>[extremely reasonable insights on the human psyche]
>"oh and BTW magic is real"

Was it autism?

>>24565953 (OP)
well, what if magic is real?

>>24565953 (OP)
you keep that shit hidden from the normies

>>24565953 (OP)
But it is, and you can't prove or disprove my claim without experiencing magic in some way.

>>24565953 (OP)
>writer claims magic is real
>what they really mean is some vague spiritual mumbo jumbo that doesn't resemble magic at all
Why do they do this?

>>24565953 (OP)
What the mystical represents is real, yes.

>>24565953 (OP)
anything anyone has ever thought is real

>>24565979
GTFO with this bullshit, Jung literally claims shit like a psychiatrist's patient predicting his death in a dream. Jung pretends to be scientific and serious but sometimes he drops the mask. The grift is so obvious.

magick is simply the manipulation of reality through putting your ideas into the hive mind of humanity and willing it to change.
You can do this in many ways, rituals, ceremonies. But also art. advertising, science.

ill let alan moore explain it better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1qACd0wHd0

>>24565984
It's not a grift if he believes it.

>>24565993
>magick
I stopped reading there

>>24565995
It's a grift because he's trying to give batshit ideas a coat of scientific respectability by mixing them with actual, proven psychology (and almost succeeded at it).

>>24565998
we spell is differently in order to differentiate real magick from prestidigitation

>>24565953 (OP)
Some people (you) just aren't capable of stepping over the threshold. There's nothing wrong with that, it might come later in life if you work on yourself but it may not.

>>24566016
>if I pretend to possess superior, hidden knowledge that makes my ooga booga mental retardation real

>>24565953 (OP)
>insights
typical psychologist idea stew
tasty but no calories

>>24565960
exactly
>>24564146

>>24566020
You've proven the point beyond expectations.

>>24565993
>magic((k))
>its just ideas mayne!!!
Have fun consorting w demons and damning your immortal soul

>>24565984
Sort of. I think what he says is that we absorb more information about the world that we are consciously aware, and this extra knowledge (which is so much more that consicous knowledge) can manifest itself by other means, means in which the psychoanalysists are interested because they are expressions of the unconscious.
Predicting a patients death because of a dream, is more, there were many telling signs that this person had problems which were likely to lead to death, but I had reasons to (unconsciously) ignore them, yet this knowledge expressed itself in dreams which is one of the many manifestations of the unconscious.
Dream analysis, from a jungian perspective, more like realizing you know things you didn't know you know.

>>24565984
The investigation of supernatural claims during the era in which Jung lived and work lead to thinks like blind studies, retard.

>>24566003
>actual, proven psychology
LOL. LMAO even.

>>24565975
Because language is limited, and having to constrain your thoughts into words without being the type of tacky jackass that "invents" new ones like you think you're Shakespeare or whatever means that there's an inevitable loss of what you're actually saying between your mind and the mind of the reader/listener.
Describing philosophy using language is like singing a song using Morse code.

>>24566003
It was the early 1900s, fedora tipper. Read a book about the history of science before you start trying to be hypeman for shit you don't know about you pretentious pseud.

>>24565984
>your impending death is impossible for the unconscious mind to be aware of!! why? it just is okay?! it's a grift!!!!111
Come on now.

>>24566055
You're rationalizing bullshit. Jung will claim with a straight face that a girl that dreamt of a snowman pinching her when she was three was actually predicting her death by suicide when she was thirty (because she killed herself "with a cold hand" lmao).

This is what Jung does, he builds a system of entirely plausible assertions and then uses them to subtly imply the validity of ooga booga shit by taking his previous conclusions out of proportion. He does this because he's aiming for respectability and because he's trying to give his wacky beliefs a coat of "science". It's disingenuous trash.

>>24566089
Jung was asserting that tarot cards can predict the future in the 1960s, retard.

>>24566094
Again, Jung is not 'implying the validity of ooga booga shit' but what the ooga booga shit means, and, you know, why the same ooga booga shit (archetypes) happens to crop up across time and cultures.

>>24566003
What's "batshit" about them?

>>24566094
Tell us all which of his books you've read.

>>24566094
It’s really obvious your knowledge of Jung comes from secondary+ sources at best (or just shitposting)

>>24566094
Freud did the same thing. All psychology is a scam, and the day people realize this is the day the trillion-dollar advertising industry and their legion of data astrologers and con-artist "behavioral psychologists" goes bankrupt, taking all of mass media down with it.
And then art goes back to what it was always designed to do, placate and entertain, while legitamizing the power of, the aristocracy. No more money, no more capitalism, just god-king worship.
Or maybe we never realize that mass-media mind-control is fake and things go on as usual. Who cares, I guess.

>>24566107
Come on anon, clearly he's just missed all the times when Jung has told the reader that he is overstepping his expertise and is aware that what he's discussing is technically non-scientific. He wouldn't be a fucking retard on purpose.

>>24566096
Based. I have five decks (Spare, Crowley, Waite, Mathers, Marseilles)

>>24565953 (OP)
>>24565984
>We need to break through the materialism that constrains our thinking in this materialistic age
>No not like that!

Mystichads continually dunk on empiricists when it comes to human psychology and it legitimately becomes funnier the more you read about it. You are unironically a hundred times better off talking to some schizo wizard than a fucking shrink if you have psychological problems.

>>24566103
>>24566107
Kill yourselves stupid retards. Imagine unironically trying to >akshually this.

>>24566120
>He wouldn't be a fucking retard on purpose.
Uh oh, is it esoteric jungianism time?

>>24566129
>The books I've read? I'm not going to answer that.
Sad

>>24566134
He's literally quoting a Jung book.

>>24566120
Even the example he shared missed the mark. Jungian psychology is explicitly not some rigid scientific method, but a set of tools to help you individuate.

>>24566140
>akshually he's literally saying a dream can predict the future here but it doesn't matter, you're still wrong because <vague word salad about rejecting le scientific method>

>>24566136
Hey anon if he or you didn't have breakfast this morning would it be likely you'd be hungrier later in the day?

>>24566096
They can. Tarot cards are a trick to let your subconscious express what it has observed free of the biases your rational conscious mind imposes on it.

Think, if you want to throw a dart accurately you don't manually control every muscle, you just throw the fucking dart. Why would predicting events be any different?

https://nautil.us/the-kekul-problem-236574/?amp

This is a filter. You cannot seriously discuss the human mind while cleaving to a strictly materialist worldview, because there is no way to scrutinize the human thought process that clearly. There's too much subjectivity, any scrutiny has to go through multiple ciphers of language and expression, and then interpretation.

Mystic terminology and principles allows you to bypass this problem entirely by appealing directly to the organ you are attempting to use to study itself.

>>24566157
>You cannot seriously discuss the human mind while cleaving to a strictly materialist worldview
>so just believe anything instead

>>24565953 (OP)
do you believe there exists something beyond the world of appearances i.e. brutish materialism/physicalism?
if yes, you believe in magic.

>>24566158
>You need to be willing to step outside of your comfort box of obsessive literal thinking to understand this
>[Expresses failure to understand with excessively literal statement]

I am positive the irony of this is lost upon you.

>>24566155
You can't try to >akshually this

>a former patient [...] who had no knowledge of the nature of his doctor's illness [...] knew nothing but the bare fact that his doctor was ill and in a hospital

You can't claim that "akshually he's not saying dreams can predict the future here, he's just saying his patient's unconscious picked up some signs (even if he had no idea of what his illness was or even saw him) that made him predict he was dying". He is literally and unironically claiming dream images can predict the future.

>>24566168
Sounds plausible. Why would you not be able to bounce subconscious signals off of multiple people if everyone has a subconscious?

>>24565984
>grift
nice leftist buzzword

>>24566168
The fact that you can't answer a question as easy as what books you've read makes anything you say irrelevant.
>But I did quote Jung this morning

>>24566176
I mean we use that word too, it just obviously doesn't apply to Jung because he clearly believed what he was saying. Freud was the actual self-admitted grifter who didn't even think he was helping his patients.

>>24566128
Based fellow (re-)enchanter :^)
>>24566129
There's nothing wrong with that
>>24566130
"Esoteric" kant anon is clearly a pseud for misusing that exact term. Philosophical esotericism as proposed by Strauss claims that beneath the exoteric writings, there are esoteric clues pointing to the author's true beliefs which is in his opinion is necessarily disenchanted and nihilistic and not in a cool sunyata way or nothing like that. Esoteric Jungianism i this sense would be the claim that he is a grifter and so on. Esotericism however can also refer to various mystical and occult philosophies outside of the mainstream theological and philosophical canons. In this latter sense, Jung is already esoteric. Trying to combine the senses I guess works but seems silly. Especially when nearly every post-Kantian does exactly what he tries to twist Kant into doing which Kant explicitely claims not to be doing. Anyway. I digeess
>>24566162
Indeed

>>24566180
I'm not answering because I'm not playing your game. Occultfags will always try to claim that disbelief in wacky stuff means you're not "enlightened" enough; you just need to read Fulcanelli harder and all will make sense.

