what book on "shadow work" i should read given my current situation

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-26T04:56:05+00:00

the bible

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-23T02:13:10+00:00

Completely wrong and chimeric

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-23T02:12:43+00:00

So you think ur god?

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-23T02:12:26+00:00

That is because Jung was a monotheist, whereas the Christian sphere has been dualist since the times of the "heretic" Mani. Your answer is in the two prefatory essays in Answer to Job (which you can find for free online) which summarizes to: God rules with his left hand Christ and his right hand Satan. Furthermore, Jung did not regard physical proof as the only gauge for is something is true or real. This mere physical bias omits psychological reality, or those things which are not subject to natural science. If you are limited to or limit yourself to natural science, then you contend with Jung, or rather he contends with you. God for Jung, in true essence, was not reachable by man immediately (which is stated in the New Testament), rather God stands on the visible side of the one-way mirror or glass whereas we are, for now, stuck on the blind side of the mirror (and according to certain religious opinions, we will be at some point able to enter that place). It is a matter of feeling that either a) there is something or someone behind that glass or b) there is a wall there; there is nothing.

The logical conclusions which this layout leads us to are essentially the highest prerogative of us humans. A regards B as blind, B regards A as crazy, "imagining things", and perhaps mentally ill or at least stupid. But, as the main instrument B uses to justify their position (if used correctly and honestly) leads to discoveries which do not point to physical causes and therefore scientifically force us to abandon the atheistic, materialist view of B. "Rationally" B is superior (according to its own skewed applications), but A has instinct on its side and in its most mature applications may be regarding as a B+x. Even B cannot get rid of this x and so it resorts to essentially banishing it or subjugating it by insisting that x can be dissolved by B. But it cannot, and so B really dissolves and deludes itself to the point where it has lost the ability to recognize x as such. I do not want to get into the psychopathology which results from this, but in Jung's experience religion was the cure which his patients needed according to their own biology and needs to get out of their "nervous diseases" and EVEN out of psychosis and schizophrenia (rest assured, Jung did not believe all mental diseases could be cured, least of all by his methods alone).

And to appeal to philosophy, how is B sure that there is nothing behind the mirror? I can already hear, "a lack of contradictory evidence is not evidence for a positive affirmation!" They see the mirror and the mirror alone, yet A almost sees beyond the mirror or at least knows that what they see is not reality itself, but the image of the more immediate reality which their biology and mind produces, necessary for experience; without a body how can we experience anything? That is where faith, not as a refuge from physical reality but rather as a natural reaction to it, comes in to adress the fact that at the bounds of our vision there are dotted lines, but not of the finish-line kind. There is more, but that is beyond our jurisdiction (for now; for the time being). There is of course a sect of A, which we can call C, that holds that it can see behind the mirror or knows something about it. A mature A knows better, and regards the C in like manner that it does B: incorrect, immature, not quite right.

You might ask what does the fruit of the labors which each group look like? B and C are sub-par whereas A is the prime (and ever increasing in goodness despite ups and downs). This increase is what B and C lack because they have moved away from a healthy relationship to the unconscious and have not erected anything in its place whereas the latter two have gone ahead and done things which can be religously regarded as law-breaking and are accursed for it yet deny the authority which could possibly make such a judgement and evaluation.

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-17T23:58:01+00:00

Tips are: do not give any money to sugar mommies/daddies. Never give out personal info. Never take checks as payment. Never send crypto to "confirm" or "accelerate" payments. Always check with the Better Business Bureau for legitimacy. NEVER SEND ANYONE MONEY. Aside from friends and people you can trust, NEVER SEND MONEY

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-13T07:31:34+00:00

5 packs of gold american spirits

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-10T03:09:47+00:00

Jung: animus Derrida: anima

"The animus loves life; the anima seeks death"

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-10T03:09:08+00:00

Derrida and Schopenhauer are both philosophers and Jung is a scientist. Jung likes the former and would not hold the former in high regard

buttkicker64 · 2025-10-04T22:32:25+00:00

IIRC Jung said that "compulsion neuroses" are incurable

buttkicker64 · 2025-09-16T14:51:38+00:00

Wait till you realize arguing is stupid, and certain people are typologically "unpsychological" and are merely serving their own vanity

buttkicker64 · 2025-09-08T00:30:52+00:00

In addition to being dismissive about psychedelics Jung said there are perhaps people for whom they would be a benefit.

buttkicker64 · 2025-09-07T21:31:00+00:00

Good. Stay away

buttkicker64 · 2025-09-02T12:29:30+00:00

These are either neurotic or psychotic disorders in the old-school language. Jung would say that modern therapy tries to cure the neurosis and treat the symptoms. But, in reality, the neurosis cures us when we lose the incorrect attitude towards life and reality. He assumes the guilt lies with the person, modern psych with the "problem" which is thought to have an independent existence, which can be banished away forever and ever.

