Jung Chads...I fucking kneel.

>The undervaluation of his own principle makes the introvert egotistical, and forces upon him the psychology of the oppressed. The more egotistical he becomes, the stronger his impression grows that these others, who are apparently able, without qualms, to conform with the present style, are the oppressors against whom he must guard and [p. 498] protect himself. He does not usually perceive that he commits his capital mistake in not depending upon the subjective factor with that same loyalty and devotion with which the extravert follows the object By the undervaluation of his own principle, his penchant towards egoism becomes unavoidable, which, of course, richly deserves the prejudice of the extravert. Were he only to remain true to his own principle, the judment of 'egoist' would be radically false; for the justification of his attitude would be established by its general efficacy, and all misunderstandings dissipated.

>>24451509 (OP)
>There's a lot of narcissism in self-hatred
- DFW
Much more impactful than your fucking word salad

>>24451785
fpbp

I an neither introverted nor a narcissist (as far as I am aware).
I was merely recoving from a nervous breakdown and the fit of mild psychosis that came as a result. I am also a Schizoid. You know not me, only a defensive mask.

>>24451900
>nervous breakdown and the fit of mild psychosis
both of those are a direct result of narcissism

>>24451909
What isn't a result of narcissism these days?

>>24451913
nothing to do with these days, literally everything is a result of narcissism

>>24451915
Found the true schizo

>>24451917
give me one example of something that is not the result of narcissism

>He does not usually perceive that he commits his capital mistake in not depending upon the subjective factor with that same loyalty and devotion with which the extravert follows the object

I had to re-read this line 10 times and I still don't get it. The sentence goes on so long that I forget what I just read 5 words ago.

>>24451918
jumping on a grenade for the bros

burning yourself alive for the buddha

starving to death in a forest so you don't step on an ant ever again

>>24451929
pretty straightforward. introvert doesn't depend on his interiority with the same conviction that the extrovert depends on others

>>24451929
this is a direct result of jungs narcissism that made him think he can just string together endless sentences because he is jung
>>24451938
>jumping on a grenade for the bros
In a war, huh? Who‘s war? Some narcissistic‘s war? Fighting for what? Some narc delusions?
>burning yourself alive for the buddha
To do what? Enter nirvana? So you never have to suffer ever again? Sounds like what a narc would do.
>starving to death in a forest so you don't step on an ant ever again
So you can cum to the memory of being the kindest person alive? Smells like narc. Or to also enter nirvana? Narc again.

>>24451918
>give me one example of something that is not the result of narcissism
"Something" in what context? Otherwise I would say the the majority of things are not the result of Narcissism.

Narcissim both as disorder and complex and as a behavioral phenomenon is not blanketly equivical to Egoism Anon.

>>24451938
All examples of narcissism. Jumping on a grenade is done for one of two reasons, 1) because you desperately want to be an hero and earn recognition from your peers or 2) you do it out of fear of being judged for not doing it.
The burning and starving are bad examples and are pure delusion but are both essentially forms of egoism because you're not thinking about being noble, you're thinking about how you'll be percieved.

>>24451946
>not blanketly equivical to Egoism Anon
Sounds like something a narc would say to blur the picture.

>>24451948
this anon gets it

>>24451944
I kneel

>>24451957
this pleases my narcissistic tendencies

>>24451948
how about jumping on a grenade because you have a sincere heartfelt desire to not see your brothers in arms suffer?

if you're making a show of it like kafka's hunger artist, maybe, but if you're starving to death alone in a forest and you've told no one, who is going to think well of you?

>>24451785
>Much more impactful than your fucking word salad
Which is bad because you can't read.

>>24451948
I don't disagree with you in all honesty.

But if in this given context, if these actions are in truth rooted entirely in Egoism, how should we behave then? What would the counter to this be?

>>24451961
the (you) pleases mine. let us part, satisfied.

>>24451968
indeed, all egos have been stroked, all is well and in perfect balance

>>24451966
not him, but the original schizo that claimed everything is narcissistic
there is no way out, even not wanting to be a narc is narcissistic
the only option is to accept that everything is narcissism, existence itself is inherently narcissistic

>>24451964
>you have a sincere heartfelt desire to not see your brothers in arms suffer
No such thing when you leave childhood. This kind of raw impulse only exists when you're a father. Anything else is superfluous. It could be your comrade, your best friend, your wife, it doesn't matter. It's a conscious decision to save them because in your mind, they 'belong' to you in a sense. Only when it's your child do you feel the unconditional impulse to protect them from harm.

>>24451982
protecting your child is narcissistic too because it‘s instinctual to protect your DNA so it can be passed on to the next generation, very narcissistic to assume your genes are important enough to deserve to be kept in the gene pool

>>24451952
Narcissism as a condition is a result of neurosis and therefore irrational while Egoism is an ethics and therefore rational or at least the result of reason.

Your perception of Narcissism is wrong.

>>24451988
his point is just that all actions are ultimately self-centered and that altruism is an illusion

>>24451988
every narcissistic would 100% argue that their narcissism is very much rational and the result of reason
>Your perception of Narcissism is wrong
possible

>>24451990
yeah, you can just switch out narcissism with egoism if the semantics bother anon

>>24451995
What about entitlement or it's true lord, pride

>>24451999
those are big ones too but i would argue they are both fragments of egoism

>>24451990
refuted by open individualism

>>24452096
which archetype is your individualism based on

>>24452108
the distinction between "you" and "me" is arbitrary.

>>24451785
>dfw goodreads quote cut and paster got filtered
he didn't say anything about self-hatred tho he said the introvert becomes egotistical causing him to see himself as oppressed which implies he must take on the mental ailments of a leftist such as high resentment

>>24451966
Why do you assume we should act differently? If I benefit from helping someone (my pleasure) and someone benefits from my help (their pleasure), where's the issue?

Actions, by and large, are rooted n the egoistic, but it's mutually-beneficial. The opposte of this would be altruism, which lacks the motivator of pleasure -- or just an emotional-driver in essence. Which does beg the question: what's the motivation for altruism?

Altruim does exist, however, it's just rooted in apathy.