I'm providing you a quote taken from the last book Jung wrote before he died. I have obviously read this book since nobody can prove the quote is out of context. You're resorting to ad hominems instead. And that's because you have no arguments, no recourse other than trying to make whoever is reading this believe I just didn't "get" Jung. Because otherwise whoever is reading this would obviously realize that Jung is a crackpot.

>>24566181
>Freud was the actual self-admitted grifter who didn't even think he was helping his patients.
Source?

>>24566187
The quote isn’t out of context, you are. All Jung wants you to do is be yourself. If his methods don’t work for you, that’s fine.

>>24566201
>keeps avoiding the actual argument
>well yeah bro idk, it's like... your fault anyways
>I don't actually care that much, if Jung doesn't work for you then that's fine
Neck yourself.

>>24566187
>Here's a fucking dumb quote this guy is a loon
>What else have you read
>I'm not answering that look at this single quote from this single book about something I don't wish to understand
The hole of ignorance that you've dug from your dialogue is fascinating me.

>>24566206
kek

>>24566206
Hey! Be nice right now! or else.

>drops and disseminates mystic panpsychism monism into the western zeitgeist when it needed it the most
nothing personal + materialists stay mad. we're saving western civilization one individuation at a time

>>24566190
I wish Freud was my therapist. Apparently he gave money to certain patients. Jung would be fun too. Talk about occult shit at his fancyass castle. Don't mean to sound too hylic but could probably use former more than latter alas.

>>24566180
>>24566208
Do you have an actual argument other than "you're dumb"? That quote says what it says.

>>24566168

>>24566214
But what about THE SCIENCE!!! HUH?! Why don't you think of that?! NO, I'm not unloading my pent-up psychopathic behaviors on an imagined enemy that I've decided is ontologically evil which justifies my cruelty! YOU'RE JUST WRONG, OKAY?!?! I'm actually the good guy here!

>>24566187
his entire book Synchronicity is an extension of that single quip from man and his symbols. you're on dunning-kruger island and just seething about the fact that yes, jung engages in mystical parapsychology via precognitive dreams and synchronicity, but you're not actually giving a substantial argument why that is wrong, instead you're just working upon unspoked materialist presumptions that manifest in calling jung a "grifter" or "crackpot," which aren't arguments. there are entire schools of philosophy that provide "mechanisms" for how this all works that escape the brainlet poverty of reductionary materialism. all of this entirely extends off of his framework-system of the individuals unconscious being connected to the collective unconscious - the unus mundus - which all of existence and all archetypes spring from in the first place.

>>24566231
>there are entire schools of philosophy that provide "mechanisms" for how this all works that escape the brainlet poverty of reductionary materialism.
Like which?

>do you believe in God?
>you DON'T UNDERSTAND, you ignorant nigger. You don't understand what "God" actually means. You don't understand what "believe" actually means. You can't define "you" or "do" <three hours of schizobabble while trying to dodge the question>

It's always the same with this kind of person. Just say you believe in magic instead of hiding your real beliefs. It's embarrassing. You can see the Jungfags doing this Jordan Peterson shit ITT.

>>24566247
Good one champ, you really showed that unrealistic caricature of whatever you were mad about that you made up in your head what for.

>>24566231
I'm "seething" about the fact that someone is using the label "psychology" to spread mysticism. You can believe whatever you want, since unprovable beliefs can't be refuted. But magic is NOT psychology and Jung is a coward and a pussy for not owning the fact that he believes in magic. >>24566247 is right, you're all a bunch of cowards.

>>24566256
Throwing out accusations like that just comes across as arrogant and feminine. Everything going okay with the folks?

>>24566231
>giving him this much credit
You're dealing with a mentally limited person

>>24566246
Any flavor of panpsyhcism or non-dualist/monism under Idealism. Mind as fundamental and closely inter-related with matter if not primary entirely. This also includes many schools of eastern philosophy as well.

>>24566256
>magic is NOT psychology
Correct. It encompasses psychology. It is an ontology that includes all the special sciences within it.

>>24565953 (OP)
Why not? von Franz touches upon this in connection with the uncertainty principle.

>>24566246
Signatures
Correspondences
Sympathy
Astral rays
Occult forces
Synchronicity
Spiritual entities
Non-local causality
Psychism
Etc.

>>24566247
>>24566256
Magic and alchemy were medieval attempts to understand and capture the hidden forces of nature towards human utility. Mathematics and science were midwifed by this pursuit, and the likes of Jung are just modern returns to that tradition that succeeded in capturing newly packaged ideas, like Synchronicity, which stems form the medieval unus mundus and its metaphysical/ontological implications for reality and subsequent possible phenomenon, including the domain of the psyche. This simply comes down to not understanding the philosophy of Jung and how it directly animates his version of psychology.

>>24566094
>Jung will claim with a straight face that a girl that dreamt of a snowman pinching her when she was three was actually predicting her death by suicide when she was thirty (because she killed herself "with a cold hand" lmao).
>continues to give completely different and unrelated quotation here >>24566129
pic related

>>24566274
Thanks but I meant the schools.

>>24566284
The other example is also in Man And His Symbols, chapter three. Jung is suggesting that someone was already predestined to kill herself 23 years later when she was 3 and this was communicated to her by one of her dreams. I quoted a different example because here the fact that Jung is claiming a dream can predict the future by itself is clear and unrefutable by the wording used.

>>24566290
You wouldn't get it

>>24566284
The other example is also in Man And His Symbols, chapter three. Jung is suggesting that someone was already predestined to kill herself 23 years later when she was 3 and this was communicated to her by one of her dreams. I quoted a different example because here the fact that Jung is claiming a dream can predict the future by itself is clear and unrefutable by the wording used. If I had posted that instead Jung fanboys would have said that "well, her unconscious knew that she was destined to commit suicide 23 years later bro, he's not actually saying dreams can predict the future".

>>24566297
>prophetic dreams aren't real cause they just aren't ok
You ever heard of a lil old book called the Bible?

>>24566256
>I'm "seething" about the fact that someone is using the label "psychology" to spread mysticism
Mysticism more or less is the direct, personal experience and interaction with the divine, which directly folds in one's psyche and subsequent psychological forces in how one perceives such an interaction and how such an interaction in turn impacts the psyche and its forces. Ergo, psychology and mysticism are very closely related elements, and if mysticism is paranormal in the sense of being outside the bounds of scientific, experimental inquiry, then really thats its own fault and shortcoming, because frankly, not everything in existence can be "vexed" to give up its secrets much as Bacon necessitated when he laid out his method of natural philosophy aka science.

Also, Jung directly engages in alchemy and astrology in his book Synchronicity to try to provide a grounded study on the topic. He isnt a coward or a pussy, you simply haven't read him beyond Man and His Symbols, which is why you didn't lay out which if his books you've read earlier when the other anons demanded that of you, which you then started a public internet tantrum over.

>>24566307
Saying someone "engages in alchemy and astrology" is not the same as saying someone claims the supernatural is real. Jung never does this. His actual belief in the supernatural is always coated in a layer of fake psychologization to avoid the career-ending reputational damage being honest would have done to him, and that's my point. Please point me to a single quote where Jung says, simply, "the supernatural is real". It's always a game of language and obfuscation.

>of course magic is not real
>but it might be
>but even if it wasn't it's interesting
>and beneficial
>magic is r....
>but yeah, it's not

>>24566317
Supernatural is a confused term. It is really just nature beyond our naive naturalistic assumptions

>>24566325
Idgaf about your endless tendency to empty words of their meaning to try to make wacky beliefs more palatable, that's exactly what Jung does.

>if I call it hypernormal naturalistic phenomena instead of magic I'll stop looking like a retard and everyone will believe me. What does the word "believe" mean anyways? Or "mean"? Or "word"?

God is a Magician

>>24566327
Seethe and mald

Magicians stay winning

>>24566317
Nobody said anything about the supernatural until you did, and the paranormal is not the supernatural. Again, if you actually read him beyond 1 book, you'd know he openly dabbled in magic and alchemical ideas and studies, which clearly and directly impacted his philosophy and way of conducting psychological analysis. His entire Red Book is him directly engaging with his unconscious to reach deeper to the collective unconscious with the aid of a daemon, the closest to any sense of the "supernatural" if even that he comes to.

