the book exposes literally 90% of 4chain

the book exposes literally 90% of 4chain

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That one of Jung's disciples? What does she say? Something about manchildren?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That one of Jung's disciples? What does she say? Something about manchildren?

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Where’s zlib when you need it?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://archive.org/details/problemofpueraet00mari

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lordy I hope they don't come for internet archive

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          web 3.0 my friend, no more shady grey areas. only preselected content you can choose from and access with your clear name id.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just buy it

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >just buy it goy

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you poor and this is your way to cope with it?

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're either a retarded manchild yourself projecting or don't really know LULZ well, or both.

    What the book describes is far closer to the söyjak progressive left if anything.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hence why he says 90% of LULZ

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That one of Jung's disciples? What does she say? Something about manchildren?

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That one of Jung's disciples? What does she say? Something about manchildren?

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, not really. It thoroughly describes the motives of the social lives of high-functioning, high-achieving puers. It also describes pretty well the creative intuitions of puers. Very little can be surmised from this material about terminally online malcontents with no social lives.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >puer aternus
    Eternal boyhood?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, written by one of Jung's (best) disciples. However, don't expect it to be a proper breakdown of what we TODAY call the "man child". The puer aeternus is more like Peter Pan syndrome, someone highly imaginative, hyperactive and emotionally puerile. The modern "man child" would probably be inconceivable 80 years ago when this was written, what with the associated consumerist lifestyle and possible onions-political connotations. The "book" is actually two lectures that mostly dives into mythological associations, half of which are dedicated to a psychoanalysis of The Little Prince. There's some unexpectedly convincing conclusions, like how the puer male never quite feels like he is living in the real world and never quite wants to feel "grounded". Throw in some mother complex stuff, and if you're into the whole Jungian thing then it's pretty cool.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wow that's a lot more interesting than I assumed. In that case does she claim that this puer aeternus state is a dysfunctional one that we should aim to "cure" so to speak? I ask because I think that to some degree that describes me but I don't necessarily see it as bad, rather I see it as a beneficial disposition for the artist or the spiritual seeker to possess.
        Also I haven't read Jung yet, so would you say that's a pre-requisite?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's a rather nerdy discussion, like i said, a lot about mythology, so I dont believe there's much in the way of moralizing. AFAIK, there's some talk about dysfunctional relationships with women (the classic turning-your-wife-into-your-mother problem), and some stuff about drug abuse (again, not wanting to live in the real world). Also, some stuff about the chronic melancholy and longing of the man child (nothing is ever good enough because he is essentially a selfish and comfort-seeking). But there's also a lot about the puer condition being a grounds for creative genius, because the puers domain is essentially one of daydreaming and spontaneity. Maybe there's not a WHOLE lot about that, but its something i remembered the most (not having read it in a while), being a puer and artist myself.
          It takes me a great deal effort to maintain myself as a "respectable and normal" person, while actually i live in a fantasy world.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It takes me a great deal effort to maintain myself as a "respectable and normal" person, while actually i live in a fantasy world.
            Tell me about it brother.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is his "solution"?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Von Franz is a woman. Anyway, I know that in one of Jung's works about the puer aeternus, he suggests hard work, probably something akin to workaholism, that is, finding work the puer can become wholly involved in and potentially project his fantasies into. I believe there is some mention in Von Franz about historically many men who turned to monasticism possibly being puers -- which is an amazing thought because what I liked most in Von Franz is that she sees how many high-intelligence puers usually end up "playing with ideas instead of toys" as they get older. I can't imagine many "serious" men engaging long periods of time in religious ideation or philosophical pursuits. Just ask them. They think it's "a waste of time".