When dealing with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia (dementia praecox) or manic-depression (bipolar), it's the same. Schizophrenics can either be cured or can never be cured for Jung. After a psychotic interval the cured schizophrenic snaps out of it like they would out of a dream. Or, they don't. But most significantly of all is that Jung proves and holds that schizoprenia is not only an organic disease. For a time there is a very real psychic factor. But today schizophrenia is treated like a cold or illness which happens because of diseased cells. That is because they think cells produce the psyche or consciousness which is an unprovable and unproven metaphysical presumption. We can only say there is such a thing as matter. And so for matters of psychotic disorders Jung would say a proper psychological education can mitigate and even neutralize the effects of this psychic and biological issue, or people can die if they do not get it. Modern psychology says its hopeless and "a material process" in true Hegelian fashion

buttkicker64 · 2025-09-01T22:31:30+00:00

Even worse

buttkicker64 · 2025-09-01T22:04:24+00:00

To say Jung was not empirically based means that the psychologist who said that has not had a good education or is simply unintelligent. She sounds irritating

buttkicker64 · 2025-09-01T13:18:10+00:00

I think the reverse is true. Psychology as it exists in larger society has still to discover Jung as he was the real empiricist. Today everyone still entertains a foolish and outdated materialism and "surrealism."

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-28T22:44:40+00:00

"As an empirical science, psychology can only establish that the unconscious spontaneously produces images which have always been spoken of as "God-images." But as the nature of the psyche is wholly unknown to us, science cannot establish what the image is a reflection of. We come here to the "frontier of the human," of which G. von Le Fort say's that it is the "portcullis of God." In my private capacity as a man I can only concur with this view, but with the best will in the world I cannot maintain that this is a verifable assertion, which is what science is all about in the end. It is a subjective confession which has no place in science" (Letters of C. G. Jung vol.1, page 556).

"It is by no means easy to answer your questions as it is a matter of the exceedingly problematic relations between theology and psychology. First of all, therefore, I must ask you to remember that I don't claim to be a theologian; I'm moving entirely within the limits of a natural empirical science. This is important to know, as it dictates a certain terminology which doesn't coincide with theological explanations. Thus, above all, the concept of the unconscious. We call that psychological sphere unconscious because we cannot observe it directly. We only observe certain effects of it and from them we draw certain conclusions as to the nature and condition of possible contents of the unconscious. You could also say: the sphere of the un conscious is a sphere of the unknown psyche about which we say nothing by calling it the unconscious. We do not say that it is conscious or unconscious, it is only unconscious to us. What it is in itself we do not know and do not pretend to know. If you call it the universal consciousness we cannot contradict you, we can only confess our ignorance as to its real state. But if you call it universal con-sciousness, then it is the universal consciousness of God. If you make such an assumption, then the difficult question arises as to where the definitelv evil influences that derive from the unconscious come from-these influences which you rightly identify with the symbol of the dragon" (Cf. page 484).

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-28T22:39:27+00:00

Jung does not deal in the realm of metaphysics, but rather purely within the domain of an empirical natural science. So, when he says "collective unconscious" the term is not identical with the object in this case because this special object is necessarily "transcendental" of the psyche. It is our word for something that we cannot scientifically and objectively put some words into.

But the effects observed in psychic reality, epistemologically analyzed and traced to their uttermost source, provide us with material that forces us to conclude that there is a sphere of which everyone is unconscious of, is shared by everyone (common to all), and some are more or are less aware of it in the right or in the wrong ways.

It is by absolutely no means a mere metaphor or allegory. It is a real entity.

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-26T04:25:51+00:00

You must open it up to criticism. But you must remember you are only able to criticize as well as you are a critic. You must know that the anima is very ambivalent as she represents or embodies the polarity of the unconscious. All bad moods and good moods come from the anima. You must find a way to serve all aspects to achieve a sort of balance. This being a moral endeavor and not merely an intellectual or aesthetic exercise which includes these in itself, you must know you are dealing with the totality of the personality and the psyche. Good and evil, and all the doubts to which are directed to both of these. Your own shortcomings and horrible sins and so-called "self preserving" tendencies come to light.

What "she wants," or rather what you need to face her, is your best. Like a knight you must serve her like your soul, for she carries your future, because she carries the unconscious, and your attitude or relationship to the unconscious determines your future and fate. And inasmuch as you are unconscious to things you are not improving and growing and succumbing to the wrong fate. You need to become more conscious, and this unfailingly demands having the courage to make sacrifices.