Further, new scholarship cherishes the fact that Jung was basically a wizard pretending to be a scientist, see pic related. Its not a negative what you are pointing out, in fact it just comes off as infantile truisms that lack any actual point or deep understanding. The very thing you are pointing out is why I like him.

>>24566297
Its not predicting anything, by Jung's philosophy the psyche is directly rooted and grounded in the eternal source of reality that everything springs and returns too, where time doesn't even exist. This enables the mind to become aware of "future" events via archetypal symbols/dreams/synchronicities.

>>24566332
>Further, new scholarship cherishes the fact that Jung was basically a wizard pretending to be a scientist, see pic related. Its not a negative what you are pointing out, in fact it just comes off as infantile truisms that lack any actual point or deep understanding. The very thing you are pointing out is why I like him.
You just spent ~2 hours arguing with a stranger on the internet to then say
>well yeah what you were saying is true but it's a good thing actually

>>24566342
More like barely an hour on a topic I've spent countless hours reading about. And my point has been that you're a seething materialist halfwit, who treats their pejorative opinion of Jung as super righteous despite actually being super shallow and coming from a philosophically retarded and impoverished perspective.

I've tried reading Jung, but I just cannot take him seriously. His emphasis on dreams is just absurd to me. I almost never have dreams, but he acts as though everyone is having hugely significant meaningful dreams every night.

The magic he was talking about comes from aincent babylonian mystery schools and other occult buzz words. There is a load of stuff about past advanced civilisations using frequencies and shit to alter dimensions and stuff. Elites apparently hoarde this knowledge and the schizos could be right once again. There is loads of written stuff about all this which is kinda interesting but should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's mostly written by schizos with that qanon flair but if the elites do take it as seriously as these guys say then there could be some nuggets of truth in there somewhere.

>>24566297
>If I had posted that instead
I wonder why you didn‘t.

>>24566215
Freud said that only jews could be psychanalists and that monetary payments were obligatory or else the cure would fail.
It's literally jewish black magic at this point.

>>24566363
>There is loads of written stuff about all this which is kinda interesting but should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's mostly written by schizos with that qanon flair but if the elites do take it as seriously as these guys say then there could be some nuggets of truth in there somewhere.
You have the right idea.

>>24566362
stop smoking weed

>>24566362
as other anon said, stop smoking weed. it literally destroys your ability to have dreams. you might also just be low IQ or something

>>24566181
>I mean

>>24565953 (OP)
Literally Jordan Peterson, but with more time passed and only a slightly better understanding the of sources he misinterprets

>>24566362
you just need a few significant dreams in your life. at the time i first read Jung, my only instance of synchronicity happened to me

>>24566394
>>24566405
Yes this. I began dreaming every nights since I stopped smoking.

>>24566428
I still remember a dream I had back in high school. pretty much laid out my entire future life in a really bizarre and symbolic way. I still think back to it at times. it haunts my mind

>>24566362
It's incredibly unpractical as a therapeutic method. There's no dream dictionary (under Jung's rules), the same symbol can mean two different things for each patient. You can't "solve" your dreams by yourself, you need the structure of an analysis and an unbiased observer. But psychoanalysts have to have a wealth of knowledge in mythology and various other subjects to know how to interpret dreams, which in tandem with the usual rigorous criteria means that the number of psychoanalysts qualified to perform dream analysis is minuscule.
Most of all, knowing what your dreams mean won't help you unless it's bringing some seriously repressed shit to light. Even then, you'll need regular therapy or medication to heal, and a good therapist would likely have brought out the same issues anyway. There's a reason why Jungian-style therapy is hardly practiced.

>>24566088
Scientists and philosophers should invent more words imo. No need to be vague in a technical context.
Although I suspect that especially with philosophy it would show that many of the problems are pseudo problems.

>>24566157
That's perfectly compatible with materialism.

>>24566003
You're an imbecile.

>>24566088
>>24566610
Neologisms are an absolute base component of language and its awkwardness in English stems from the fact that it is a fundamentally unintelligent language. It is amazing for scientific writing because by its very nature it almost forces a skilled speaker to explain high level concepts to someone like they're five. It is a language in which any deviation from parataxis is seen as "elaborate" or even "awkward". It is so poorly equipped for the task of condensing information that it must either borrow words or string together space separated lists of adjectives and nouns. Funnily enough, both scientific and online slang English (being ESL dominated) are significantly improved by people carelessly mishandling the language and creating terminology that breaks the mold by native and non-native speakers alike.

>>24565953 (OP)
kek

jung is a mystic reactionnary. i studied him extensively when i was young and naive. i used to discuss his psychology a lot on here, a decade ago. for those who may remember, i'm the guy with a swiss aunt who owned a library in geneva and had access to all kinds of analytical psychology texts.

>>24566129
there are dozens of similar examples in jung's works. those trying to rationalize these are wasting time - Jung believes in prescience, the magical kind.

Jung feels good to read. Actual psychology never is. He neutralized the radical scope of Freud's psychoanalysis.

>>24566089
in 1900, experimental and speculative science was much more aligned with its principles than it is now. You know nothing of the history of science 'pretentious pseud'

>>24565953 (OP)
>[extremely reasonable insights on the human psyche]
>"oh and BTW magic is real"
Thats basically most thinkers from Socrates up to the enlightenment.

I felt the same way about Evola. One moment he's making a very sharp observation about western society and culture, then the next he will be arguing for the existence of hyperborean aliens and shit.

I don't get it. Is it really that hard to say Jung is a crackpot?

Jung is a crackpot. Done!
Literally that easy

We LOOOOOVE immaterialism around here

>>24565953 (OP)
for jung all real means is it reflects the functioning of the psyche
he was a good psychologist but he was a rather bad philosopher so couldn't integrate the psychological insights with a coherent philosophy that made any sense and was also autistic about only speaking "as a psychologist" which meant he didn't allow himself to speak about anything un-psychological

I do think you can give some more coherent causal explanation for what he talked about but if you are upset about him talking about magic u probably couldn't get it.

There's still just a degree of yeah people probably have a weak psychic power that allow them to have prophetic dreams and that sort of thing. That's very different from "magic being real"

>>24565975
he just wanted an excuse to rape and worship indians because they have the vitality to rape children like evola wanted to do

>>24566460
>have a wealth of knowledge in mythology
Why? Dreams don't mean things. The people having the dream mean things.
Unless the person whose dream you're trying to interpret had a background in mythology, I don't understand how that would be useful.

If they were just a regular guy, who have never bothered to learn about mythology or adjacent stuff, they are just not going do have that be a large part of their dreams.

>>24566094
So you’re mad he’s not a total material empiricist or something? Why would you expect him to be? You’re mad because he believes in metaphysical things? You seem really upset and invested in something so utterly trivial. It’s not like schools force you to adhere to Jung’s teachings or anything it’s not like Jungian thought is mandatory by law. He was just another guy who put forth what he thought. Just like everyone else on earth. Believe him or dont. Believe the YouTube guy or don’t. Believe the crazy homeless man or don’t.

Damn bro I bet Plato and Aristotle have you fucking fuming.

>>24565953 (OP)
Op just doesn’t like the fact that Jung is a superior mind to him but he believes in spiritual things. Op has gaslit himself into total materialism and when faced with a recognized superior mind who then also believes in things op considers false, it sends op into a frenzy of doubt of his own world view and of his own mind. So to quell this storm instead of growing op decided to just attack the source of the mental distress like a child or woman.

>>24566924
This just seems like total projection
YOU are upset that " metaphysical things" are being subjected to scrutiny.

>>24565953 (OP)
there's nothing to be gained reading this hack

I dunno man... House fires and fevers are both hot, but I still seems like something that is better explained by coincidence. Than the patient actually doing any kind of predicting.

>>24566924
you calling that "metaphysical" does more to argue against jung then anything else in this thread lol.
jung is still a cartesian he just became an idealist instead of a materialist that isn't any better

>>24566956
I actually believe it was no coincidence but Jung is still a charlatan.

>>24566950
Physics and metaphysics have been debated on and scrutinized by great and intelligent men for the last 3000 years. I promise you I’m not upset about a little kid making a dumb 4chan post buddy lol.

>>24566973
Why don't you believe it was a coincidence? People die of fevers all the time. Gotta be like a solid 1/4th of people, go out that way, or something like that.
This was within a 3 week timespan, I'm not aware how much time has to pass for a prediction to fail, but probably you'd have a bit more to go on.