              My father is a bonafide puer, but luckily he grew up in an age where the culture was less geared toward children and entertainment (no internet). Like a true high-functioning puer, he was in college for like fifteen years getting pointless degrees and eventually became an engineer when his wife forced him to get a stable job.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Like a true high-functioning puer, he was in college for like fifteen years getting pointless degrees and eventually became an engineer when his wife forced him to get a stable job.
                Sounds like the dream. Instead I got a degree in econ that I didn't care much for and ended up working an email job that pays well but is creatively unfulfilling. I spend most of my free time playing video games that incorporate some sort of worldbuilding like Paradox games or Minecraft thinking of a headcanon for what I'm doing in them or thinking of story ideas that I can never actually put into words on paper or actualize in any creatively meaningful way. My dad is a serious man and always says I'm lazy and think too much.Nothing in this world that you could devote hard work to seems worthwhile, it always just ends up being numbers on spreadsheets or endless meetings about boring minutiae

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you me anon? I got the same degree and life path and I'm playing Caves of Qud right now. Although I disagree with what you say about hard work never being worth it. I think it's difficult to see but hard work can lead to great things that are far more than the boring spreadsheet minutiae our world is suffused with. A kino example of this is Nicholson's bridge in Bridge Over the River Kwai. Pic also related.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even that seems far away. Things like that are rarely built anymore by the grit of a single man, if they're built at all. Everything is committees and bureaucracies. 100 years ago they'd take someone with an econ degree from one of the best schools in the country and send him to somewhere to actually manage and solve a problem like you're saying. You have this much money and this much time, electrify this podunk region or build this railway from here to here, we don't know how just figure it out. Who gets to do things like that anymore? It hardly exists.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know what you mean. I've gotten in some heated debates trying to explain this to my boomer parents who have no idea what I'm talking about and simply think it's excuses.
                Do you write? I think you're probably a good candidate for someone who should. Also want to drop me an email or discord or something if you want to talk?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                My discord is The Big Costanza#9767
                I've tried writing but I can never get past a few hundred words before I lose sight of what to actually say next.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's a rather nerdy discussion, like i said, a lot about mythology, so I dont believe there's much in the way of moralizing. AFAIK, there's some talk about dysfunctional relationships with women (the classic turning-your-wife-into-your-mother problem), and some stuff about drug abuse (again, not wanting to live in the real world). Also, some stuff about the chronic melancholy and longing of the man child (nothing is ever good enough because he is essentially a selfish and comfort-seeking). But there's also a lot about the puer condition being a grounds for creative genius, because the puers domain is essentially one of daydreaming and spontaneity. Maybe there's not a WHOLE lot about that, but its something i remembered the most (not having read it in a while), being a puer and artist myself.
                It takes me a great deal effort to maintain myself as a "respectable and normal" person, while actually i live in a fantasy world.

                every psychologist, much more a psychoanalist, would never, in any circunstance, promove some kind of "puer aeternus" behaviour.
                even if they think it was great for an artist, they are psychologist, they work for society. they try to make something useful from you.
                dont take too seriously nothing a psychology would say or suggest about you. in fact, in a pure psychologists and psychiatrists style, they could say i have this resistance precisely because my puer aeternus (or some random patology, neurosis) behaviour.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                wat

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's right. A psychologist would be thoroughly horrified with a patient like Henry Darger, for an example of the perfect puer aeternus (described ITT), and probably hook him up on numerous stimulants, SSRIs and discourage any sort of 'non-productive behavior' in every therapy session. Psychologists only really care to turn you into a kind of parody reflective of the image of a social ideal that never quite was realistic, nor did exist. This even applies to Jung even if most of his cult veered on the opposite end. Though that anon's rant is out of place here regardless.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A psychologist would be thoroughly horrified with a patient like Henry Darger
                Why?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Assuming their(

                [...]
                every psychologist, much more a psychoanalist, would never, in any circunstance, promove some kind of "puer aeternus" behaviour.
                even if they think it was great for an artist, they are psychologist, they work for society. they try to make something useful from you.
                dont take too seriously nothing a psychology would say or suggest about you. in fact, in a pure psychologists and psychiatrists style, they could say i have this resistance precisely because my puer aeternus (or some random patology, neurosis) behaviour.

