3 ms·

Carl Jung explored the depths of his own unconscious mind

21 points by Anon84 3y ago

mistrial9 3y ago
Red Book - needs some background to appreciate IMHO. Lots of click bait for the irrationally uninformed, beware.
andai 3y ago
>Jung believed that the collective unconscious exists independently of individual consciousness and is common to all human beings. Didn't he believe that each culture had its own?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  a person with their culture and language, will "see" images differently, for example in dreams .. but no, the insight of Jung is that the subconscious mind is somehow, mysteriously common across all humans.
andai 3y ago
>Jung ventured so deep into his unconscious that he had conversations with figments of his imagination, who appeared — as in dreams — to be autonomous entities, possessing knowledge he did not consciously possess. I learned this process from Napoleon Hill's book Think and Grow Rich. He recommends discussing important matters with wise people in your imagination (he used presidents and titans of industry). I too have experienced "wisdom greater than my own" in this way. It seems that my hardware is being limited by my software (personality / self-concept).
mx24 3y ago
Active imagination and dream analysis are regularly utilized by Jungian analysts to help patients explore the unconscious. In my own experience dreams communicate very important information that needs to be brought into conscious awareness to facilitate growth and psychic wholeness.
mrguyorama 3y ago
Neither Frued or Jung used any actual science in their study, but rather observational studies and essentially just thinking really hard. Their work is no more authoritative than any other yahoo looking at crazy people and saying "Oh I know how it works" "Science" without empiricism is not science.
- mx24 3y ago
  Typical materialist response to Jung. Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Jung drew from many sources - Freud, philosophy, religion, alchemy, anthropology, mythology. Reading Jung requires an open mind, not scientific tunnel vision.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Why? Why should we take it at any more than face value? Why should we presuppose that Jung was super special in his ideas anymore than anyone else who could write a book at that time? A convincing argument or narrative is not useful if it isn't backed up empirically and doesn't make testable predictions. Anything else isn't science, but pseudoscience, or philosophy. We should not base mental health on philosophy. Empirical reality does not give a shit what introspection or magical thinking or breakthroughs you had. Mental health should be based on what helps people mentally. That can still be Jungian methods for some people, but that doesn't mean Jung is a valid model of human psychology. A broken clock is also regularly correct. >Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Your work is not more correct just because you thought harder about it than someone else. We know our brains to be terrible at interpreting reality. You cannot think yourself out of an incorrect model, that requires testing against reality. Our minds are also provably against reasoning ourselves out of preconceived notions and broken models. It's not even an appeal to authority! They should not be considered to have authority because they are no different than you or I reading hours of wikipedia. It doesn't matter how "well read" you are, that doesn't make you any better at empiricism than anyone else. Jung is on the same level as the manosphere promising they have a valid model for predicting, explaining, and interacting with women, and as long as you stay within their narrative that seems true. It's only once you test that narrative against empirical reality that you can show it to be flawed.

21 points by Anon84 3y ago

Red Book - needs some background to appreciate IMHO. Lots of click bait for the irrationally uninformed, beware.

>Jung believed that the collective unconscious exists independently of individual consciousness and is common to all human beings. Didn't he believe that each culture had its own?

mistrial9 3y ago
a person with their culture and language, will "see" images differently, for example in dreams .. but no, the insight of Jung is that the subconscious mind is somehow, mysteriously common across all humans.

andai 3y ago

>Jung ventured so deep into his unconscious that he had conversations with figments of his imagination, who appeared — as in dreams — to be autonomous entities, possessing knowledge he did not consciously possess. I learned this process from Napoleon Hill's book Think and Grow Rich. He recommends discussing important matters with wise people in your imagination (he used presidents and titans of industry). I too have experienced "wisdom greater than my own" in this way. It seems that my hardware is being limited by my software (personality / self-concept).

mx24 3y ago

Active imagination and dream analysis are regularly utilized by Jungian analysts to help patients explore the unconscious. In my own experience dreams communicate very important information that needs to be brought into conscious awareness to facilitate growth and psychic wholeness.

mrguyorama 3y ago

Neither Frued or Jung used any actual science in their study, but rather observational studies and essentially just thinking really hard. Their work is no more authoritative than any other yahoo looking at crazy people and saying "Oh I know how it works" "Science" without empiricism is not science.

mx24 3y ago
Typical materialist response to Jung. Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Jung drew from many sources - Freud, philosophy, religion, alchemy, anthropology, mythology. Reading Jung requires an open mind, not scientific tunnel vision.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Why? Why should we take it at any more than face value? Why should we presuppose that Jung was super special in his ideas anymore than anyone else who could write a book at that time? A convincing argument or narrative is not useful if it isn't backed up empirically and doesn't make testable predictions. Anything else isn't science, but pseudoscience, or philosophy. We should not base mental health on philosophy. Empirical reality does not give a shit what introspection or magical thinking or breakthroughs you had. Mental health should be based on what helps people mentally. That can still be Jungian methods for some people, but that doesn't mean Jung is a valid model of human psychology. A broken clock is also regularly correct. >Just because an idea is not scientific does not mean it is invalid or has been disproven in anyway. Your work is not more correct just because you thought harder about it than someone else. We know our brains to be terrible at interpreting reality. You cannot think yourself out of an incorrect model, that requires testing against reality. Our minds are also provably against reasoning ourselves out of preconceived notions and broken models. It's not even an appeal to authority! They should not be considered to have authority because they are no different than you or I reading hours of wikipedia. It doesn't matter how "well read" you are, that doesn't make you any better at empiricism than anyone else. Jung is on the same level as the manosphere promising they have a valid model for predicting, explaining, and interacting with women, and as long as you stay within their narrative that seems true. It's only once you test that narrative against empirical reality that you can show it to be flawed.