Jung was very interested in talking to people about their dreams, he spent a lot of time doing that with many people. It's not surprising to me. that Jung is going to come across more of these dream coincidence than I would (I've never talk to people about their dreams)
He seemed to be on the look out for these kind of things

>>24566946
>I have no means of proving that magic is real so I'll psychoanalyze you instead

>>24566974
Alright, suppose we're debating Jung's "metaphysical things", trying to figure out if it's true or false. How would you go about doing that?
You seem to dislike empiricism (which I really really really like). Got any suggestions?

Can Tarot card or dreams predict the lottery numbers?

>>24566993
Simply because it's cooler if it's not a coincidence.

>>24566993
>Jung was very interested in talking to people about their dreams, he spent a lot of time doing that with many people. It's not surprising to me. that Jung is going to come across more of these dream coincidence than I would (I've never talk to people about their dreams)
>He seemed to be on the look out for these kind of things

To me, it's fucking wild that a man who is as intelligent as Jung seemingly fails to pick up on this.

>>24566998
You’re asking for physical evidence for things that exists and operate outside our perceived reality? Wow how unique not like there hasn’t been millions of people doing that exact thing for thousands of years lol.

Have you ever once seen a satisfying conclusion to the physical/ metaphysical debate? You really think we will accomplish here today what the greatest minds in history could not?

It can’t be proven, it can’t be disproven.
It’s a round about endless circle that leads nowhere because it all depends on faith. Faith things real, faith this is not real.

But if I were to play this game with you for a bit for fun I would argue that humanity still hasn’t reached proper development to accurately perceive the metaphysical.

Just because the ancient Romans had no way to perceive gamma rays or microwaves doesn’t mean they didn’t exists. It’s possible humans don’t have the necassary sensory organs to perceive that which we deem supernatural or metaphysical or “magical”. But they can be developed into and over time as we study and seek the metaphysical, our bodies will adapt.

>>24567039
To add further

I believe it’s important for humanity to study these things. These supernatural or metaphysical things as well call them. To box ourselves in a rigid box of strict materialism provides no benefit. It always benefits the human mind to grow and expand into new things. Even seemingly impossible things. In fact especially seemingly impossible things.

You may say this is just wishful dreaming but while living in caves and huts man dreamed of palaces and courtyards. Then while in palaces and courtyards man dreamed of the moon.

> The occult is the metaphysics of knuckleheads. The subalternity of mediums is no more accidental than the apocryphal nature and triviality of what is revealed. Since the early days of spiritism, the beyond has announced nothing more portentous than a greeting from a dead grandmother next to a prediction, that a journey is in the offing. The excuse that the spirit-world cannot communicate to feeble human reason any more than this latter is able to take in, is just as silly, the auxiliary hypothesis of the paranoid system: the lumen naturale achieved greater things than the trip to the grandmother, and if the spirits do not wish to acknowledge this, then they are mannerless kobolds, with whom one had better break off all contact

>>24567039
Lots of words to say only way to believe in this nonsense is to be a gullible retard

>>24567045
>things that exists and operate outside our perceived reality
>important to study these things
>It can’t be proven, it can’t be disproven

Contradictory nonsense.

>>24567078
Like anon and his opinion on salt, is it to much salt is not enough does it make me fat?

>>24566410
they do stick out like a sore thumb

>>24567039
>Just because the ancient Romans had no way to perceive gamma rays or microwaves doesn’t mean they didn’t exists

Mhm, so in this example with the Roman that believes in gamma ray, he would indeed be correct. That is right.
I still think the Roman would be a complete idiot to do so, if he believes in gamma rays for faith based reason and got nothing to say about what they do or how they work, or how to figure out if they are real or not. But he would be right.

Maybe you're like the Roman, in the sense that you believe in stuff for no good reason. But unlike the Roman that gamma rays turns out to be real, but your stuff turns out to be made-up. We'll never know.

>>24567064
And you got tricked into mentally castrating yourself. Who’s the gullible retard? See how I can say the exact same thing back with equal conviction?

The point of life is to grow. What you refer to as ooga booga nonsense is just parts of reality we are currently incapable of perceiving with clarity. We only glimpse it with thoughts and dreams and our internal state. Humanity must grow and we will find knowledge.

Again just because ancient Roman’s didn’t know about infrared or couldn’t perceive them accurately like we can doesn’t mean they didn’t exist back then.

>>24567090
Absolutely pathetic response buddy. Just weak.

Your argument is literally just ok but your stuff is fake though so k thx bai.

I was right about your intellectual castration

>>24567090
U stupid
Someone needs to believe in something to be able to prove it exists (or doesn't exist)

>>24567090
Also your reading comprehension is embarrassing big guy.

I didn’t say some Roman randomly believed in gamma rays. I said they knew nothing about various rays and had no way to detect them accurately but nonetheless those rays, those gamma and microwaves and infrared still exist irregardles of the Roman’s beliefs. This whole exchange is literally just you being shit at comprehension

>>24567116
Sorry, I thought you were going for an analogy. But you told me an unrelated story about Romans.

>>24565953 (OP)

>>24567116
You understand that you ARE the Roman who believes in gamma rays, right?
You got no method, no results, no nothing, and still think this bullshit is true

>>24567126
wrong

lmao
At least we're mask off now, and not pretending Jung didn't enable mystic woo-woo

>>24567127
How am I wrong?

You don't actually believe this stuff?
You do have results and can predict the future or something amazing?

>>24567121
It was an analogy, it was not unrelated at all. It fight perfectly to my point. Dude you must read at like a 3rd grade level or something are you being serious right now or this just a troll?

>>24567137
>How am I wrong?
Gamma Rays are real.

>>24567139
Yeah, you are right. Gamma rays exist despite Romans not knowing about them.

>>24567095
>And you got tricked into mentally castrating yourself
I don't understand what you mean by this. If you mean that I don't believe in magic, that is correct.

>>24567126
Again learn to read I never said anything about Romans believing in gamma rays. The Roman’s was just an example of somebody living 2000 years ago that’s all. Christ dude you’re humiliating yourself.


Here is my point again and I’ll even dumb it down for you to your reading level.


-2000 years ago we no have knowledge of rays
-today have knowledge
-rays still exist back then same as today irregardless of our knowledge
-just because we no know thing now don’t mean we no know thing later
-human grow and learn and become more

That’s it that’s all the Roman analogy was for, it was such easy simple thing to understand and you made several post completely misunderstanding. Not only that but you have provided nothing to counter or give to the debate only nay saying and just acting like a woman

>>24567150
You are correct. I am the one saying stuff about Romans now. I made an analogy myself.

>>24567150
I agree with you, Gamma rays exist even when Romans don't know about them.
I don't understand why you are telling me this. Literally nobody is disagreeing

>>24566946
You don't have to be a materialist, just an empiricist. Can we observe that Jung's claims are likely true? E.g. can we test prophetic dreams before the events happen? I bet it wouldn't be better than chance.

>>24567159
>>24567154

Are these posts below you?

>>24567090
>>24567126
This wasn’t you completely misunderstanding such a simple analogy? Or was this someone else?

Gamma rays are only partly analogous because with prophetic dreams we deal with things in normal human experience.
You can just measure if these things come true or or not, then later you can look for the force that causes that phenomenon.
Right now there isn't even anything to explain, some guy has some vague dteam that's tangentially related to something in the future. It's like postulating a new force because a coin landed on heads twice in a row.

Hylic anon keeps getting btfo and moving goalposts

>jung is a grifter
>>actually he is genuine about his beliefs and helped many people
>jung was dishonest about his magical beliefs
>>actually he is pretty straightforward about them esp in red and black books
>magic is inherently fraudulent
>>actually, it's just another philosophy of nature, mayhaps even more advanced than materialism, but agree to disgree
>wahhhh! why won't people suck the dick of materialism and scientism????

Fucking loser. Obviously seething too considering how long he's been posting here instead of just ignoring the thread

>>24567148
By this I mean you have boxed yourself in a rigid worldview that inhibits growth.

You’re operating from a standpoint of What you refer to mystical Magic mumbo jumbo is false no matter what. But what if your definition of what that is is just a mishmash of various prejudices and meanings and semantics you have inflicted on yourself?

See how it works? What you have deemed by law in your own mind as fake magic nonsense, in my mind I have deemed it to be higher levels of reality the human mind isn’t developed enough to perceive d one should strive to grow in order to bring about a better understanding.

Your this magic shit is nonsense and we should only be materialist is medieval church tier.

