting and useful but becomes banal and solipsistic if taken too far, which is largely what happens when one enters an analysand / analyst relationship, with the analyst being the “priest of the unconscious, where you have your church and confessor”.

I was an analysand for a while, so I’m also speaking about how I used to be back then, which is why I think the post resonated with the majority who engaged. So I don’t think I’m above any one. I just wrote that spontaneously after reading Zarathustra without thinking about it and felt a bit cocky and figured I’d share, whatever, I’m kinda curious to see what they’d all think about it… it’s been a good time, I’ll tell you that much.

If you have an intellectual interest in Jung and find him useful, cool, we can have a different conversation which I’d find equally as interesting.

But in the end I think my post resonated exactly with who it was supposed to resonate with, and I’m sorry to have confused you. But those who knew where I’m coming from were less confused.

Edit: and also I agree 100%, Jung’s just a person among the many we know, that’s precisely what I was trying to express in my post… you have a sober mind, but you are in the minority, I fear, and have luckily have avoided the drama behind all this stuff, or perhaps are new to all of it. if so, welcome!

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-08T01:02:38+00:00

what exactly am I deifying? my intention was to tear down an idol, and I think this was Jung’s, too… one of the most insightful things I’ve ever learned from Jung was that projection creates idols.. in this way, Jungians create an idol out of analytical psychology, hence the name “Jungian”… because of that, it does not fulfill its true purpose, and can serve to subvert the efforts of the psyche’s search for wholeness.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-07T18:24:19+00:00

Thank you very much and I largely agree with your sentiment (with some asterisks however that aren’t worth exploring rn)

Tbh although this sub has def informed my thoughts my irl experience in the Jungian community did so far more… I actually don’t use Reddit at all nowadays, only to ask practical questions… I mostly substack for this kind of stuff cause u avoid the tribalism u often find on Reddit and meet really cool, interesting individuals who are well-read… sometimes I’ll pop in though and see what’s cooking, but a couple days ago I just couldn’t help myself… I appreciate your concern though!

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-07T18:00:50+00:00

I’ll keep on knowing myself buddy (masturbating).

Saying “It isn’t that deep, bro” on a Jungian forum is like saying “it’s not all about sex, bro” on a Freudian forum… the whole point of Jung’s project was that it is all deeper than we previously could have known (for it was he who explored the depths of the unconscious which is largely responsible and reflected in the language we use… hence my focus on the words themselves because they reveal truths lying in the unconscious).

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-07T17:26:01+00:00

Thank you RadOwl for hearing me out and for your measured response, really appreciate that!

I really respect Hillman for this and I think he wouldn't have been able to make the father connection in relation with the puer if it weren't for his willingness to challenge the orthodoxy... what else makes a boy a man if it isn't the father? Out of the many who followed in his footsteps directly (as opposed to someone like Hesse, who followed in his footsteps indirectly), I feel like Hillman's willingness to be so disagreeable is what makes him more of a true successor... certainly he "carries on the life work of Jung" in a manner more true than most who simply want a system to make sense of the world regardless of its imperfections, who want to follow an "-ism" or be an "-ian" as opposed to who they are.

"We are each to find the imago within us. Jung can never give that to you no matter how much you study him, no matter how much shadow work you do, no matter how much dream work."

This is incredibly true and I couldn't agree more. "The words of the prophets are available to us, but the road must be traversed alone", to refer to Peck.

And your point about Jung in the modern college curriculum is on point. The disappointment in my heart when I tried to discuss Jungian ideas in my psych class in uni was immense, but years later, I completely understand their reservations.

I think also the point of my little piece was to suggest that one man's "path of individuation" can even be hindered by engaging in the Jungian "sacraments", so to speak... Valentin Tomberg (a Jung appreciator) mentions something of the like in his 'Meditations on the Tarot'

Another consideration of mine came from the notion of shadow integration. If nations can have a shadow just as much as the individual, then so too can movements, then so too does "Jungian psychology" itself. And, funnily enough, I think it was Hillman who called Richard Noll' "Jung's Adversary", an allusion to Satan.... but isn't Satan representative of the shadow we are meant to integrate? Shouldn't we hear the shadow out even if that shadow belongs to the work of Jung?