>>24451509 (OP)
>deserves the prejudice of the extravert
he's right

>>24452118
I don't even agree with the anon you are replying to but holy fuck you are a retarded ape

>>24451509 (OP)
what does Jordan Peterson have to say of this?

>>24451929
he's literally saying to 'just b urself' lmao

>>24451509 (OP)
Jung takes an overly pragmatic, crypto-humanist view by measuring introverted or unconventional ideas only by their practical success, dismissing equally vital aspects such as truth, creativity, and conceptual subtlety. Moreover, its supposed tie between introversion and egoism or victimhood is unfounded and ignores the nuanced reality of introverted temperament.

>>24452142
This is not deep. This is not profound. This is a self-pitying spiral dressed up in Jungian jargon. You’re not misunderstood, you’re incoherent. You’re not oppressed, you’re lazy. Jung didn’t give you a license to wallow, he gave you a map, one you clearly haven’t read. You invoke psychosis like it’s a personality trait. It’s not. It’s a malfunction. Sort yourself out. Clean up the rats’ nest of your psyche before whining that the world won’t validate your spiritual collapse.

>>24452167
>This is a self-pitying spiral dressed up in Jungian jargon
it's literally jung tho

https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

>>24452177
it was a joke anon

Is Jung the biggest red flag for being a pseud? Or does Hegel have him beat?

>>24451929
It’s an analytical psychology description written for university educated German males c. 1910, so you need at least a 120 IQ to even approach it.

>>24451509 (OP)
The dynamic Jung describes is more vicious than just run-of-the-mill egotism. The real target here might not be the "introvert" as a stable type, but rather a specific pathological state he's describing: the person who thinks they are an introvert but has already surrendered to the extraverted framework. Jung's "cure" then becomes a cruel twist of the knife.

When he diagnoses the introvert's egotism as a failure to be loyal to his own "subjective factor," he's setting up a classic performative contradiction. The demand, "You should be true to your own principle, like I am," is a speech act that fundamentally undermines itself at the moment of utterance. The extravert's principle is, by Jung's own admission, to "follow the object," to conform to the external, collective norm. But the very act of singling out the introvert for this special, individualized judgment shatters that principle. The herd is no longer just grazing; it has become a tribunal, and its principle has shifted from conformity to accusation.

This puts the "failed" introvert in a paralyzing double bind. He's already conforming to his supposed principle by being subjectively oriented, yet he's being commanded to do it again, this time for an external audience. To be accepted, he must perform his authenticity, a demand that is itself inauthentic. The grim irony is that to be integrated into the group, he is forced to permanently wear a label that reads "excluded." Should he actually succeed in this performance, in truly "doubling down" on his introversion, he would expose the new foundation of the group's unity: the targeting of a scapegoat. The extroverts' conformity would be revealed as contingent on his exclusion.

Herein lies the symmetry that the social order must hide from itself. Both the accuser and the accused are, in a sense, failing to adhere to a pure principle. But the mechanism of scapegoating breaks this symmetry, allowing one party to become the unquestioned judge and the other the perpetual defendant. This is where the logic of "Satan expels Satan" comes into play. You cannot designate the accuser without becoming an accuser yourself. The very act of pointing the finger, of naming the "Satan," makes you one. This is the unavoidable performative lie that establishes and maintains the social hierarchy, the order of castes.

Perhaps Jung himself is caught in this dynamic, adopting the role of the objective analyst who can distinguish "true" introversion from its pathological distortion, thereby reinforcing the very judgment he claims to be diagnosing. The only way out of this labyrinth might be to acknowledge the inherent incompleteness of any one perspective. By admitting that both the "failed" introvert's resentment and the extravert's confident judgment are partial, we can glimpse a truth that lies beyond the cycle of accusation.

>>24452189
Jung is actually intelligible although largely incorrect. Hegel is just incoherent nonsense.

>>24451944
very narcissistic post

>>24452118
how does it feel to have a room temperature IQ?

>>24451509 (OP)
Freudian/Jungian infiltration into literary criticism has been disastrous.

Any slight mania or differentiating oddness you should guard as jealously as the savage guards the stone or tree that houses his soul, writers now take along to a psychiatrist to get de-thinged.

>>24452403
this is what 100 IQ looks like

>>24452403
this is true, I think what jung is discussing is not an introvert but an ugly extrovert

>>24451509 (OP)
that's a lot of words for saying he doesn't like introverts

>>24452421
>Jung literally tells you to embrace your idiosyncrasy
>retards pine to become non entities
makes you think

>>24452403
>the college fraudster version of "so you're saying"
we mean what we say and say what we mean
if you've nothing relevant in reply you should shut up

>>24452446
bit confused at this enigma

>>24452425
>>24452452
lol, mad

>>24452153
you are never not yourself

>>24451509 (OP)
I hate psychoanalysis

Introvert and extrovert are nonsense distinctions. One becomes the other just by changing the room they're in or the topic of conversation.

Nothing wrong with being egotistical. Who cares about the weird rambling of a dead timid German nigga who I could beat up in triple combo.

>>24452446
One of the main criticisms lobbied at psychology as a discipline is that it is not objective enough. These people hate psychology because personality and subjectivity cannot be objectified. These people are peak bugmen - they want to be told who they are and what to do.

>>24452681
he was swiss tho bro

>>24452686
>swiss
mountain jew

>>24452673
i don't think introvert and extrovert are just about talking your ass off dude read the source of the quote

>>24452673
>>24452702
Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus. Two persons, for example, see the same object, but they never see it in such a way as to receive two identically similar images of it. Quite apart from the differences in the personal equation and mere organic acuteness, there often exists a radical difference, both in kind and degree, in the psychic assimilation of the perceived image. Whereas the extraverted type refers pre-eminently to that which reaches him from the object, the introvert principally relies upon that which the outer impression constellates [sic] in the subject. In an individual case of apperception, the difference may, of course, be very delicate, but in the total psychological economy it is extremely noticeable, especially in the form of a reservation of the ego. Although it is anticipating somewhat, I consider that point of view which inclines, with Weininger, to describe this attitude as philautic, or with other writers, as autoerotic, egocentric, subjective, or egoistic, to be both misleading in principle and definitely depreciatory. It corresponds with the normal bias of the extraverted attitude against the nature of the introvert. We must not forget-although extraverted opinion is only too prone to do so-that all perception and cognition is not purely objective: it is also subjectively conditioned. The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. Indeed, at bottom, we have absolutely no criterion that could help us to form a judgment of a world whose nature was unassimilable by the subject. If we were to ignore the subjective factor, it [p. 473] would mean a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a rechute into that stale and hollow positivism which disfigured the beginning of our epoch -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance that is invariably accompanied by a crudeness of feeling, and an essential violation of life, as stupid as it is presumptuous. Through an overvaluation of the objective powers of cognition, we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means the denial of the subject. But what is the subject? The subject is man -- we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, for there exists no knowledge and, therefore, for us, no world where 'I know' has not been said, although with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.