>>24567150
I think his point is that without evidence, a roman has no reason to believe in the rays, so it's not a reasonable thing for a roman to think even if it would be proven correct 2k years later. In the same way, a person today might accidentally guess knowledge that is true and won't be confirmed for another 2k years, but without evidence it's not a reasonable thing to think.

>>24567159
They wanna rationalize behaviour with post behaviour

Of course there is roman gamma rays the roman ray proffesional made them

Now apply that to psychology of course you are anxious about transference the psychologist sounds exactly like you but sadder and dumber

>>24567179
Is there any phenomenon we know of today that can be explained by Jung's theories but not by competing theories?

>>24567182
Your interpretation also misses the point. The Roman thing was only a placeholder term for general ancient person. I didn’t expect them about rays or claim that they did my point is they didn’t know but we know now but most importantly we have precedent of previously unknown knowledge of invisible things becoming clear with growth and development of human mental development so it can be applied to this.

>>24567182
Empedocles predicted evolution

Al kindi more or less predicted radiation as an occult force during medieval islamic period too

Novalis predicted the electromagnetic spectrum more or less as well before maxwell

>but muh evidence
Lol. And yet your evidence is just appealing to the cathedral of accepted knowledge, you accept science because it is doxa of academia in west, you are as much a faithful as the magic believers

It is real, read old books, pre 1650 especially, you will find it brought up quite frequently and from a gestalt of context clues you will understand what they are talking about. It is very mundane and you experience it every day. If you think demons are red men with horns and goat legs, or that magic requires sparkles and hocus pocus incantations, you have been raised in a world curated by criminals.

>>24567165
Yes, this is not the analogy in your post. I am making another analogy.

>>24567197
Yes, anything is possible. Possibility is not a high bar.
Just doesn't seem relevant, unless you got actual reasons to think this stuff is true

>>24567201
What are demons actually like? What does magic require?

>>24567208
I see then please restate your analogy again clearly. There’s too much interference with these posts.

I am the original Roman analogy guy here is my point clearly.

We have historical and undeniable precedent of humankind gaining knowledge of things that were previously invisible and unknowable. We have done it before with the various rays and it’s absurd to think we cannot do it again. It asburd to think that humans are done developing and maturing intellectually. We have plenty room for growth and my support of the metaphysical is because it empowers and instills a sense and desire for growth that is crucial for our kind. To believe that humanity is as advanced as it will ever be and we should only look tot he material is foolish in my eyes.

My point is you I interpret the same thing as something different. You believe this “thing” to archaic imaginings while I believe that “thing” to be a definite part of this creation and our reality but we are too weak to perceive it and I used a historical example to set precedent that human gaining knowledge of previously invisible unknowable things to show we the possibility and high likelihood of future understanding.

TLDR; dismissing things you don’t understand is always a detriment and is not conducive to the natural knowledge seeking nature of the human mind

>>24567197
>>24567199
Science requires falsifiable predictions. Individual cases can be compelling and suggest there is more to the world than materialism, and it is correct to keep an open mind because of that, but an open mind is as far as a reasonable person can take it. "Predicting" this or that is interesting and maybe even correct, but it's not reasonable to believe things because you think it's probably true or data you've seen has suggested there is more to the world than we currently know.

Consider einsteins predictions. He correctly predicted the 4th dimension is a continuum of space and time, referred to as space-time, that is affected by physical phenomenon like energy and mass. We know now that is true but at the time he predicted it, there was no reason to believe it. Through falsifiable predictions, his theories were proven and AFTER that it's reasonable to believe it. In the same way, believing in souls/magic/dream prophecies might be correct, and it's true that our material science may one day be able to test hypothesis relating to it, but today it's inherently unscientific because there are no falsifiable predictions that can be tested relating to it.

It seems your point is that certain phenomenon are beyond material science, and that "evidence" as we define it can't exist. That isn't unreasonable. It is unreasonable to assert theories that cannot be tested or falsified.

>>24567236
Magic like art deals w the qualitative more than quantitative which is why some say it may never be proved or disproved in same way as science. Nevertheless, I believe the innate propensity of man to understand the concept of magic and tending to believe in it until convinced otherwise is proof that the idea will never be eliminated and may in fact serve a pragmatic or even an evolutionary purpose.

Most people complaining about "scientism" is really just complaining about determinism and anti-objectivism and the walling off of individual minds to windowless monads so to speak.

In certain christian traditions, the supernatural is simply grace and free will which allows one to break the chains of nature's determinism.

This idea is echoed in AA which claims the "miracle" of belief is simply doing the previously impossible thing to do which is get off drugs.

>>24567177
>>wahhhh! why won't people suck the dick of materialism and scientism????
Keep crying
Only time I refer to myself as a materialist, is when I talk to retards who believes in ghosts

>>24567255
>doesn't realize that he is the one getting btfo and whining
Calmer than you, bro

>>24567260
Only spookster whine about "scientism". Like, seriously talked to a lot "scientismists" lately?

>>24567255
Ghosts are real

"Darken your room, shut the door, empty your mind. Yet you are still in. great company - the Numen and your Genius with all their media, and your host of elementals and ghosts of your dead loves — are there!"

>>24567264
>this lacking in self awareness
No wonder Jung scares you

No, but seriously. If materialism, physicalism and naturalism (I am unable to figure out the difference between them) were these terrible positions with all kinds of problems to them. You'd think it would come up more often!
But it literally only comes up when people are trying to sell me snake oil.

I certainly don't view myself as a "materialist". I have not committed myself to any of these broad overarching positions, don't see the point. I'm a case by-case guy. Especially when people keep telling me how many problems it got.
If what you mean by "materialist" is that I don't believe in magic or ghosts. Yes, then I am a materialist.

>>24567236
Your point of it being unreasonable to believe things that are unverifiable is a good one and is perfectly understandable.

My counter for this is it’s only unverifiable until it is isn’t. lol

I do not advocate for simple belief or disbelief and then to leave it as that. Without questioning or looking into.

You asked for proof and I told you from the beginning there really can’t be either for or against. At least not yet. I can’t prove and you can’t disprove.

There lies the crux of my argument. When placed in a position of unknowing. To be in a position of being incapable of proving or disproving as humanity currently finds itself in regards to the metaphysical. The only logical course of action would be to keep the mind free and open and search to discover and understand. It benefits no one to deride these things as mystical voodoo archaic nonsense. What you lovingly refer to as magic has always been humanities ever progressing attempts at grasping and understanding the metaphysical realm which we can perceive slightly which is why we even have the inclination towards these things in the first place. Animals probably do not think of the metaphysical but humans do, in fact it has been our largest mystery. Because there is something deep in the human subconscious regarding the metaphysical that calls for us to understand.

>>24567045
Not 'important', it will be studied by those it deems necessary

>>24567266
Have you ever talked to anyone who identifies as a scientism-ist? Who are these people even supposed to be
I get that it's some kind of degrading term to throw around when asked for empirical evidence

>>24567275
>materialism scientism and naturalism have no problems!
Why have ~400 years of these things totally raped the Earth and is even now leading Mankind to collective suicide? Read Heidgger, nigger

>>24567286
Ideology functions most destructively when the ideologues are unaware of their ideology.

My mind is so open, my brain fell out

>>24567293
What would that feel like?

>>24567293
It's good to get out of your head. Free your mind and your ass will follow.

>>24567296
state indoctrinated materialism

>>24567277
I agree with this and I thought my post suggested this as well. An open mind is the reasonable position, a lack of evidence disproves nothing. There is predecent for advances in science revealing otherwise "invisible" phenomenon. For the record, I do believe in souls/afterlife, largely in part to the work of dr Stevenson's rigorous investigation of childhood reincarnations and dr Grayson's work in veridical elements pertaining to nde's. I just accept the limitations that these hypothesis cannot be tested and must always be held with a certain level of doubt until they are/can be tested.

>>24567300
What even is materialism? Beyond not believing in ghosts

>>24567304
trust the experts

My neighbor literally walked on water yesterday.
Only close-minded and mentally castrated eunuchs doubts this

>>24567307
Please be serious, or never complain about being strawmanned again

>>24567310
Such things have been known to happen

oh but I am being serious

The truth is out there...

>miracles? I guess everyone in this book is a lying snake oil salesman

Sometimes the level of discourse on 4chan sinks so low it's almost unbelievable that real people are typing out captchas to post their narrow, rude opinions.

>>24566088
That implies that the word "magic" transcends language. Really sums up the pseud delusion

>>24567337
>confused finger for what it's pointing at
Sad!