                &

                He's right. A psychologist would be thoroughly horrified with a patient like Henry Darger, for an example of the perfect puer aeternus (described ITT), and probably hook him up on numerous stimulants, SSRIs and discourage any sort of 'non-productive behavior' in every therapy session. Psychologists only really care to turn you into a kind of parody reflective of the image of a social ideal that never quite was realistic, nor did exist. This even applies to Jung even if most of his cult veered on the opposite end. Though that anon's rant is out of place here regardless.

                ) arguments hold their own weight, I would say because that's what they(psychologist) learned.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Though that anon's rant is out of place here regardless.
                I fucked it. i want to respond specially to

                Wow that's a lot more interesting than I assumed. In that case does she claim that this puer aeternus state is a dysfunctional one that we should aim to "cure" so to speak? I ask because I think that to some degree that describes me but I don't necessarily see it as bad, rather I see it as a beneficial disposition for the artist or the spiritual seeker to possess.
                Also I haven't read Jung yet, so would you say that's a pre-requisite?

                >his puer aeternus state is a dysfunctional one that we should aim to "cure" so to speak
                people are usually so deluded about what is a psychologist work.

                why did you use so many words for what should have been two neat sentences?

                academic malformation

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The entire debate, especially the use of the term "puer", seems frivolous and a simple matter of perspective. "Serious men" are men who are grossly composed and fixated upon the senses, "eternal boys" are men who are simply more oriented towards the immaterial and eternal, at least judging from the description you've given (although I doubt this is what was originally meant by the psychologists in question). All it takes is a simple reversal of perspective and these "serious men" are themselves simply sense-bound, thick children, who are nevertheless highly capable of achieving their particular desires, which is how I've always viewed them. Nietzsche said it himself, "no one is more serious than a child at play", and applied this to all adults, not just one specific subcategory which aren't enticed by the allures of the regular gross man who "loves work." The only things that change substantially from childhood are this: 1) What is considered "play", the obvious answer, and 2) the fixation on "means" or "ends." Fixation on "ends" is the typically "adult" behavior, which is mutually exclusive with the concept of a child being at play, so this is easily the most sure way of distinguishing between a mature and childish attitude, with the only difference being that in this case, the mature attitude is actually the more repulsive and cynical one, one that no one enjoys nor wants to be around. Its sole benefaction is being "practical", "producing results", and has its "uses" no matter how ugly it is (the entire modern world is an effigy or monument to this ugliness). Fixation on "means", more accurately the activity itself, wanting the act and the result only as part of the act, is the childish criterion, but again, in this case the value judgement is reversed and it is, taken on its own, the ideal attitude, the healthiest and most vigorous attitude you can have. The only meaningful distinction we are left with is the distinction between the entirely superficial "childish" activities (the examples being so obvious they hardly need to be mentioned) and "adult" activities, all of which appear as a matter of course with age and experience.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for your post. Seriously, your perspective added great depth to not only the discussion, but also to the way I see things.

                I regret not adding to the conversation, but I just wanted to point out your exceptional post, even if my praise is meaningless.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Quality post

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                you are quite right, though, without having read OP's book, there is still quite a difference between the imaginative and almost intoxicated artist type fixated upon their fantasies and dreams in the vein of holderlin, kleist, nietzsche etc. or even in certain types of mystics, compared to those of a sagacious and calm fixation upon the eternal like that of a plotinus or a buddha. both have the same view of the ordinary sense-bound wordling as like children drawn hither and tither by useless merely 'practical' ends, yet the former dionysian type certainly has the tendency towards the pathological, seen especially in the three I mentioned, where they are ultimately destroyed by their own excesses of emotional vigour and lifting of the veil into madness. certainly they created great works in the process, but ordinary men with the same tendencies but without the capacity for greatness run the risk of drifting, neither finding those abodes of greatness and ecstasy nor finding any grounding in the 'practical' world of the senses, often even being ultimately 'controlled' by their sentimentality. thats especially where the pathological aspect comes in, using fantasy as an 'escape' from the world and so on. goethe perhaps represents a more perfected balancing of these two ends. on the other hand, the sagacious type risks very little of this type of drifting, but kills all sentimentality and artistic vision, preferring the unbinding of the eternal rest of intellect rather than the creative spontaneity of mental play detached from the actuality of sense input. two different levels of fixation on the immaterial

