The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Carl Jung was wrong and all scholars missed why. I've never read his "texts" btw
| Cheese-eating hateful associate | 04/04/26 |
| Abusive sweet tailpipe faggotry | 04/04/26 |
| Cheese-eating hateful associate | 04/04/26 |
| Abusive sweet tailpipe faggotry | 04/04/26 |
| Cheese-eating hateful associate | 04/04/26 |
| Abusive sweet tailpipe faggotry | 04/04/26 |
| Cheese-eating hateful associate | 04/04/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 4th, 2026 11:47 AM Author: Cheese-eating hateful associate I will never "read his texts." I will never "know what he meant." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5853426&forum_id=2]#49793249) |
Date: April 4th, 2026 11:48 AM Author: Abusive sweet tailpipe faggotry I’ve read plenty of Jung
What I won’t do is read the Talmud as you want me to do, lol. That would take years and years and I don’t have interest. |
 |
Date: April 4th, 2026 11:50 AM Author: Cheese-eating hateful associate Cool why don't you tell us what he said (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5853426&forum_id=2]#49793256) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2026 11:50 AM Author: Abusive sweet tailpipe faggotry Which part would you like to know about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5853426&forum_id=2]#49793259) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2026 11:52 AM Author: Cheese-eating hateful associate Why don't you start with your critique of his interpretation of the rosarium? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5853426&forum_id=2]#49793260) |
|
Date: April 4th, 2026 11:56 AM Author: Abusive sweet tailpipe faggotry jung uses the rosarium to illustrate the union of opposites as the central alchemical and psychological operation, which maps directly onto what I've argued about the crucifixion of opposites as a lived condition rather than a theoretical position
with that said, you're using obscure technical text as a "gotcha" - you can fuck off |
|
Date: April 4th, 2026 11:59 AM Author: Cheese-eating hateful associate that's not obscure at all. it's the most basic illustration of jungian psychology that you'd get in an intro lecture. your treatment of it is superficial. and the position you claim to stake out over/against jung's is literally juts a thin restatement of his original idea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5853426&forum_id=2]#49793289) |