>>24566341
I really dislike Kastrup from what I've seen
For someone to be that smug and confrontational about his position, and have so little to show for it

>>24566906
>There's still just a degree of yeah people probably have a weak psychic power that allow them to have prophetic dreams and that sort of thing. That's very different from "magic being real"
huh? This is a contradictory statement
>he just wanted an excuse to rape and worship indians because they have the vitality to rape children like evola wanted to do
based?

>>24567302
I apologize, I had gotten used to the constant antagonizing nature of 4chan posts. I’m just glad you and I were able to provide some decent words among the sea of shit here lol

>>24567359
>rape is le based
Kys incel faggot

>>24565953 (OP)
Well if he's an extremely reasonable and insightful guy then maybe there is something to this magic thing

Love the range differing Jung interpretation in this tread
from "he was just saying the patient subconsciously picked up on some cues regarding the aging doctor's health, and deduced he'd die by fever". To full-on "magic is real".

>>24567377
The former is a cowardly position.

>>24567322
yes. you get it.

>>24567377
That's because Jung was a pussy that tried to present his ideas in a "respectable" way, so he made sure to have some plausible deniability.

Reality is generated by Mind itself. This was an understood thing by many ancient cultures. Jung just connected it to subjective psychology, but because moderns are like hamsters on a wheel he had to use their "language"
And then they were still like
MIND???? Can you buy it??? Can you plug it in the wall??? Can you fry it up and eat it with some yummy spicy sauce?? WHAT THE FUCK ARE U TALMBOUT MAYUN

>>24567407
if the materialists found out psychology was built on mysticism, mom'd freak

>>24567436
If you were wrong about this. How could you in principle go about figuring that out?

>>24567442
Yes, clinical psychology borrowed from Jung what wasn't mystical and quickly disregarded the wacky stuff. So?

>>24567485
sure thing bud

>>24567472
Not him but I cannot speak of any definitive method for doing so but my personal attempt would look like this.

Simply watch my thoughts and use them directly throughout the day and watch the results appear in my sphere of perception. Record my results.

Things like think about bagels and see if a bagel appears before me somehow. Record how long it took. record the conditions of manifestations and repeat for whatever I can think and study the results I guess. I can’t think of any other method that would’t require some complex and expensive machinery.

>>24567503
How is complex and expensive machinery supposed to help figuring out if idealism is true?

>>24566162
this

>>24567503
>thinks idealism is summoning bagels
Lol fatty

>>24567220
We experience them through thought patterns. The demons represented visually do not actually exist the way they are depicted and classifying them as such is seen by many as a mistake.
I disagree with that though, I think it was a clever adaptation to interpret "demons" as having a source separate from humans, making it more natural for an individual to resist it as an external force. But it has become so separate (due to natural as well as deliberate subversion) that most people do no associate the demon characters with anything they actually experience in their lives. It has essentially become a spiritual blindness. This extends to spirits in general which have suffered a similar fate.

>>24565953 (OP)

>>24567557
Demons are real and separate, though it's mostly the lower kind you have to watch out for, but if you're not a complete fuckup or extremely unlucky you won't be deeply affected.

>>24567576
How do you know any of this?

>>24567604
He is a demon

>>24567557
>>24567576
>the people calling me "Fedora"

>>24565953 (OP)

>>24567616
>t.possessed by fedora demons

>>24567576
>unprovable claims
I like >>24567557 approach more. Seems like an actual attempt to understand what ancient people were trying to say.

>>24565953 (OP)

>>24565953 (OP)
Magic is real. You just cannot see it because your society has wired your neurology to not be able to presses reality in a way that allows you to see it.

>>24567472
You can't. It's a belief

Is it possible to learn this power?

>>24567634

>>24565953 (OP)

>>24567667
God damn jew boy looking gay as hell

>>24567630
>>24567576
Not that anon, but the way I see it, is that demons are precisely such thought-patterns as anon mentioned above, "thoughtforms" or egregores as they're usually talked about. But they're not entirely in our minds. There are triggers in reality that induce these patterns, and induce behaviors in people. And since these things 'act' in aggregate and in a diffusive and decentralized way, their effects emerge as any "whole" that emerges from disparate parts, through macro-level things, like transexual death cults, 'anti-natalism' as a philosophy, etc.

>>24567687
not a jew

>>24567706
>based on internal jewish rationalization

>>24565953 (OP)

But Kabbalah is real, he isnt wrong

>>24567616
I have never called anyone Fedora, grow a spine.

>>24567692
Yes, born out of syllogism of the information we take in. If you taught a child to only trust one school of thought-- only it can be profound, only it is marching towards the truth, everything else is a distraction, the child would form a similar thought pattern to others also exposed to the same pattern. Deviating from this creates alien social markers and the individual becomes an outsider, ironically while being closer to a truer truth. Non-deviation creates only minor aberrations in the pattern's manifestation of the individual.
Many of us look at this our entire lives but there is a concerted effort in quelling such discussion and language. Which is why terms are always shifting due to subversion and rediscovery. That is why when reading old esoteric material on this subject, the gestalt is, I believe, paramount to understanding. So when someone says egregore and describes it, or demons and describes it, or spectres or ghouls or goblins, etc, you will understand and be able to communicate relevant information.

The reason this is done is because cohesion is incredibly important for a functioning society. Not just as a tool of control but to facilitate necessary work and relation. So even if it may seem cruel when laid out, it's cruel in the way braces are painful.

>>24565953 (OP)
>>"oh and BTW magic is real"
He's right tho

>>24567345
...retard?

>>24567981
You are missing the heavenly glory!

>>24565953 (OP)

How do I summon a succubus?

>>24568147
Trying to be useful?

>>24566010
Why not just call fake magic "prestidigitation," like you did just then?

>>24568147
Make a lot of money. The succubi will beat a path to your door.

>>24565953 (OP)
I think you need to try a few experiments in divination before you dismiss magic out of hand.
Like me, you might be very surprised.

>>24568147
Look on backpages

I don't believe magic to be real but everyday I sense noon to have an evil latent aura of self-indulgence, it's always during the middle part of the day that I overload my senses, eating in excess and gooning so hard I begin to have visions.
But later during the day, I regain focus and become very reserved and mindful. Which is why I always get inspired to write during the night.

>>24568401
The supernatural is mundane. There's probably rational and scientific explanations for what you are observing, but that doesn't make it not magic too.
A desk is a dinner table if you eat at it. The crescent and full moons are different ideals but the same object. Do you understand what I'm saying?

>>24568401
>the sun forces me to goon

>>24566214
fancy way to say that he's just an old fool that got duped by a malevolent spirit

I'm late on this. There's stuff that applies the sorts of stuff he had to say into practice but it's not entirely word for word. Today, he's not looked back at as someone who would be able to be materialized here, and immediately go into work effectively as a clinician. He would probably never be licensed as an actual therapist in the west carrying his mind's chattel unaffected, today.

>>24568460
>t. Immense faggot

>>24568494
He's right though.
>>24568460
And we're worse off for it.

>>24568511
>samefag

>>24568518
>coping retard

>>24565984
Correct. In "Modern Man in Search of a Soul", he seethes over the current zeitgeist in science and academia around requiring evidence for claims and materialism in general. The dude was overtly a mystic and only occasionally stumbled into interesting ideas.

When you get older you realise his "reasonable insights" were really just vague platitudes. It's no different to cold reading.

>>24566003
/lit/izens will seethe because they love mysticism and hacks like Jung and Dosto, but this anon is 100% correct

>>24566157
>You cannot seriously discuss the human mind while cleaving to a strictly materialist worldview, because there is no way to scrutinize the human thought process that clearly
Yes there is, we just don't have the tools to do so yet. Adopting ancient superstition and manifestly false ideas does not get you closer to the truth. Using a materialist basis for your exploration does.

>>24568713
>/lit/izens will seethe because they love mysticism and hacks like Jung and Dosto
no we don't
it's a loud minority

>>24565984
>NOOOO MY SCIENCE IS NOT BEING LOVED LIKE MY HIGH SCHOOL TAUGHT ME TOO?!?!?!?
Science status : not fucking loved.

>>24566214
>>24566224
The only true candle in the dark is science. You are merely embracing an illusion. If you cast off these ancient and primitive modes of thinking, you will see more truth, beauty, and goodness than any mysticism could possibly offer. Start with pic.

>>24566231
>"I can see the future in my dreams"
>"Okay, what is the evidence that you have documented predictions that came true? What is the proposed mechanism for delivering information through time and into your mind? Can you provide any evidence for such a mechanism?"
>"Nah bro it's just a feeling"
Jung was a hack

I 100% believe that through ritual, repetition and imagination you can do practically anything if you're consistent and almost obsessed with it

>>24568716
Au contraire!