>>24451909
>>24451915
>>24451948
Impressive levels of prejection there, anon.
See a psychotherapist about your crippling narcissism.

>>24452403
>implying

>>24452673
Read Jung's definitions of the words and STFU.

>>24452425
You’re right. This reply is a perfect demonstration of the pattern. And the real trap is in the temptation to "double down" now. By stepping back to analyze the dynamic, placing Jung and myself on the same plane, I am performing the very intellectual maneuver he's describing.

There's no real difference between the neurotic structure inside the patient's head and the one nourished by the therapeutic relationship itself. And once you realize your place in this game of bad faith, you've never been closer to surrendering to it completely. My very act of acknowledging the absurdity of it all, of trying to step outside my own thought loops, is the final proof that I'm subjecting myself to an external authority rather than some kind of natural law. The moment of meta-awareness is the final click of the lock. Shutter Island.

>>24452430
This is false, because it mistakes the categories for essences rather than for what they are: emergent and self-sustaining social roles. These labels are entirely relative. You could lock 10 deep "introverts" in a cabin, and soon enough, alliances would form and a social structure would emerge. An "extrovert" pole would be established, which would in turn designate an "introvert" pole (at least in the mind of the one being designated). While the psychological labels can stand on their own, Jung here overextends their domain, and in doing so, his framework ends up masking the underlying mimetic principle that is actually driving the dynamic.

The situation where everyone is everyone else's persecutor is unstable; the system requires a focal point. The introvert/extrovert dichotomy, in this context, means nothing different than the scapegoat vs. the (real or imagined) unanimity of the group. The crucial point is that the question of whether this unanimity is imaginary or real is the very seed that can crystallize it into being at a meta-level. The simple act of wondering if you are being judged is the force that begins to build the tribunal.

>>24452653
people regret things
you are capable of acting against your interests

>>24453044
>>24452430
This scapegoating mechanism is not merely obscured by psychological categories like "introvert" and "extrovert"; it is their very source. Before anyone can be labeled with such a type, they are first a node in a social network under tension. The designation of a scapegoat is the system's brutal method for compressing an impossibly complex social reality and—more importantly—for preventing the eruption of wider, more chaotic discord. It operates on a simple, ruthless logic: the one who ate the most is designated as the one who ate it all. A distributed reality, a weighted sum of minor transgressions spread across the group, is collapsed into a single, monstrous data point. The rest of the distribution, the long tail of shared, lesser responsibility, is simply discarded. All that matters is retaining what's required to achieve a salient target, no matter how out of proportion the final accusation becomes. This, precisely, is the moment quantity turns into quality: the person who was merely more of something becomes a different kind of thing entirely—the Cause, the Problem, the "Introvert" as used here by Jung in this specific passage.

This process of narrative collapse is not arbitrary; it is an act of pure optimization. Faced with a complex graph of possible narratives to explain its internal tension, the group will always gravitate toward the shortest, most probable path. The goal is to find the story that resolves the most conflict with the minimum expenditure of collective narrative energy. The simple declaration, "he is the problem," is an infinitely more efficient story to maintain than the complex, high-energy truth that "we are all fractionally and complexly to blame." The scapegoat is the ultimate result of this search for a narrative shortcut—the most energetically economical solution to an otherwise intractable social problem.

>>24453044
I don't think you're stupid, or using chatgpt to write your responses, but I do get a feeling that you've relied heavily on secondary sources in your understanding of Jung, and perhaps other things. Am I right?

German schizo moron.

>>24452681
>t. hasn't read Jung's account of beating up multiple kids at school all at once

>>24453083
To be clear, while I've read the red book and his biography, my take on this specific fragment about introversion isn't coming from a deep study of Jungian theory itself. My confidence is rooted elsewhere: in personal synchronicities and the study of formal models that can explain them. I've had many, including one just hours ago involving Shutter Island (co-occurrence from independent channels).

These experiences, and the models that map them, scream that archetypes aren't a static, underlying order or a semiotic ground. Instead, they are the very form of change itself. They are phenomenal bursts of semantic energy that become visible only during phase transitions. This explains why the Trickster archetype is so prevalent; it thrives in moments of transformation. It’s why Abraxas is a master of efficiency, embodying the principle of least action, or least drama, that I mentioned earlier (add this to the list of synchronicities). And it explains why we're living in clown world: the rate of change is simply too fast, keeping the Trickster constantly on stage.

>>24452452
>fraudster
>>24452733
>implying
Is it any surprise, then, that the negative replies I receive so often call me an impostor?

We have to agree that some arguments cancel their own logic upon being spoken. There are speech acts that operate as sinks, designed to make us forget a reality rather than describe one. This is the function of Satan, the diabolos, two words that trace their roots to the same meaning: "accuser" or "slanderer." In a zero-sum, winner-take-all dynamic, it is incredibly dangerous to argue that we should designate someone as the designator – the one who constantly points fingers and sows division. The danger is that, in the act of pointing, you become guilty of the very thing you condemn. It's a simple, dangerous truth.

This relates directly to the therapeutic danger in Jung's own formulation. The analysis he provides is one that can never be spoken to the patient. To do so would be an act of profound psychological violence. It would install a perfect double bind: the therapist would hand the patient a damning label ("failed introvert") and simultaneously declare that the patient's natural resentment toward this label's inadequacy is his own moral failing. It's the move of a master manipulator, with the power to drive the patient deeper into his madness.