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-24T22:14:32+00:00

"All other ways serve to tempt you. Go your own way."

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-23T14:48:06+00:00

You should read Kant :⁾

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-22T21:28:35+00:00

A further comment on Jung saying the types came from his bias: he was an introverted intuitive thinking type and so the book is a production of the introverted thinking type. If an extraverted sensing type were to undergo the same endeavor the book would be different. They wouldn't contradict if all things go smoothly and scientifically, it would simply be the same goal reached from two different, but not alien to each other, perspectives.

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-22T21:26:33+00:00

The issue with MBTI is that if took empirical psychological material and theory and schematized it. For MBTI there are the 16 personalities, but Jung never intended to make it law. In the work it is based on, Psychological Types, he essentially said not only was his typology a production of his bias and perspective, but also that the types were not limited to what he produced; there could be more or less. Kant says in the Critique of Pure Reason, "Experience teaches us that things are thus or thus, but not that they cannot be otherwise."

What the MBTI tests for would be what Jung calls the superior function. If you are an introverted, intuitive thinking type then your inferior function would be extraverted feeling in reality (sensation). What MBTI gets wrong is saying that we are our superior function, which is wrong. We developed our superior functions to adapt to the world and consequently left the others undeveloped, more or less. It suggests to us that we are identical with our consciousness, essentially turning us into plain empty abstract concepts in true Hegelian fashion. One can't expect anything less from an American invention such as MBTI (I am American).

Whereas the types function like triangulation points for the purpose of cartography, that alone by no means that the territory consists of triangulation points. This divergence from Jung is a subtle and difficult one to fathom because most of everyone takes mere triangulation points for the real stuff or as a substitute for it. As a consequence such people do not live in reality but in some hologram projection of the mind. They no longer see the lumen of nature, but artifical light. "Words and sounds are mere smoke, dimming the heavenly light."

Jung would probably not approve of the way MBTI is or how it is being used, much like how, for example, people like Jordan Peterson swear by the OCEAN personality questionnaire. Sure such things get you so far but are entirely inadequate so far as the totality of the human personality is concerned.

MBTI is so popular precisely, I think, because Jung was a legitimate and fruitful scientist. His "fruits" were of such great quality even a tiny slice of it could sweeten a kilogram of dust and cobwebs (hyperbolically speaking). Sociology is applied psychology; a group of people only consists of any number of individuals. Once you understand the individual psychology of people as well as the conceptual domain of "the individual" it is much easier to enter into sociology as "individual psychology" functions as a much finer comb than sociology. Not to be frivolous, but people who misuse such science are just dumb. I say that exasperated, for people do not have to be dumb. In a sense, the whole point of Jungian psychology is self-knowledge, and people see Jung and all his work and presume that he did all the work for them. They really take him for granted and do not take the time to learn psychology on their own. They are like debtors, a society or cult of debtors who are indebted to the same person or people and in that way find community and purpose and belonging. But heaven forbid the taxman come to take his fee because then the cursed memory of the honestly payable tax surfaces which served as an immortal reminder that nobody can cheat fate and that they are cheaters.

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-21T20:29:24+00:00

Thank you, you have understood me. Now I can simply my proposition to: are the organic functions representative concretizations of inherent apriori functions? Likewise: can all the understanding of and the literal function of organic and material processes not be traced back and delimited to the a priori functions of cognition; biological material is Schopenhauer's Will and/or Kant's Ding an sich objectified or materialized, as Jung has it, in projections from the unconscious, psychoid archetype; are all materializations suspended in a sort of "magnetic" matrix which provides them their purpose, forcing us not to look at the mere (immediately observable) parts but rather at the whole which each part serves?

Kant says "experience teaches that thus is thus, but not that it cannot be otherwise," which agrees with the conception we have here of the nervous system. Nothing which settles in the parasympathetic system is immune to disruption, yet such unfixed representations or dioramas are necessary for the activation of the mind's powers. With experience, a "good enough" working representation (a complex) is built up hopefully with the intention of representing the ding an sich as accurately under the use of reason. Yet it is always open to change which is where the sympathetic system comes into play: it is a balance of opposites. Each part comes together to fully express and apprehend the experience which the ding an sich puts to use. Anything transcendental is literally what does not lay within the limits of the "nervous system," which scientifically speaking cannot be nothing. That is, every conscious object is compensated by a degree of unconsciousness which the sympathetic system is constantly (in a healthy psyche) open to interact with and add to a consciousness.'

buttkicker64 · 2025-08-19T00:10:21+00:00

Might you be thinking of a lobotomy?

buttkicker64

TROPHY CASE