Does this give you insight in the pursue of understanding your own dreams?
i dont know
mu
>>7661714
I have no idea, but I saw an RL copy of this thing in a fine bookstore the other day, and I was impressed by the edition. It was about the size of a DVD player. I almost asked the guy to take it off the "pls ask" shelf so I could look at it, but I didn't.
When I got home and looked it up online, it turned out to be one of those things where it was a big deal but kept secret for years until they finally did a wide print a few years ago(?) I don't know much about the culture of psychology so I might be misrepresenting that.
I read the first little bit of it.
I thought it sounded kind of pretentious... Like I don't really buy that he was insane when he wrote it, but I think he wanted people to THINK he was grappling with horrible demons SUPER SERIO.
Jung literally believed in magic, I wouldn't take this psychobabble seriously...
Jung is best if you have simultaneous phenomenological and mystical bents. Freud and other of his followers have elements of it too, but they're more subaltern. If you're interested in the take of modern psychoanalysis on dream interpretation, or especially if you're interested in the kind of views modern scientism would arrogate, it's probably not so great.
>>7661900
If you like that, look into his black notebooks, which were the direct diaries which informed the red book, and are currently being edited for first release as well.
>>7661714
It's a really interesting read. I definitely watch my dreams closer now and I'm very conscious of them. If you make a habit of recording them into your phone right when you wake up, you can remember so much more. Just be careful if you're prone to psychosis or anything like that. It'll take you deep.
>>7662678
Who should I read if I am interested in re-creating superstitious mysticism in the guise of a secular philosophy? I'm interested in establishing a modern monastery so the answer you supply is key to me achieving one of my goals in life.
His fucking mandalas look like kid scribbles and they make me laugh every time
Good book though
>>7661716
>>7661731
>>7661737
>>7661738
Imagine how is touch the sky.
>>7662678
>Jung is best if you have simultaneous phenomenological and mystical bents.
This is an important point. What you get out of a work like this largely depends on your personal temperament, so take harsh criticism with a gain of salt. But as the previous anon has forewarned: it will take you very deep.
>>7661900
You should ask to see it. Book has some of the best art imaginable.
Content is shit, though. Could only come handy when you're in discussion with over the head psychiatrist denying his creed is religion.