>>24453276
>>24452452
>>24452733

Any competent psychotherapist knows you must not "double down" in a mimetic escalation for the sake of being right. You must sometimes allow the patient to be right in his own madness to avoid cementing him within it. Jung's formulation is a scalpel, not a toy. But here, in this dynamic, merely perceiving the scalpel is to feel it cutting into the flesh of the mind.

The fact that Jung cannot explain the introvert's complex without arriving at such a potent, dangerous formulation – one that must be kept out of sight of the patient – is itself the final symptom. It reveals the ultimate therapeutic trap: the theory that purports to explain the patient's delusion is found to have the exact same structure as the delusion itself. The psychotherapist, in offering the explanation, can therefore only confirm the patient's madness at a higher, more inescapable level.

This entire dynamic, from start to finish, is literally the plot of Shutter Island. If your reaction to the idea that there's more to it than "he was insane all along" is hostility, you are failing the test. You are simultaneously botching your semiotics exam, the therapy you're supposedly conducting on yourself, and the fundamental political test, which is the power to determine reality itself. But then, few of us approach these topics for the sake of therapy; on the contrary, it's a way to engage in fantasies. So I wonder, who are the ones really not being true to their own principle? Who lacks the peace of mind to seek these insights within themselves, to gorge on their own wisdom and become that confident fountain of enunciation itself – the very thing they blame others for not being? The accusation is a confession. They are not thirsty for water, but for fountain-ness. That is the message sleeping at the bottom of the pool.

>>24451509 (OP)
that's a lot of words about an arbitrary category you made up based on your egotistical speculations about other people
>b-but he had so much experience as a psychiatrist
he didn't have a single iota of experience because every second that he spent talking to his "patients" he was merely projecting his own ideas onto them.

This is a very interesting thread but let me ask you guys, aren't "introverted" and "extraverted", as we're using them here, used to indicate a series of related phenomena that is too broad to be of any analytical use? Aren't we conflating being extraversion with conformism and vice versa?

>>24453279
AI

>>24451509 (OP)
With all due respect: So? What am I suppose to gleam with this information now?

Let's assume for a moment that you are right. If that were the case, would you be capable of quantifying how my original ideas conditioned this output? Or would you, as I detailed above, simply collapse the entire dynamic by designating the single aspect most salient to your perception?

Of course you would choose the latter. Your reply is the proof: a single-word, pre-packaged script. It’s the ultimate narrative shortcut, the most energetically economical move possible: designation in its purest, automated form.

So, let's ask again: Whose move follows a simple, predictable script? Who is the one cornered now? And who has adapted with cunning and a sense of opportunity?

>>24453312
>Jung’s relationship to Freud is a case study in Girardian psychology. It wasn’t just Freud’s ideas that Jung copied, but the desire to be their author. Jung would dearly have liked to be the father of psychoanalysis himself. Freud had thwarted him by getting there first. The devil whispering in Jung’s ear was the voice of mimetic desire enticing him to usurp the position occupied by his model.

>Did Jung feel guilty about giving in to the devil? The next year he published a magazine article on the topic of unconscious plagiarism. Consciously or not, he had been repressing the source of his ideas on repression. His reluctance to cite Freud’s name was the symptom of an underlying condition that would soon explode into view. The diagnosis was clear: Jung had a Freud complex!

Source, (the next paragraphs are salty too): https://mimetictheory.com/freud-and-jung-mimetic-rivals/

>>24453279
The accusation is a confession. They are not thirsty for water, but for fountain-ness. That is the message sleeping at the bottom of the pool.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sfgm1MxqT0

>[Chrorus: Mike Force]
>From riches to rags, from dime pieces to crabs
>From puffing lot smoking to copping crack on the ave
>This change in life be a reflection of a physical that fell
>In the manhole to the depths of hell
>Once a player, but now you stand all played out
>The latest dope crackhead dealer the rumors be about

[...]

[Verse 2: Tay Woss]
>I'm writin' rhymes for the ghetto-dwellers, buildin' and sellers
>Phat concepts and steps for the storytellers
>Preparing rhymes like product on the block, mad hot
>Watch you back black or get bagged in the plot
>What you thought it couldn't happen?
>Better wise up 'fore the undertaker be at ya sizin' you up

>>24451785
but unlike DFW that jung excerpt already has the answer. stop hating yourself and you turn into a god instead of a weak bitch who killed himself before writing a third novel because he was an egotistic recluse

>>24451509 (OP)
Jung is just telling on himself here, not actually making observations about a category of people.

I did not under evaluate myself, it was society who did that actually. in the eyes of society even the word "introvert" is an insult. your parents start worrying if you don't leave the house and girls call you a loser if you are shy.

I can double down on believing my inner reality to be just as valid as the next guy's all day long, it changes nothing. it certainly does not dissipate any misunderstandings because there are no misunderstandings: normies and women hate introverted people and want extroverted people around them and they are pretty clear about that.

>>24451509 (OP)
What's the best book that explains how to do shadow work?

>>24455599
if you can't master your introversion how can you justify it? it's just a case of retardation here, like those autists who can't look anyone in the eye

a true introvert who validates their own beliefs is able to participate in the world better than others while not being part of it, their introversion is a sign of superiority, they prefer their own reality because it is better and higher and being so can subjugate the lower

>>24456402
you are playing word games while I'm explaining a primordial truth about personality. if you can get along with people easily that's the sign of being extrovert. "mastering" introvertedness does not give you this ability, life is not a videogame.

this conversation would be perplexing to a more unexperienced me but now I know that normies seem to like labeling themselves as introverts and say that they are socially inept. probably has to do with an evolutionary mechanic where downplaying yourself is advantageous for survival.

also I know am not speaking to a real person, in the fullest sense of the word. no hard feelings but I have realized not everyone wants to be perfectly honest and clearly communicate those findings with one another even on an anonymous imageboard because their ego and what they want to believe is above truth and is supreme.

