I assume Tool has some references to Jung's work, and even if it does not - Jung's work is interesting overall. So I became curious after reading some posts here and there and crawled through some information and I thought I might just aswell write some thoughts down and post them on this forum.
My view, what the analytical psychology roughly contains are collective unconscious, psychological archetypes; events, figures and motifs and psychological structures having archetypal nature, such as anima, Self, animus and shadow, which might be possible references in Tool's work. And the benefit in analytical psychology of the collective unconscious and self-realization is to pull us to the highest experience. Connecting and understanding symbols of collective unconscious.
After reading a lot about the main themes, I was confused and it seemed so were many others. The theories done during first world war differ a lot from the late 50s one. The soup is also mixed with parapsychology, horoscopes, I Ching and Jung's unhumane abilities, like seeing over "the borderline", which other people do not see. He claims also seeing more than other people, giving him inner comfort. I was really interested. I last felt like this when I long ago read about one religion, it claimed it would benefit me with eternal life. I see a lot of things common. This time the place of event is not a divine god, instead our secret Self, the collective unconscious.
But here I had to stop. I did not know I am missing a whole a lot of something. What kind of theory is this, when it hits you with incomplete-tag and shows a candy to follow for better _you_ ? Like in some religions you are pretty much doomed unless you save yourself by doing x. It sure sounds nice, but it does not sound very real or rational. Maybe it even should not, but what more I need than I already have ? Had Jung reached the higher state of being ? Who else ? There are nice promises and it is very easy to get dragged into this, but that might just be the problem.
Also, the quotes from his latter years are pretty harsh reading ( I translated these from my original language to english, there might be some errors ). "I am not sure about anything. I dont have any absolute stand on anything.", "the older i have got, the less I have known myself or felt sure about myself.".
For me, these confirms the inner conflicts with the analytical psychology. But I have to admit, I am still interested in this and I not trying to say who is right or what one should do with their lives. I will sure give some more reading time for Jung's material and maybe I can get new ideas and understanding from bits and pieces.
I came to conclusion, that sure you can benefit from knowing yourself and it is rather essential, but it is not nothing new. Knowing the good and bad sides healthy and I think it results in stability, self-esteem and feeling motivated and positive, but no need for mythology or complicated studies to archieve that.
The first 2 lines maybe made sense and then you just went on a ramble of utter nonsense. Perhaps you should just go read the FAQ before posting any more in here.
well not about tool, instead analytical ( Jungian ) psychology. And the reason WHY can be found on my two first sentences of my post.
Basically I provided some critical eye for jungian philosophy - you posted a link to a tool guide that provides information to analyze tool songs, partially with jungian method. Nice litte read but doesn't exactly add anything worthwhile to what I was talking about. That being the case I could ask the same from you.
If what I wrote contained something that doesn't seem valid to you, please do show what exactly in this case. Is that too much to ask?
I know that this may seem absurd coming from me, but I believe, as I immerse myself with Tool, that most every Tool song has at least five literary/life references within. All themes connecting somewhere inside and then spiraling out. Like a long saga written by Hugo and Jung and Plato and Homer and the cooler Apostles illustrated by Leonardo and Michaelangelo and Picasso and then edited by Alexander Dumas and Dosteovsky.
I just think one literary theme a song is a dead end.
__________________ Time is still the infinite jest.
I agree, although setting absolute values ( "at least five" ) and rather stricted limitations ("ALL themes... then spiraling out" ), but lets assume you just quickly replied and did some kind generalization.
However, that is off my initial point, and the topic of this thread was purely about Carl Jung's theorem. Ok maybe I am on wrong forum.
I agree, although setting absolute values ( "at least five" ) and rather stricted limitations ("ALL themes... then spiraling out" ), but lets assume you just quickly replied and did some kind generalization.
However, that is off my initial point, and the topic of this thread was purely about Carl Jung's theorem. Ok maybe I am on wrong forum.
Yes. Off the top of my head, scanning the book shelf. Quick random slices.
And no, man, I am in the wrong place, the wrong forum.
Today I am just treading space in the vast collective.
Sorry, brother, carry on...
__________________ Time is still the infinite jest.
Just one last thought on writers.
I think of them by two criteria: Who is their audience and Who is paying them?
I like the writers who did it because they had to, for themselves, just because.
__________________ Time is still the infinite jest.
well not about tool, instead analytical ( Jungian ) psychology. And the reason WHY can be found on my two first sentences of my post.
Basically I provided some critical eye for jungian philosophy - you posted a link to a tool guide that provides information to analyze tool songs, partially with jungian method. Nice litte read but doesn't exactly add anything worthwhile to what I was talking about. That being the case I could ask the same from you.
If what I wrote contained something that doesn't seem valid to you, please do show what exactly in this case. Is that too much to ask?
I wasn't saying it wasn't valid, it seemed pretty obvious to me (and I'm sure others as well) that you were discussing the relation between Jung and his influences in Tool's music.
Again, I was only supplying you with additional info and commenting on how only 2 the first lines were actually coherent. The rest went on and on like a blended strawberry daquiri, you know the fruit's in there, you just can see it anymore.
__________________ "WITHOUT A LITTLE EVIL, GOOD WOULD NEVER EXIST"
I wasn't saying it wasn't valid, it seemed pretty obvious to me (and I'm sure others as well) that you were discussing the relation between Jung and his influences in Tool's music.
Again, I was only supplying you with additional info and commenting on how only 2 the first lines were actually coherent. The rest went on and on like a blended strawberry daquiri, you know the fruit's in there, you just can see it anymore.
feedback taken, i'll focus more on understandability next time
But I don't think you can just jump right in. Look into a bit of Freud, and then see how Jung diverged from Freud (Jung was his disciple for a bit). Freud is easier to understand...that doesn't make him better, but as Aristotle said, the method for learning is to move from what is known to what is unknown.