Mysticism is thousands of years old and much more precise

Psychology is a recent scam and hamstringed by scientism

>>24566265
Information still has to travel from one place to another, and in the case of "precognitive" nonsense, through time itself! There is literally zero evidence of this and no mechanism other than "it's all one mind duuuude". This is just embarrassing.

>>24566307
The divine doesn't exist as anything other than an illusion.

>>24568735
That's just like your opinion, man

>>24567634
Why is it that the most miraculous technology all exists on the basis of material science? I haven't seen anyone send and receive genuine information across the world in seconds using magic, but I have seen it using material science. You and I are currently doing so on the basis of material science. It is literally the only game in town.

>>24568729
Precise? It's a bunch of woo woo nonsense that has zero explanatory or predictive power.

>>24568747
>>24567288

>>24565975
Because magic used to mean that. Today they switched it to "magick."

Magic isn't "casting fireballs" like redditors think because of Harry Potter and LOTR

>>24568724
Science is a tool constrained by our incomprehensibly limited human senses. Truth, beauty and goodness are nonexistent and meaningless without spirituality.

>>24568742
Even people who believe in the divine claim it hides itself in order to test faith or some such nonsense. It's laughably childish. Not an opinion, an observation of the deviant and bankrupt nature of certain thinking.

>>24568747
Try explaining your interactions w others using only physics and chemistry

It's more vague

>>24568750
>>24568724

>>24568759
Not a rebuttal

>>24568758
Literally nothing about physicalism implies that explanations in English language have to be reducible to other explanations in English language using physic and chemistry terms

>>24568732
>"it's all one mind duuuude".
Not an argument. You dont understand non-dualism/monism. Try again.
>>24568727
>"Okay, what is the evidence that you have documented predictions that came true?
The plethora of personal reports made over the decades, not to mention within Jung's own reports with clients. The Golden Scarab is the perfect example. Also, harping on precognitive dreams when they're secondary to Synchronicity is halfwittery. Try better to keep up.
>What is the proposed mechanism for delivering information through time and into your mind?
Panpsychic monism. All is one and all is one, permitting webs of spontaneous relations and causality beyond the grasp of brittle and limited scientific methodology.
>Can you provide any evidence for such a mechanism?"
The plethora of personal reports made over the decades. And if you want direct evidence, go experience it yourself instead of being a halfwit soientist expecting some empirical laboratory study to be given for a phenomenon that cannot be strapped down in the electric chair that is scientific methodology.
>>24568735
You can't see past your own delusions in the first place, why should anyone take your opinion serious?
>>24568756
It doesn't, it in fact forces itself upon you through complete epiphanies. Faith is for christcucks who fell for the false demon religion.

>>24568920
So much cope. So little substance.

>>24568759
He's right though. Science and modern technology was brought forth by Francis Bacon, who declared that nature needed to be conquered, dominated, and enslaved to relieve man's estate. While Bacon wanted this to be tied to a Christian ethic, it quickly became ethically unhinged, leading to increasingly destructive wars, massive global environmental damage, and the increasing capacity to dominate, enslave, and augment human nature itself, on top of the capacity to either sterilize the planet in a nuclear holocaust or exterminate the human race with a delayed airborne asymptomatic ebola bioweapon or weaponized prions.

Modernity and its pillar of science and technology is built upon a Faustian bargain that has turned on man while neglecting his spiritual and moral needs. Go spend some time at a Walmart and you will see this as inherently and brutally true.

>>24568924
>ctrl+f: argument
>zero argument found
Sorry it interrupts your anal goon session when people point out theres more to reality than MUH science and Faustian hedonism.

>>24568920
Is it possible to learn this power? I need to win the lottery

>>24568958

>>24568960
No, but seriously, how does any of this stuff work? Why can't it be used to win the lottery?

>>24567604
Direct experience that I cannot prove to you. Took a lot of time and effort to confirm for myself. I cannot tell that story in a way that would conclusively add to the discussion, as in sufficiently explaining my motivations and conclusions, nor is it a very interesting story as far as paranormal encounters go. Just sorta stopped doubting it eventually when it yielded a couple correct predictions that added to direct and indirect evidence I had already accumulated.
>>24567692
I use this sort of model as a backup all the time so I could discuss these issues without getting called a crackpot. It's interesting how much you could bend language and logic to simulate a process within a world model that does not fit into the particular world model.

>>24569013
>it eventually when it yielded a couple correct predictions that added to direct and indirect evidence I had already accumulated.
Like through synchronicities? I don't care for you to prove anything (im not that anon anyway btw), I'm just curious to hear more to understand more.

>>24566307
You should read Dianetics, you'd love it.

>>24566833
What broke the pseud spell for you, was it just age? I have a family member who is deep into the mystic reactionary rabbit hole.

>>24567039
>Just because the ancient Romans had no way to perceive gamma rays or microwaves doesn’t mean they didn’t exists.
Yes, but it turning out to be true doesn't mean that it would have been a legitimate idea at the time. There is the narrative concept of truth, which is whatever happens to be true. And there is the realistic concept of truth, which is whatever the evidence currently points to.
And don't pretend Yung is just saying "there are things we cannot yet measure." because he is making specific unfounded and arbitrary claims.

>>24567039
>Just because the ancient Romans had no way to perceive gamma rays or microwaves doesn’t mean they didn’t exists.
Yes, but it turning out to be true doesn't mean that it would have been a legitimate idea at the time. There is the narrative concept of truth, which is whatever happens to be true. And there is the realistic concept of truth, which is whatever the evidence currently points to.
And don't pretend Yung is just saying "there are things we cannot yet measure.", because he is making specific unfounded and arbitrary claims.
>>24567095
>is just parts of reality we are currently incapable of perceiving with clarity
Source? Do you have a piece of information that makes this not-arbitrary? No. You are superstitious and dialectically challenged

>>24568758
Holy shit, this is the level of retardation we're facing from the fedora-meme backlash. You are literally a retarded person for this post, please write it down somewhere in your personal belongings so you can see how much you've grown in 20 years.

>>24569034
>I don't care for you to prove anything
Neither do I, it's a 'you had to be there' kind of thing.
>Like through synchronicities
No, though I had a few significant moments of precognition while dreaming and awake. Not conclusive, really, but significant.
I studied my own experience, compared it with other peoples', then made a note of those in my social circle who would probably be affected in a similar way. They would later talk to me about dream invasions, feeling a presence in their room, seeing things in the corner of their eyes, feeling things, etc. Nothing major that would justify my belief, but at that point it added up. So I decided to withhold disbelief entirely.

>>24569106
kek

>>24567377
>The language I speak must be ambiguous, must have two meanings, in order to do justice to the dual aspect of our psychic nature. I strive quite consciously and deliberately for ambiguity of expression, because it is superior to unequivocalness and reflects the nature of life. My whole temperament inclines me to be very unequivocal indeed. That is not difficult, but it would be at the cost of truth. I purposely allow all the overtones and undertones to be heard, partly because they are there anyway, and partly because they give a fuller picture of reality. Unequivocalness makes sense only in establishing facts but not in interpreting them; for "meaning" is not a tautology but always includes more in itself than the concrete object of which it is predicated.
>I define myself as an empiricist, for after all I have to be something respectable.

tl;dr, he's a schizo pretending to be a scientist for respectability.

>>24565953 (OP)
it is real
and his insights on the human psyche were entirely coloured by and stemmed from his metaphysics
he was always a magician using psychology to legitimize his magical beliefs

>>24565984
>call Jungs office
>his secretary answers the phone and says the doctor knew you would call
He was simultaneously one of the 20th centuries greatest minds and one of its greatest hacks.

>>24566755
what you said applies to every language ever. english isn't special in this regard

>>24568724
people who make ignorant statements like this only do so because you don't know what mysticism is. mysticism is just dialectic in dressed in religious garb. all the mystics were actually dialecticians. do you know what dialectic is? if you don't know what dialectic is then you don't know what mysticism is.
here is a paraphrased statement from Eriugena, a neoplatonist mystic's, 'Periphyseon': he says that the first fundamental division is into that which is, and that which is not.
this is a correct statement.
now here's my question to you: is it scientific? no. according to you, it's not. it doesn't use the scientific method. yet, it is a truth that we have come to. dialectic works this way, and by proxy mysticism works this way. what I mentioned is a most fundamental dichotomy, and a very most basic statement you can make concerning what is intelligible.
hope what I said made sense to you, though I'd not be surprised if it didn't. materialism is a disease of the soul.