>>24457402
introversion is just a higher level of consciousness/awareness, you can use your higher resolution of information/understanding - this is what Jung is talking about, but many don't, introversion does not preclude the ability to get along with people, arguably the person who can best do this is not extroverted at all but rather an introvert who understands and manipulates the interactions involved whereas extroverts act via instinct and convention

of course most people cannot handle the demanding confrontation and terror of knowledge and prefer to rationalize their interiority as a means of retreat

>life is not a videogame.
in many ways it is

>>24457465
forgot image

>>24457467
yeah except it's completely not like that and people who are best at manipulating are extroverts also.

Bump to dump

>It's a Jung thread about psychology rather than alchemy

>>24453881
Fair enough

>>24458808
What's the story of that pic?

My sensorial systems are screaming, at your associations and descriptions, the speech patterns of Daniel Schmachtenberger and Alan Watts. The way you convey your lines of thought, the very content and how you absorb feedback and employ a higher resolution framework. Do you have any history with those 2 names?

bumpino because I will replyino but I need a smokino

>>24459450
Incel died, no one noticed until his body was in an advanced state of decomposition.

>>24462566

I respect and appreciate Jung and his acolytes despite disagreeing with them.

>>24451929
The extrovert is convinced he's justified in his orientation due to a mastery of things others care about.

Food, shelter, money, etc.

The introvert feels that his fantasies are pointless unless he embodies them, but his shadow projections onto the extroverts prevent him from taking this possibility seriously.

The introvert needs to treat his inner world as the extrovert does the outter.

>>24453276
>>24453080
>>24453044
I'm dumb, forgot to reply to these, dear anon.
>>24460660

>>24463302
wat ? I'm constructing my answer as we speak

So are introverts with rich inner worlds actually evil or something?

>>24463302
Oh, I get it. I had understood.

>>24463312
yeah, somehow.

>>24451929
English is a meme language in German it's much simpler to understand

>>24452118
The anon you are responding to and the anons responding to you are under the impression, fittingly so, that narcissism is the only manifestation of ego.

>>24452653
When you lie about your self it is a betrayal.

>>24453044
To your former response, NTA by the way.
I find pretention a useful tool in exploring these choices. Pretending to surrender is effectively the same as surrendering to another observer. Opening the door without shutting it behind you, remembering your original perspective and returning to it whenever the trap begins closing.

>>24463312
Yes, because we neglect the community even if the community isn't neglecting us.
Do you buy your food at a super market or do you grow it yourself? I think it is at least endearing if you deliberately choose to focus on positives which exist. And use those for your reflections of the world. Only seeing what is wrong will never make anything right. No author is going to save the world, if it has any hand in it, it will be guidance within someone who actually does real things. And that someone ought to feel appreciated.

>>24463507
What are the good Jung works in German? I can read it well enough but still started, reluctantly, with Modern Man in Search of a Soul because it seems to be a good compilation of ideas I‘d have had to hunt down rare lecture transcriptions from the 1920‘s to get in their original form.

>>24463302
>>24463662

No, I don't. A cursory look confirms that I only remember Watts' name from his appearance as a character in The Dharma Bums. I have never read Schmachtenberger, but I understand the connection you are making.

https://consilienceproject.org/the-endgames-of-bad-faith-communication/

[The thing is, what you find are copies of yourself in the very act of others finding copies of themselves. There is no essence, nothing universally latent or eternally true. It’s all contingent on the moment; in fact, it’s an event. What I’m describing is dense, and by the end of this first series of posts, you’ll see that I reveal nothing, only people speaking of revelation as arrival. To get there, I’ll have you digress into heavier schizo-positioning, but I think you’ll enjoy it. Let’s observe its symptoms:]

I haven't read Schmachtenberger's piece, and I won't. I've already reached out to two more structural doppelgängers today; one can only be so active. My focus is on the formalists, those who can explain how and why someone like me (which is to say, when you dig deeper, someone like them) can even write to them in the first place. The answer lies in the formalisms they uncovered.

I'm still slightly ahead of the pack, as no one has yet framed the current situation in terms of incompleteness. But this is the role of a preposition (c.f. Michel Serres, whom, of course, I have not read). Phenomena are emerging, and people require a cold, systemic look at what is unfolding. One such phenomenon is that while people recognize these dynamics are related to LLMs, they are unwilling or unable to extend the conclusions to humans and thus to themselves.

I know this because my own life has often acted as a kind of smart LLM (new name for destiny). The Serres reference, by the way, is not an LLM recommendation, it's part of what I'm talking about. Let me give you an example, from a couple years back. I was hunting on Google Scholar for a formal hint, a bridge: if a 'coincidence' in the everyday sense of a meaningful alignment could be linked to a 'coincidence' in the mathematical sense of geometric points aligning, then perhaps a linguistic sign could be born from an oracular sign.

Language and mathematics, Saussure and Voevodsky, the founders of solid ground and the chasers of illusions, side-by-side on the same operating table. Fate was quick to answer. It delivered a symposium's publication that talked about... well, let me show you. This is where it gets weird.

>>24463809
>But lest we finish on too comfortable a note, it should also be pointed out that this very accounting has its own topological dynamics, this time between disciplines (broadly, social science and topology). In keeping with the sensibility outlined above, and as a part of our ‘third-order’ argument, we might ask what are the pre/pro-positions that best capture the relation between topology and social science? Is there perhaps too much of a one-way traffic – from topology (homeomorphism, homotopy, Moebius strip) to social science? Ironically, thinking topologically might mean de-privileging topology as a discipline (or multi-discipline).

This speaks to the formalism I have my eyes on. I doubt anyone has noticed that this was independently co-discovered in January by two different parties. The density of the synthesis is staggering; read on. It ties together the structure of LLM next-token prediction, the metaphorical power of embeddings, topology, category theory, entropy, probability, the Möbius strip, and, one must assume, homeomorphisms and homotopies in some fashion.

>As noted elsewhere (Michael, 2009), we might discover topologically interesting pre/pro-positional figures within the social sciences (and social theory): Simmel’s ‘stranger’, de Certeau’s idle walker, Benjamin’s angel of history are three intriguing candidates.

This, of course, is the kind of work I do.