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >associated consumerist lifestyle
        I think the more fundemental difference is more the internet, which gives a person the possibility to dissassociate while retaining a warped outlet of social and world interaction. if you see the “type” to be terminally LULZ or internet in general back in say the 70’s or 80’s, they would generally still be more well adjusted as they have to interact irl, but also have little geek clubs doing dnd or whatever.
        I think the consumerism is a secondary factor that exacerbates the primary.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Refuted by Hillman and Corbin. Sorry mate, I'm cultivating my mystic youth.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      based. In an age where single mothers and their associated pathologies run rampant, Man and Child need to form an alliance against the Eternal Female.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Cheers, bro!

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    READ James Hillman!

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP has posted this as a result of a video, published on Youtube, approximately a month ago (in all likelihood). I keep abreast of these forays into popular analysis, so it is fair to say that I am as guilty as anyone in this thread of being a pseud. But I am a trained Jungian analyst (by the mediocre standards of my country) and this cheap 'gotcha' (I apologise for my English, but I believe that this is a term used in British English to indicate a 'cheap shot' intended to expose the apparent intellectual weakness of a supposed adversary, which seems entirely worthless here of all places) is banal and ultimately pointless.

    I don't say this to discount the worthy contribution to our field made by Frl. von Franz, only that it would be better made in a context more conducive to elucidating the dismal psychic state of many young men.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Post the youtube video

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        its actually an excellent video and better than than von franz lectures (ops picrel)

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          the indivituation concept is laughable, i can only see how grotesque is this (video-essay) talking so solemnly and allegedly wisely with that final end that is just a completely malleable and manipulative concept like indivituation. that only very gullible people can really believe. for example, trying to say that being a pure aeternus and his own process of indivituation its not really and cant be individuation just because yes. psychologists really need to leave the scientific veneer they have so they can stop fucking up people.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Psychology is really among the ranks of what are (by definition) pseudoscientific fields like astrology, homeopathy, animal magnetism and so on (which I personally don't think there's anything wrong with actually, they all work to some degree.) Originally in the 19th century there was a struggle between all these fields for legitimacy and it just so happens that psychology, some will say because of its israeli origins, was vetted and chosen by the status quo of modern industrial society, and used as a weapon for propaganda and as a quasi-religious inquisition of this aforementioned force and its models of ideal human behaviour. So no I won't take my meds.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              you think a random psychologist patient thinks psychology is a pseudoscience?. somebody should debuild that construction. that would be enough. psychologists patients acknowledging they go to a pseudoscientific model would be enough. but i dont know how that is realist at this point.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not even claiming psychology is le bad or doesn't work. I don't use the term "pseudoscience" as a pejorative. I just think in the case of psychology we really have to ask ourselves what "science" is. Is it objective and methodical investigation into the nature of the noumenal world or is it merely a metaphysically hollow label of approval from the "Cathedral" so to speak? How can psychology fit the former description when the psyche itself cannot be shown to exist in scientific terms and exists merely as a post-hoc explanation of the complex that is the mind and the subtle body interacting with the world? How can we afford such a field the status of a society wide ethical driver while shunning other similar fields as flawed, nonsensical, or worse yet: anti-social misinformation?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't use the term "pseudoscience" as a pejorative.
                me neither. i just expose that nor psychologists nor patients think they go to a pseudoscience space. and i think is important to make that clear.
                what do you mean with this?
                >How can we afford such a field the status of a society wide ethical driver while shunning other similar fields as flawed, nonsensical, or worse yet: anti-social misinformation?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            you typed a lot without saying anything