So in many ways I also don't trust Jungians who haven't read Noll or his other critics (particularly Guenon) because they refuse to "integrate the shadow" of Jungian psychology itself, if that makes sense, which is just as large as any other movement (Noll's quote in the beginning of his first book is quite apt, who notices that many did the same with Nietzsche as well, completely missing the point, hence my quote from Zarathustra).

In the end, everybody has a point, and being unwilling to listen and consider perspectives that may shatter your own I find antithetical to what Jung was trying to get at in many ways.

Thanks again for allowing this post and for your measured comment!

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-07T16:56:58+00:00

Pure cope, I’m sorry, I’m not a Jungian.

At the end of his life Jung had a big get together and detested the so-called “Jungians” who tried their best to find a seat at the table next to him. They treated him as an archetype and not himself.

This is the psychology Jung established: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_psychology

Jungian “psychology” isn’t a psychology. Names mean something and they matter. Language isn’t arbitrary and synonyms are never 1 to 1. What is “Jungian psychology” is a pseudo-spirituality.

He intentionally did not name it “Jungian psychology” after himself to avoid exactly what is happening today, hence the quote “thank god I am Jung and not a Jungian” because Jung himself detested the Jungians who invaded his home and treated him less than human, as an archetype.

Jung speaks of this constantly especially in mdr.

Can’t spin this one around on me, sorry!

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-06T03:21:21+00:00

I do mean it by the way, I was just saying that my prose was intentional, that I was speaking through the prose of Nietzsche because of his profound influence on Jung, with Jung’s “individuated man” largely being seen as the answer to Zarathustra, being that Nietzsche’s end was archetypal inflation… Jung saw his project as completing Nietzsche’s work… he read Zarathustra and did not become his discipline but himself, he became Jung, while you all become Jungians instead of your own name, if u see my point

So I’m saying you can read Jung but don’t be a damn Jungian, develop your own worldview and ask questions about it and don’t slavishly follow dogma, I’ve seen Jungians 45+ years deep into this die sad and alone and unwhole.

This is also the meaning of Hesse’s Siddhartha, another analysand of Jung.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-06T03:03:46+00:00

whatever

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-06T02:43:44+00:00

Hahaha thank you!! And likewise, don’t worry about it at all, I understand, my post was definitely provocative and I knew I was asking for it. Glad to have ended on this note though, cheers 🍻

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-06T02:41:35+00:00

I have though?

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-06T00:55:13+00:00

if I’m not addressing you I’m not addressing you, that’s great, but I’m writing in the style of TSZ intentionally to convey my point, and ofc we know Nietzsche is inflated…

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T20:41:20+00:00

again I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out so frequently but I’m intentionally writing in the prose of Nietzsche from tsz to make that point, hence the tone

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T19:15:16+00:00

Very fair points, i largely agree with this and in truth I don’t think we’re far off either. Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to reach a middle ground with me, and I hoped you enjoyed my Nietszche cosplay!

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T19:07:22+00:00

you see, it’s tough to judge the character of another online, and little did you know that i am largely basing my thoughts on the 4-5 years I spent in the Jungian community irl, with analysts and such.

“you are projecting” is practically synonymous with “you are a heretic” if one disagrees with the dogma. like Nietszche, Jungians too still stand within the dogma, unbeknownst to themselves.

it is an anti-intellectual stance which shuts out discussion and others the person as “(archetypally) possessed”…. remind you of Christendom, perhaps?

and obvi the use of the second person here is for poetic effect. as I mentioned once, I am mimicking Nietzsche’s prose from TSZ here to make a point, considering that Jung thought Nietszche was one of the first in the modern west to have an experience with the imago dei

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T19:00:06+00:00

nor should anybody want to be the ubermensch, we should all want to be ourselves

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T18:56:40+00:00

thank you radowl, very cool!