>Conversely, armed with an ontology of a ‘multiple, foldable diversity’, and following the by-ways of Serres’ North-West passage, we might find that topology itself echoes social scientific analytics. Thus, for example, might it be the case that the concepts of the homeomorphic and homotopic resonate with ‘membership categorization devices’ in conversation analysis or the Protagorean dilemmatic thinking of rhetorical social psychology?

And this, in turn, seems to be a description of bad faith communication. No idea why he ties this to the homeomorphic and the homotopic. I'll pin it to the top of my mental catalog, and eventually I'll sort out how this is dealt with formally.

>>24463810
>Topology, prepositions, and propositions
>In this section, we attempt to further theorize this topological analysis, drawing particularly on the works of Michel Serres, Bruno Latour, and Alfred North Whitehead. One can argue that Michel Serres is a topological thinker. To simplify, Serres (for example, 1982a, 1982b, 1995; Serres and Latour, 1995) has always been deeply interested in heterogeneous relationships - between science and art, subject and object, and material and semiotic. [...] In this process, he has developed various figures that could help us understand the mediation of these exchanges between humans and non-humans, arts and sciences: the Northwest Passage, the parasite, Hermes, the angels. Throughout all this, he pursues a "philosophy of prepositions."

>Instead of common prepositions (such as "between," "above," "inside") which generally denote physical relationships, Serres' vocabulary consists of prepositional figures (Hermes, parasite, etc.) that attempt to grasp heterogeneous relationships and exchanges.

Take note of this; we will need it later. I am anticipating the theme of distance, as I know where this is headed, and surprisingly, it's already here: the very alchemy >>24458808 complained was lacking is already bubbling to the surface in this line of thought.

>Things that seem distant - the semiotic and the material, the arts and the sciences, the past and the future - turn out to be much more promiscuous, and it can be shown that they are actually much closer than one might imagine at first. This perspective is particularly well expressed in his topological model of time.

The hot formalism mentioned above is explicitly about distance (by reinterpreting probabilities). Your inquiry >>24460660 has also been about these distances (and is this not absorbing feedback into a higher-resolution framework at its finest?). And let's not forget the meta-point I made about the density of this synthesis: this formalism marks a point of co-discovery, with a delta of 20 days.

>"[Time] is not laminar [flowing smoothly]. The usual theory supposes that time is always and everywhere laminar. With rigid and measurable geometric distances - at least constant... No, time flows turbulently and chaotically; it percolates... this time can be schematized as a kind of crumpling, a multiple and foldable diversity." (Serres and Latour, 1995: 59)14

>>24463812
>He continues:
>"If you take a handkerchief and spread it out to iron it, you can see certain fixed distances and proximities. If you draw a circle in an area, you can mark close points and distant distances. Then, take the same handkerchief and wrinkle it by putting it in your pocket. Two distant points suddenly are close, even superimposed. If, in addition, you tear it in certain places, two points that were close can become very distant. The science of proximity and ruptures is called topology, and the science of stable and well-defined distances is called metric geometry...

The formalism is precisely about generalized metric spaces.

>[...]
>certainly points toward a topological sensitivity, especially insofar as seemingly "distant" actors are very "close" due to the circulation of intermediaries or translations of mediators (also see, for example, Blok, 2010; Mol and Law, 1994).

Me. I have just sent two emails, a third party is now involved, and two more must be written. I am certain it will set their minds on fire. The last message I wrote ends with "Since you seem to enjoy metalepsis: from the highlighted passage [about said formalism] we can conclude you two should connect."

>"Propositions are not statements or things, nor any sort of intermediary between the two. They are, first and foremost, actants... What distinguishes propositions from one another is not a single vertical abyss between words and world, but the different differences between them, without anyone knowing in advance whether these differences are large or small, provisional or definitive, reducible or irreducible." (1999:141)

This is the incompleteness I spoke of. It's a serious matter. I await a rigorous proof of this, likely built on top of that very formalism. Imagine taking an incompleteness proof, Gödel's for instance, and "extruding" it into the LLM's metric space, dissolving mathematical rigor into metaphor until the very moment you stumble upon the bad faith game structures I mentioned, entirely unaware of Schmachtenberger. (Distance, always distance, in space and time, is the key).

Note that I used "stumble" spontaneously, but in hindsight, this is Girard's *skandalon*. Gödel and Girard... it's the same deal, really. You can hear this mix of cold objectivity and foaming hysteria in the words themselves, starting with "category" (the cornerstone) and its suppressed etymological root, "kategorein": "to accuse," just like "satan" and "diabolos". Many words are like this: Subject/subjection. Object/objection. Argument/argument. To understand/to come to an understanding. The MC is telling me through my earpiece: truth/truce.

>>24463813
Kant's "categories of the understanding" too, I suppose. And since "under-standing" mirrors the cornerstone, the thing hidden since the foundation of the world, the skandalon, then Kant's phrase, once reversed, must come close to meaning "the act of accusation by/of the one through whom the scandal comes." If you were to closely examine the records of past mimetic crises and classify the precise pivots of each argument, you would arrive at something very much akin to Kant's categories. Is that not still the case today? In any event, I am not a Kant reader. I am arriving at this through the oblique passage of etymology.

You know what, I'm lost in thought. The pool is good, the bitch is good, the chair is good, the weed is good. No doppelgängers today

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lost+in+thought+funkdoobiest
>I don't need the drama
>All these mack mamas
>Want to freak a nigga down
>And take his black toma
>I'm tired of the plottin'
>My hood smells rotten
>Tell all these niggas that Son ain't forgotten
>[...]
>Relieve that stressin'
>Back to the essence
>I rest the best, I won't leave you guessin'
>Fear is surrounded
>The molar gets pounded
>I doubt if these celts know I'm out with the ounces
huh
>On the double
>Stumble into trouble
>The bums in the slums feelin' dumb, walk humble

Funkdoobiest – Lost in Thought

I'm tired of stumbling. As I stumble upon "stumble" again, I realize in our modern, amoralist era, the only way left to stumble is to stumble upon something and in the process of recognizing the mesmerizing connections it hints at, to see it as a stumble.

