Just realized Jungian psychology was a cult

Just thought I'd throw this in - This site does pay homage to Jung's work though his work is not exactly original... Jung's formulation is (less) well known under this name - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_astrology [see also link] so in other words this site and Jung's work are really based around astrology and more specifically its 4 elements.
 
To some extent Jung was just a vessel for things humans had already learned since time immemorial
Humans are all pretty sucky, you gotta just embrace the suck and learn how to suck less if you can
 
ComfortablyNumb said:
No. I'll never admire evil, nor anything it produces. I may have to live with it, but not admire. Full stop.
Click to expand...
Princess Zucchini said:
This platform is a byproduct of his work. You don't have to be here. You are here, however, giving admiration to his work, meaning that you do admire him to some degree.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty broad thing to claim as well. For example, the western colonization of all of the land from South America up to Canada was achieved through genocide. That pretty much means there's no admiring anything that occurred on those continents since then.
 
ComfortablyNumb said:
No. I'll never admire evil, nor anything it produces. I may have to live with it, but not admire. Full stop.
Click to expand...
This has to be so ..... but very few living human beings have encountered pure evil.

All of us as people are ambiguous, and we all express both evil and good - this is just a fact of life. To censor and reject any particular human as evil is very dangerous because each of us also has evil within us and in condemning them we necessarily condemn ourselves. Oh for most of us, the way we express evil within us is not the same as with those who are great amongst us, but that's not a matter of degree, only of type and scope.

Let whoever has not sinned cast the first stone.

For me, it is sufficient to reject whatever is bad in people and embrace whatever is good - the principle not the person. And to always question my own power of discernment of good and evil too, because even at my age I am still a child learning to see between the complexities of what is good and what is evil when they are blended together into each person.
 
Let whoever has not sinned cast the first stone.
Click to expand...
Yes.. I am also trying to be as conscious as possible with these topics for the above reasons. Good and evil very much exist and I see examples of both quite regularly. One can't become complacent and pronounce it all neatly figured out though nor is it an option to ignore so the approach toward increasing understanding remains the most viable one.
 
Reading Jung changed me. At first i thought his metaphysics was strictly materialist. "Answer to Job" which blew me away, seemed to be an atheistic origin story for Christianity and his coldblooded analysis of the anthropomorphic nature of religious thought (all the projections) resonated with my post roman catholic agnosticism. but as I got more immersed it the more accessible stuff it became clear that he was a hard core deist, its just that God for him was not human, or humane (in my opinion).

It is not that good and evil are constructs in a postmodern way, its that they do not make sense in a cosmic way. good and evil are physical things, things felt by and made sense of by the physical body. This is a human (or maybe animal) thing.
 
jkxx said:
Just thought I'd throw this in - This site does pay homage to Jung's work though his work is not exactly original... Jung's formulation is (less) well known under this name - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_astrology [see also link] so in other words this site and Jung's work are really based around astrology and more specifically its 4 elements.
Click to expand...
Oh, so it's okay then, even though it's the direct descendant of his work, there's that little wiggle-biggle room, moral buffer there. What a coherent argument.

I don't think you managed to quite eclipse my earlier point.
 
Sloe Djinn said:
That's a pretty broad thing to claim as well. For example, the western colonization of all of the land from South America up to Canada was achieved through genocide. That pretty much means there's no admiring anything that occurred on those continents since then.
Click to expand...
Not broad at all! This is site is focused primarily on Jung's works, specifically his theory of cognitive functions, represented by those fun four letters we put next to our names. Are you newer to Myers-Briggs?
 
SlowUpTake said:
Reading Jung changed me. At first i thought his metaphysics was strictly materialist. "Answer to Job" which blew me away, seemed to be an atheistic origin story for Christianity and his coldblooded analysis of the anthropomorphic nature of religious thought (all the projections) resonated with my post roman catholic agnosticism. but as I got more immersed it the more accessible stuff it became clear that he was a hard core deist, its just that God for him was not human, or humane (in my opinion).

It is not that good and evil are constructs in a postmodern way, its that they do not make sense in a cosmic way. good and evil are physical things, things felt by and made sense of by the physical body. This is a human (or maybe animal) thing.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the type of "eyes wide open" language cult members use. I'm not saying that Jung has a cult anymore; this would be impossible, seeing as he's dead. The point of my thread is that he did, indeed, have a cult with communal living and groomed members, up until the 70s. Just making the observation. The defensiveness I'm reading in the comments says a lot about human nature's love of rationalization. You'd think this was American politics.
 