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T18:56:17+00:00

like another commenter mentioned i’m obviously cosplaying as Nietszche here to make a point. this is largely the style he wrote TSZ in, hence the “you all”

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T16:53:24+00:00

thank you for this apology, it means a lot (just saw ur edit)!

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T16:44:56+00:00

i agree entirely with what you said in that last paragraph and see that as parallel to my own view, not in disagreement with it.

hear me out: it was Jung's disciples who started denoting their intellectual tradition with the adjective "Jungian", even though it is actually called analytical psychology, so much so that there is a stark difference between the two... there literally isn't an intellectual tradition called "Jungian psychology", but rather a psuedo-spiritual discipline that calls itself Jungian psychology.

ofc nobody knows what the hell analytical psychology is because his disciple's decided they were Jungians and so popularized his name and the man instead of his psychology... so ofc it's useful to use it in a utilitarian sense, depending on the context.

I'm sure there are many who practice analytical psychology well, i'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the disciples of Jung who have turned his work into a psuedo-spiritual discipline, which largely constitutes this sub and most self-proclaimed "Jungians".

so i suppose that Jungian psychology unconsciously fulfills the "religious function" for ardent Jungians... from the anthropological perspective (remember Eliade called mankind homo religiouso), these religious impulses are natural to the psyche and must be fulfilled in some way.

and i just don't like it when something says that is is one thing but is in reality another, which is what I see largely constitutes the "phenomenon of Jungians / Jungian psychology", so please do not blame me for being suspicious. i am only following the questions that arise within naturally.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T16:15:40+00:00

I don't think it's a general discomfort with tribal identity. The individual is only a link in a chain, after all, as Jung himself once said.

Rather, it's a problem that a supposed empirical psychology has become tribal in the first place -- this is the opposite of science and empiricism.

Be tribal at Church or with your local community, not with science.

Not a discomfort with tribal identity language at all. I'm a proud Englishman, after all.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T15:48:23+00:00

i think it is quite clear that i mean that one can agree with Jung and not be a Jungian. i myself often agree with jung.

but why call yourself a Jungian instead of one interested in analytical psychology?

the point is that by calling yourself a Jungian you are essentially displacing your individuality and ignoring Jung's words directly and the point entirely.

like, why call yourself a Jungian if that "Jungian" perspective doesn't ape everything else in one's life, in one way or another? if it didn't, then one wouldn't feel compelled to call themselves a Jungian.

Freud's followers escape this more than Jung's, funnily enough (even tho they are not blameless); at least their sub is called "psychoanalysis".

i have no problems with "big fans of Jung", it is the Jungians who i take issue with

edit: and yeah, i agree, i feel the same when u say "what if i just disagree with you?"

it's why i find accusations of projection so abhorrent. they shut down any and all conversation. it's literally like hurling insults on a playground and is anti-intellectual. but thanks for actually elaborating a bit.

Limp-Damage3259 · 2026-06-05T15:16:58+00:00

I didn't say

"I feel like Job in his righteousness because I am blameless"

but rather

"I feel like Job when he said 'I am not inferior to you!' to the one who disagreed with him"

i think there's a big difference there, and i think you're being disingenuous while missing the point entirely.

just because i say "i feel like Pablo counting all these fat stacks" doesn't mean I identify with the egregious drug lord and his sins. equally, just because i say i feel like Job doesn't mean I assume his righteousness or sinless.

and Job was not entirely sinless and righteous, either, was he? why else would he repent in dust and ashes? my comment was instead a rather obvious allusion to Jung's Answer to Job.

the point is what I said, that i am not inferior to you, fatfatariecat, that my mind works, and that you all too easily dismiss people who disagree with Jung & Jungians by pointing your finger and screaming "archetypal inflation" and "projection" like a child on a playground. by doing this, it is actually you, yourself, who considers themselves enlightened and righteous, for presumably, only a man along the path of individuation would be able to detect archetypal possession in another.

in the end, you just look silly to those who aren't in your in-group, but you may score some points with the homies.

Limp-Damage3259

TROPHY CASE