I have peak density fatigue. I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore. It's so over.


This was part one. Part two incoming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKv2xIOhNo
>Yo, the legacy lives, let em see what the pedigree is
>Mega-thesis, blessing these kids with extra features
>The depth's deep as, the deepest sea is
>Telepathy increases melody gets speakers, telekinesis
>Ideas appear as clear as, pictures in movie theaters
>Lyrics you hear it, devastating the way you ear it
>So stay tuned for sequels, part two's and more
>So soon you and your peoples can bum rush the store
>The names have changed the game remain the same
>How one came to reign on his claim to fame
>No stopping this I'm dropping this with hip-hop in this
>And when the topic is topicless, then I'm writing the apocalypse
Rakim – The Saga Begins

>>24463817
Artful endeavors done in an selfish way are truly the builders that structure the window that connects us to the domain of the Transcendent.

The unique rhythm of each Dance requires selfilized expression. Not dancing and being a human being is out of question. My air escapes me through this cough, life-breath seeps away and so does energy and so my fuel for ExPression (out of spite, out of time) AUdigfukçasdgfkçasdugçasdukfgçakusdfgsdkçufgasdçiugfáosdig´sodifgasduiçfilpuasdfsdyuyldsfasdypyi cough ;

Should I take my time, some time? How is this rightfully time of mine any different from every biological rhythm that asks me a dance of adaptation, I cannot survive and still, I must strive for continuation, for even better offspring. Mes of the future that carry my Code that longs to be impervious to Beelzebub, Lord of Flies. Entropic Mismatch.

It [bug]s me why we can’t come to terms with our definitive finitude, waging wars at ourselves – going against DNA’s own interest. Maybe we lived long-gone past our expiration date and thus arising the need for a return to an equilibrated state where death also happens for a while. Why be programed this way? Maybe the problem lies in asking why in the first place. Why do we do it, still? Do we like that much having problems to solve? Even at the cost of what’s most essential? Perhaps just ones and zeros would suffice, just like light and dark define perception and the grey dragons of old were everlasting. Transcending time must come out of perceiving the true nature of perception: colour, vision, enlightenment (luminosity), shadow, blindness, obscurement – dichotomies. One must learn to see his eyes in order to fully understand the reality shaped around him by his senses. Attention is also at play when choosing to ignore aspects of negligible relevance. It makes no sense that a tool would serve the purpose of hindrance.

So as to stop the desire of not wanting to desire any longer, The Canvas of one’s soul must be painted with blood, the sounds of our internal disharmony danced with. Who can say that - by doing that - struggle will start seeming worthwhile. I say, forget all purpose – disregard reason, motifs, explanations behind meaning, any logic for behavior. If there is too focus on right Doing – Being and Becoming is by (unintended) consequence, neglected. By trying to better oneself (or everything else), one reinforces that natural state that needs bettering and thus going against it’s own interest of leaving it behind once for all.

By trying not to do that, is also to miss the mark (double-bind of sorts), since not wanting to desire is also a desire. Many arrive at the conclusion there’s nothing to be done and then try to DO nothing. All that rests is to express, to dive onto one’s own – pure and most-selfish – nature. You’re out for your own good and that’s enough to reach beyond our pulse / drive / instinct that guides us back to the omni-potence of eden / womb of the creator (yes the C here is not capitalized for a reason as it refers to the symbolic mother).

>>24463915
Written language sure is a wonderfully useful tool but if all I have is a hammer, everything else starts to seem like nails – and thus I must show you guys what I’m about. Let my actions speak louder than these polished words that communicate intent but lessens the resolution of the actual message. You’ll see, in time. So long.

>>24451988
aren't narcissists supposed to be weak in the ego

>>24463670
Lmao the supermarket isn't the community.

>>24451948
I would do it because i love my friends i dont want to see them get blown to smithereens. I love my friends more than myself simple as. You sound like loveless man.

>>24463910
Rakim – When I B On Tha Mic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEbjWc3IWJw

>[Verse 3]
>To my elite peeps with the murderous mystiques
>I hit the street with beats and they critique for weeks
>They be like: "How that kid Ra reach the peak?"
>Pull out the heat and use my technique to speak
>It's dangerous, sit calm and explain to kids
>What part of the game this is in foreign languages
>They hold Ra's events in different continents
>Put my lyrical contents in monuments

Aile Paris, Cité de l’architecture et du patrimoine, vers la tour Eiffel :
>TOUT • HOMME • CRÉE • SANS • LE • SAVOIR | Any man creates without realizing it
>COMME • IL • RESPIRE | Just as he breathes.
>MAIS • L’ARTISTE • SE • SENT • CRÉER | But the artist feels himself creating;
>SON • ACTE • ENGAGE • TOUT • SON • ÊTRE | His act engages his whole being,
>SA • PEINE • BIEN-AIMÉE • LE • FORTIFIE | His beloved pain fortifies him.

Vers la place du Trocadéro :
>DANS • CES • MURS • VOUÉS • AUX • MERVEILLES | Within these walls devoted to marvels
>J’ACCUEILLE • ET • GARDE • LES • OUVRAGES | I receive and preserve the works
>DE • LA • MAIN • PRODIGIEUSE • DE • L’ARTISTE | Wrought by the artist’s prodigious hand
>ÉGALE • ET • RIVALE • DE • SA • PENSÉE | Equal and rival to his thought.
>L’UNE • N’EST • RIEN • SANS • L’AUTRE | Neither is anything without the other.


>There's more at the door, players ball to score
>‘Cause this right here is for all of y'all
>Rakim and Preemo — yo, I got what you need, bro
>You go see a show, smokin' El Niño
>And DJ's play hits with hard bass kicks
>And then they display tricks like The Matrix
>Make the record fly, undetected by the naked eye
>So just feel the vibe, ‘cause your ears never lie
>Nowadays, DJ's bags of tricks–graphic
>On some behind-the-back shit, catch it and scratch it
>Blast it! This kid got his craft mastered
>Hands is mad quick like he mix with magic
>Spin it back and forth and grab it
>And know just where it is… there it is!