John K said:
This has to be so ..... but very few living human beings have encountered pure evil.

All of us as people are ambiguous, and we all express both evil and good - this is just a fact of life. To censor and reject any particular human as evil is very dangerous because each of us also has evil within us and in condemning them we necessarily condemn ourselves. Oh for most of us, the way we express evil within us is not the same as with those who are great amongst us, but that's not a matter of degree, only of type and scope.

Let whoever has not sinned cast the first stone.

For me, it is sufficient to reject whatever is bad in people and embrace whatever is good - the principle not the person. And to always question my own power of discernment of good and evil too, because even at my age I am still a child learning to see between the complexities of what is good and what is evil when they are blended together into each person.
Click to expand...
So, you like the "cast the first stone" intellectual defensive maneuver. Do you believe in prisons?
 
This is exactly the type of "eyes wide open" language cult members use. I'm not saying that Jung has a cult anymore; this would be impossible, seeing as he's dead. The point of my thread is that he did, indeed, have a cult with communal living and groomed members, up until the 70s. Just making the observation. The defensiveness I'm reading in the comments says a lot about human nature's love of rationalization. You'd think this was American politics.
Click to expand...
I didn't know this so this is something to look up for me btw.. the highlight of cults is expected at this time due to an alignment we have going on at this time which always brings up alternate beliefs, conspiracy theories and yes cults and active interest in them. (That mention was in the 'Working until you die' thread in a video linked there though as a comment in the video.)

Oh, so it's okay then, even though it's the direct descendant of his work, there's that little wiggle-biggle room, moral buffer there. What a coherent argument.
Click to expand...
His work is essentially a decoration (you could also say a rebranding or creative adaption to the modern world) of older themes which have been with us for a long time and which have captivated humanity for a long time as well. (Myths sticking around and speaking to us and being the basis for what would become modern psychology is also related to this idea.) My point is that the power of these systems comes from the exact construction of the systems rather than any person who reintroduces them to us (although anyone introducing them will get a good audience out of it).. and so this makes the personality rather less important than if we assumed that the typology came primarily from Jung himself.

I wouldn't call it an "argument" because it doesn't need to be proven - the typology has many followers already and so do the systems from which it originates so in a sense it has proven itself already.
 
I've noticed that this forum has a lot of moralizing posts, and that, even though I don't post moralizing things, this was assumed to be moralizing content. I just thought it was interesting that the psychology of Jung and Jim Jones was identical, short of a pack of kool aid. As a morally neutral observation. And then people are defending him, so now I have to be like "yeah, but it's a cult. ok, but he's actually a criminal." 🥴

I thought people would find it interesting. I thought it was interesting. Everyone's acting personally attacked because I mentioned that some of his victims were minors. But they were, so.
 
jkxx said:
I didn't know this so this is something to look up for me btw.. the highlight of cults is expected at this time due to an alignment we have going on at this time which always brings up alternate beliefs, conspiracy theories and yes cults and active interest in them. (That mention was in the 'Working until you die' thread in a video linked there though as a comment in the video.)


His work is essentially a decoration (you could also say a rebranding or creative adaption to the modern world) of older themes which have been with us for a long time and which have captivated humanity for a long time as well. (Myths sticking around and speaking to us and being the basis for what would become modern psychology is also related to this idea.) My point is that the power of these systems comes from the exact construction of the systems rather than any person who reintroduces them to us (although anyone introducing them will get a good audience out of it).. and so this makes the personality rather less important than if we assumed that the typology came primarily from Jung himself.

I wouldn't call it an "argument" because it doesn't need to be proven - the typology has many followers already and so do the systems from which it originates so in a sense it has proven itself already.
Click to expand...
1. Not every cult is masons. Think a small, creepy, groovy, Bohemian cult, like the one he actually had
2. No, he was a psychologist who wrote books. He wasn't a medieval wizard or minor European god. He was a real man who was a criminal and a psychologist. If he was a wizard, he could still go to jail.

You guys bored me to death, you win
 
Sloe Djinn said:
That's a pretty broad thing to claim as well. For example, the western colonization of all of the land from South America up to Canada was achieved through genocide. That pretty much means there's no admiring anything that occurred on those continents since then.
Click to expand...
This whole planet is a product of colonization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top