Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 30, 2021 2:12:32 GMT
I read a little of Jung, the first book of mysterium coniunctionis, and the development of personality, two great books. Freud I read the book about jokes and the book about inibition, as we classify in Brazil.
So, Freud is a scientist, and Jung a psychoterapist. There are differences in what they think but abstracting the freudian theory of sexuality, Jung is the same of Freud, with more colours and symbols, but the same.
Jung tells cases who he marvelous works on his patients, but his theory is inapreehensible and he tries always to explain by psychoanalysis.
Do you read any book of Jung or Freud?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 1, 2021 17:58:14 GMT
Firstly, neither are scientists.
They both use the method of phenomenology.
Though I am sure, many see Freud as being more
similar to a scientist because he is said to be an atheist.
But the separation of mind into Id, Ego, and superego
as useful and practical as it certainly is,
has never even closely been connected to the body or brain.
Even more so, is the separation into
consciousness, sub-consciousness and unconscious.
Those psychologists who reject these aspects of mind
are themselves of a deeply suspect psychological nature.
Both Jung and Freud, have more in common with mysticism
and religion than science, even though Freud rejected
such ideas. Though he may have had a strategic reason
for being a little bit deceitful like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 2, 2021 14:27:06 GMT
Firstly, neither are scientists. They both use the method of phenomenology. Though I am sure, many see Freud as being more similar to a scientist because he is said to be an atheist. But the separation of mind into Id, Ego, and superego as useful and practical as it certainly is, has never even closely been connected to the body or brain. Even more so, is the separation into consciousness, sub-consciousness and unconscious. Those psychologists who reject these aspects of mind are themselves of a deeply suspect psychological nature. Both Jung and Freud, have more in common with mysticism and religion than science, even though Freud rejected such ideas. Though he may have had a strategic reason for being a little bit deceitful like that. I remember my lecturer Yuri Romanov (he's a psychologist, but he reads "Philosophical Psychology"), and offered to read many interesting authors about as Freud, so Melanie Klein - one of Freud's apprentices. And among many texts there was a text of N. Malcolm - about the Freud's sub consciousness. Unlike the other texts this one was more interested for me, because of Malcolm's tasks to make Freud's definition as sharp as possible. As I remember his long article has two chapters; and in the first one he explains the historical part of it, different quotes, interpretations of the current definition, and so on, and in the second one he tries to formalize this definition. I don't remember the exact result, but it was something rather more theoretical, than it usually be. As I said, I don't remember what Malcolm's got, but it was something like the sub consciousness is the complex of facts within the human - the object - such as either there are no reflections (i.e. the reaction to that certain changes from facts to facts) which come to the memory, or the mind of the human-object never recognizes them.It doesn't really matter how good someone's described this definition, however, it's still true that some info we pass by. For example, there are gypsies and sorcerers who can send us to some spells, and there are many TV programms which are brainwashing us, trying to subliminally reprogram us to what the TV magnats want, and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 2, 2021 21:13:34 GMT
Eugene 2.0Cool punk tune. But when psychology decided to reject the very existence of the sub-conscious the entire fraternity became a shadow. That has to be the single most scary thought, I can even imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 5, 2021 11:46:13 GMT
Eugene 2.0 Cool punk tune. But when psychology decided to reject the very existence of the sub-conscious the entire fraternity became a shadow. That has to be the single most scary thought, I can even imagine. I think that psychology is really very important. I made sure in it long time ago, when I was a teenager. So, it was when I went to library to pick new books (I wanted to find anything worth to read. And firstly I was looking for some electronics or physics, but apparently I got that pop-book of pshychology. I started paging it, and what caught my attention was a tip that I could get off an unpleasant person by ignoring it. There were some other tips, which I can't recall now, while I decided to check that tip of ignoring out. And I made this. I mean I did it. I worked! That so impressed me, that I decided to borrow a book (at the library I only paging it with not intentions to read it further). And then I tried to read more about it, and stopped when it was included many biological or physiological points which I didn't understand that years (I was 10-11 years old). Not good for me, I just dropped off any psychology and didn't pay attention to it. Or I have to say that instead of continue to read something about it, I decided to read something else about transistors, resistors, radios, and some other electronics stuff. I think if I continued to read it, I definitely would pass by my next hobbies. And what they were, those my new hobbies? - they were listening to absurd rock bands, or kinda. It was local bands that played almost the same tunes Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, or Dire Straits. (I put an example of it at the end.) And I could espace of some maddness. I don't know why, but at ~14 (or 13-15? I don't remember exactly) I was listening to maddness, I was reading maddness, I wrote maddness poems, I played maddness music, and all I was doing was quite a maddness.... |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Aug 5, 2021 17:40:59 GMT
Eugene 2.0Gee you just named all the bands i was listening to as a teenager: Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, or Dire Straits. You even put them in the right order of preference. You talk of madness, are you talking of the band? What about The Doors, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 6, 2021 3:15:44 GMT
Eugene 2.0Gee you just named all the bands i was listening to as a teenager: Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, or Dire Straits. You even put them in the right order of preference. You talk of madness, are you talking of the band? What about The Doors, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix? :) Ha... Incredible! No, surely, I don't want to say these bands, or Morrison's and Hendrix's, are insane. Not exactly this. I mean that it's not the right time I have to listen to some Buddhism or Eastern motives bands... Well, how can I describe it?.. I'd say that listening to those bands along with reading Nietzsche, and so on wasn't good on me as a logician thinker. But it has an impact on my a dialectical thinking skills. I think that the dialectic isn't hard for me now, and that's majorly by these "half mediumated times". Again – music of them wasn't bad (must underline that mostly I was listening to Led Zeppelin's surrogate bands), while that didn't set my soul to spend time solving math or Physics exercises, but rather reading weird, sometimes occult, sometimes gothic, sometimes spiritual books, magazines, and the other stuff. Maybe if I did that all later, not being a teenager, it hadn't stricken at the core of my views. Those times I start learning playing drums, guitar,and bluesharp or mouth harmonica (or hand harmonica), messed with such teenage freaks as me then, and so on. Yeah, and sometimes I drank then... That was definitely not good. As in "One Flew Over Cuckoo's Nest" the chief told to the protagonist that it was not like that his (the chief's) father drank a bottle, but it was that the bottle sucked out his (the chief's) father soul. Those hotheads behaviour I did wasn't a good example. About the bands: I listened to them only partially, I mean by picking songs. There was another one – Jethro Tull I was listening to. |
|