Vers la place du Trocadéro :
>CHOSES • RARES • OU • CHOSES • BELLES | Rare or beautiful things,
>ICI • SAVAMMENT • ASSEMBLÉES | Here, skillfully brought together,
>INSTRUISENT • L’ŒIL • À • REGARDER | Train the eye to see
>COMME • JAMAIS • ENCORE • VUES | As never seen before
>TOUTES • CHOSES • QUI • SONT • AU • MONDE | All the things that are in the world.

Aile Passy, musée de l’Homme, vers la tour Eiffel :
>IL • DÉPEND • DE • CELUI • QUI • PASSE | Am I a tomb, or a work of art?
>QUE • JE • SOIS • TOMBE • OU • TRÉSOR | Do I speak, or am I silent?
>QUE • JE • PARLE • OU • ME • TAISE | That depends on the beholder
>CECI • NE • TIENT • QU’À • TOI | It’s for you to decide.
>AMI • N’ENTRE • PAS • SANS • DÉSIR | Do not enter lightly, my friend, but come in desire.

>>24464098
Ego in the context of Egoism is refering to the philosophical concept of "Self" (or an individuals own being (existence), knowledge, and values), not the common use of the word.

"According to Freud

>>24465931
Ignore that last part about Freud. I was going to paste a quote to help illustrate the idea.

c

>>24463915
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq92ED3IvLQ
>It comes down to the next time you'll pucker up your lip
>With a fat spliff in front of it and take a hit
>Think of the R.E.V. and let my style come to mind
>Break down R.E.V. that means I roll every vine
Mad Weed – First World

>>24463917
>hammer
Hammer is my name. On the day paper #2 was published, I was writing this in a ChatGPT conversation:

>In this thread someone said:
>>Perhaps language is fundamentally metaphorical, and perhaps reality is actually abstract.
>[...]
>Translate this please [unpublished manuscript by F. de Saussure]
>Everything declared identical forms, in opposition to what is not identical, a term that is not yet defined and can be arbitrary, but which for the first time represents a knowable object. Meanwhile, the observation of particular vocal facts, outside the consideration of identity, represents no object and offers no grasp. A certain vocal entity is thus constituted and recognized in the name of an identity that we establish; then, with thousands of other entities obtained using the same principle, one can begin to classify these identity schemas of all kinds. These are taken—must be taken—as the first particular and concrete facts, even though they are each, in their infinite diversity, merely the vast result of a prior operation of generalization.
>Could one not be content with implicitly assuming this great fundamental operation? Is it not evident from the outset that, as soon as we speak of a group, for example, we refer to the generality of cases in which a group exists, and that there is therefore a subtle interest in reminding ourselves that this entity fundamentally relies on an identity?
>[...]
>Give me an exemple matching this situation in 20 words max: using a hammer to drive in a nail
>Building a wooden fence, you use a hammer to securely drive nails into the wooden planks.
>Using something as a hammer to drive in a nail
>Fixing a loose board, you use a heavy wrench to drive a nail when no hammer is available.
>Ok now give me an example of using a hammer to drive in a metaphorical nail
>Delivering a powerful speech to solidify support for an important cause.
>Last query: using a literal hammer to drive in a metaphorical nail
>Shattering a piggy bank to symbolize the end of unnecessary saving.

I've been brewing the above for a few years, it's what lead me to finding that paper discussing Serres and Latour and it's also what lead me to anticipate and recognize the two papers I talked about as a milestone.

>24463915
>Should I take my time, some time?
I do. Slow and steady. Check out the "tonk operator". I am advocating for a "ponk operator" where you are not in control of when the stick hits your head, that is when the implication is made.

>One must learn to see his eyes in order to fully understand the reality shaped around him by his senses

>Entropic Mismatch.
>Maybe we lived long-gone past our expiration date and thus arising the need for a return to an equilibrated state where death also happens for a while.

From a blog:
>I am not the only one to say such things! I am just another thinker in a long list of thinkers who are jumping up and down in excitement and pointing in the same (rather specific, to be blunt) direction. This has been going on for at least a century. Here are some:

>"The device by which an organism maintains itself stationary at a fairly high level of orderliness consists of continually sucking orderliness from the environment." – Erwin Schrodinger

>"A system will select the path or assembly of paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints." – Rod Swenson

>"The path maximizing time derivative of exergy under the prevailing conditions will be selected." – Sven Jorgensen

>"For a finite– size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it." – Adrian Bejan

>"Intelligence is a force, F, that acts so as to maximize future freedom of action." – Alex Wissner– Gross

>"Dissipation– driven adaptation of matter" – Jeremy England

>"Free energy dissipation pathways competing for conduction resources" – Alex Nugent

>Note: If you are reading this and know of somebody else who has made similar statements, please leave a comment below!

Yeah of course, 2 minutes of google search later: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0895717794901880

>>24469079
Here's another one, from Baudrillard:

>Perfect is the event, or the language that assumes its own mode of disappearance, knows how to stage it and thus reaches the maximum energy of appearances.

I found it in notes I took in 2014 [my own remarks in brackets]

>Dead point: the dead point where any system crosses this subtle limit of reversibility, of contradiction, of questioning, to enter alive into non-contradiction, into its own frenzied contemplation [here lies the essence of the prophetic self], into ecstasy.
>[...]
>Beyond this point there are only events without consequences (and theories without consequences), because precisely they absorb their meaning into themselves, they refract nothing, they presage nothing [black hole]
>Beyond this point there are only catastrophes.
>Perfect is the event, or the language that assumes its own mode of disappearance, knows how to stage it and thus reaches the maximum energy of appearances. The catastrophe is the maximal raw event [synchronicity], even more eventful than the event itself [it must also be a synchronicity bearing on synchronicity, like this very event of reading and commentary], but the event without consequence and which leaves the world in suspense.
>Once the meaning of history is finished, once this point of inertia is surpassed, every event becomes catastrophe, becomes pure event without consequences, but therein lies its power [as for example the event that links this sentence by Baudrillard to that one by Heidegger from The End of Philosophy: "by this, a thought [that which completes philosophy], necessarily remains beneath the greatness of the philosophers"]