>>24566317
Part of the human experience = able to manifest = sometimes real?

>he doesn’t believe in the power of the unconscious
Ngmi

>>24566187
There is a difference in disbelief and not understanding what is being spoken of.
A perfect example is when religious people talk about God and an atheist thinks they are talking about a bearded man sitting on a cloud.
That is what "not getting it" means.

Seems like I, a person who don't believe in magic, should be entirely justified in thinking Jung is a clown. Unless I change my opinions on magic.

>>24570121
1. A lot of Christians certainly talk and act like that was the case. Jesus is God, a bearded man with holes in his hands, who is literally sitting on a chair, to the right side of his father. I think it's perfectly fine to treat low-level ideas on their own terms.
2. I don't think there's a lot "to get", it's not like magic believers have offered up a robust explanation of what's supposed to be going on, put any theories on the table - what they actually do believe, there's nothing to pin down

>>24566128
TURKE

>>24568442
but enough about the abrahamic religions

>>24570224
Anon, there is a chair if you would like to sit down.
>Anon sits on a table.
No, the chair.
>In my family we call this a chair.

>>24570203
Science and mathematics stemmed out of magical and alchemical pursuits. In fact, it is their most successful fruit.

>>24569860
kek this sounds like something that actually happened with jung

>>24570429
I would add that pure mathematicians more often than not tend towards thinking that the math they're working on is indistinguishable from magic. Not surprising that pure mathematicians are more likely to be platonists than nominalists.

>>24570499
ITA, I attempted a degree in astrophysics and got completely filtered by the mathematics because it became painfully apparent that it was being "discovered," and it came off as an alien language that I couldn't wrap my head around and it flabbergasted me that the equations my professors were scribbling on the whiteboard had any bearing on anything to do with the physical world. All my physics professors took it for granted and never once talked of the history let alone philosophy that underpins this stuff. At the very least one of my calculus professors shared in grasping the amazing fact that high mathematics actually has this essential quality or nature and it's not something we are just making up as we go. Learning about this magical-alchemical history dating back to the 16th & 17th centuries recently was like a missing puzzle piece finally snapping into place - mathematics is but the successful and culturally accepted cousin of numerology.

No wonder Newton wrote more on theology and alchemy, and its further bewildering that STEMlords don't grasp the implications of this. Thats the difference between true philosophers and technical experts I suppose.

>>24565953 (OP)
Not magic as such. He is opposed to "magical cause." He believes in something spooky, but under a specific definition, and it shouldn't be spoken of unless you've tried to acquaint with that.

As far as the likes of extrasensory perception goes... Jung sort of believed in it. So did Freud, actually, and most people, as well as nearly the entirety of the 19th century. Can't mock the occult and endorse Schopenhauer in the same breath

>>24570407
By his bosom? His lap? A throne?
I'm *that* into the lore

>>24569860
bro was tapped in

Was Jung embarrassed about this stuff? It's seems like deep down, he know his beliefs are silly. Very concerned about being taken seriously, he don't want other people to view him as silly

>>24570729
What beliefs specifically? He didn't actually believe in that. Just used it for psychology

>>24570735
The supernatural stuff

>>24570739
ye he was worried about the NPCs of his day running the mod report script

>>24570739
He said specifically. What specifically?

Jung rebukes magical causality, gnosticism, metaphysics, and the existence of Gods. The criticisms against Jung are basically running on the fumes of a stupid reputation dictated by people who don't read.

But yes he believes there is a synchronicity phenomenon that needs to be studied, what synchronicity is remains a question - it is, in his terms, "acausal," and if you can't incorporate that into your comments then you aren't actually approaching the subject.

>>24570793
My post was not meant for people who interpret Jung to not believe in magic. It's for the other people in the thread who disagree with you, and interpret Jung as a magic believer.

>>24570748
I think it's absolutely reasonable to call out your peers on spewing made-up drivel
Not saying that Jung spewed made-up drivel - just that if there was a system in place that prevented him from doing that, it was probably working as intended.

>>24565953 (OP)
>surprised guy in field entirely based on vibes and conjecture believes in mysticism
shiggy diggy

>>24570944
UHhhh, Jung was NOT a mystic

>>24570069
Meds schizo

>>24568936
Science is a method, in function, a tool. It creates the ability to actually have confidence that you are obtaining knowledge that maps on to reality in a meaningful way. Without it, you are truly in the dark, much like >>24568940 and many other anons in this thread who have a sort of romantic desire for illusions to be real, when the reality is that there is simply no good evidence for these things at all.

Also, science has provided a glorious opportunity for the betterment of all mankind, but, just as in all of history, those in power have co-opted it's potential for their own enrichment, which is what has led to the decline in the living standards of modern first world citizens (I'll pause here to also point out the hilarious appeal to "man's spiritual and moral needs" which sounds like a utilitarian appeal to a person's subjective well being). I'd advise you to look at history, some of the true horrors of human existence have essentially been extinguished such as death in child birth, death in infancy, and death by infection. Returning to a time when people trusted witch doctors, clerics, and mystics would be far worse, you just lack the ability to consider full context.

>>24568936
Science is a method, in function, a tool. It creates the ability to actually have confidence that you are obtaining knowledge that maps on to reality in a meaningful way. Without it, you are truly in the dark, much like >>24568940 and many other anons in this thread who have a sort of romantic desire for illusions to be real, when the reality is that there is simply no good evidence for these things at all.

Also, science has provided a glorious opportunity for the betterment of all mankind, but, just as in all of history, those in power have co-opted its potential for their own enrichment, which is what has led to the decline in the living standards of modern first world citizens (I'll pause here to also point out the hilarious appeal to "man's spiritual and moral needs" which sounds like a utilitarian appeal to a person's subjective well being). I'd advise you to look at history, some of the true horrors of human existence have essentially been extinguished such as death in child birth, death in infancy, and death by infection. Returning to a time when people trusted witch doctors, clerics, and mystics would be far worse, you just lack the ability to consider full context.

>>24571240
Baconian inductivism is a specific conception of science, it is in fact at odds with others that we would equally consider scientific.

I think Jung has a good concept of method. The emerging discussion for him and others is that there are differences of method according to different areas of research, and this is lost on people. Husserl talks about this best in his Krisis. People seem to have agreed to limit all inquiries to the imitation of physics, and a pretty misbegotten concept of it at that.

Anyways the Jungian method is in part just to observe the human subject from many angles - as in, through the lens of multiple fields. Myth, biology, etc.

There remains a sense of rigorous empirical method. But other things (read, the other 80% of reality precluded by the typical method) may be looked at along the way.

Attached are some remarks from Jung on phil of science

>>24566157
This is a stretch but even a good lie has some truth to it. Intuition is a real function of the human survival instinct. It uses the subconscious' greater capability to give you early warning signs based on an information load your conscious mind could never process at speed. So it is a more short term example of what you're saying and a better documented one.

>>24571240
>Science is a method, in function, a tool.
Yeah, and not everything is a nail that can be hammered by said tool. Science cannot adequately explain consciousness first and foremost, nor ethics, nor provide an actual philosophy of life. Not all solid knowledge is scientific either, much of which is prescientific. Read Strauss and his demolition of positive historicism along with Popper's notion of falsification.
>Returning to a time when people trusted witch doctors, clerics, and mystics would be far worse, you just lack the ability to consider full context.
Absolutely nobody has said this and this just a brazen strawman that reflects a complete lack of understanding of where science came from historically and culturally, how it developed, and how it produced a world rife with ecological disasters and human suffering along with prospect of the annihilation of humanity by our own inventions, purely because the scientific endeavor has become completely ethically untethered since the time of Bacon.

>>24571888
>Yeah, and not everything is a nail that can be hammered by said tool. Science cannot adequately explain consciousness first and foremost, nor ethics, nor provide an actual philosophy of life. Not all solid knowledge is scientific either, much of which is prescientific. Read Strauss and his demolition of positive historicism along with Popper's notion of falsification.
This is entirely incorrect. Science can and does put forward an explanation for the mechanisms and structures which lead to the phenomenon of consciousness. The only gripe people have with materialist explanations is that they are not satisfying, which is irrelevant to the truth nature of the explanation. Logic and game theory further explain the optimal ethics and philosophy of life.

You also seem to imply that "the scientific endeavor" was more "ethically tethered" at the time of Francis Bacon, but then claim it's a straw man for me to suggest people are glorifying the past when it was clearly worse on essentially every metric. You can't even maintain a coherent train of thought through your own post, let alone through this thread.