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              what is individuation to you?. maybe you not think about the term enough.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              hes an esl pseud contrarian, he feels he must disagree but doesnt know how, so just talks a lot. hes been at it for over an hour

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In Jungian or analytical psychology, individuation is the process by which the individual self develops out of an undifferentiated unconscious – seen as a developmental psychic process during which innate elements of personality, the components of the immature psyche, and the experiences of the person's life become, if the process is more or less successful, integrated over time into a well-functioning whole.[5]
                >if the process is more or less successful, integrated over time into a well-functioning whole.[5]
                what is succesful here?. what is a well functioning person?. psychology deal with this kind of disciplinary thing all the time.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thank you.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      why did you use so many words for what should have been two neat sentences?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I liked reading his post. I'm inclined to believe that the length of the post represented the subtle nuances of his thoughts quite well.

        However, I'm also interested to read what you would've wrote (or anyone who thought the original post -

        OP has posted this as a result of a video, published on Youtube, approximately a month ago (in all likelihood). I keep abreast of these forays into popular analysis, so it is fair to say that I am as guilty as anyone in this thread of being a pseud. But I am a trained Jungian analyst (by the mediocre standards of my country) and this cheap 'gotcha' (I apologise for my English, but I believe that this is a term used in British English to indicate a 'cheap shot' intended to expose the apparent intellectual weakness of a supposed adversary, which seems entirely worthless here of all places) is banal and ultimately pointless.

        I don't say this to discount the worthy contribution to our field made by Frl. von Franz, only that it would be better made in a context more conducive to elucidating the dismal psychic state of many young men.

        - was wordy).

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pure anus?

  13. 3 months ago
    Based NAFO Fella

    she's a russian spy fr no cap

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That one of Jung's disciples? What does she say? Something about manchildren?

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yep, I'm thinking based.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why not speak about the woman child? Historically she bas been more common, even more so now. Common culture allows women to simply exist and be beautiful, not aspire to "real womanhood" or "grow up".

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You answered your own question, women can and perhaps should remain the passive actors in society, the mother sending her son off to war, the damsel in distress who needs saving, the old crone teaching her grandchildren. What modern society sees as “girl power” or “girl bosses” was seen by earlier societies as being either a sign of how bad things had gotten where a woman of all things needed to “man up”, or a miraculous sign of the enemy being destroyed by something that “should” be easy for him to destroy, usually because of his lust being his downfall (pic rel)

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's how women are supposed to be retard.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >supposed to
        spooky

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Women just "are" and nobody expects them to do anything else. Only men are expected go through a path of development that takes them from being boys to becoming the family patriarch, just like their father (in an ideal scenario).

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >becoming the family patriarch
        Of their own families, of course.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sometimes I really can't stand psychologists. They pathologize every form of personality that doesn't conform to some strict imaginary standard they consider to be "normal."

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most of LULZ expose themselves already

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is it about manchildren?
    Society has basically forced us to become manchildren.
    All of the man-making experiences... Fucking whores, fighting someone, making passes at girls, going abroad alone without passport and money, etc. All of this has been forbidden to our generation. Our only option is to spend 8 hours a day staring at Excel, so we choose to spend our lives living with mom and dad instead.
    What's the point?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fucking whores is not forbidden at all
      t. manchild

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        It should be forbidden.
        t. not manchild

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        whoring is prohibitively expensive, bureaucratised, and sanitised to the point where it's completely soulless and not worth it for normal guys. In murca it's also illegal.

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It exposes 99% of western men let's be honest

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      How so?

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That one of Jung's disciples? What does she say? Something about manchildren?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *