may

Integrating the animus by fumbling

@goddtess Bieberchella

@tmtwzm best // worst places on the internet?

I have a phd in onlinetology. I have been in EVERY.SINGLE.CORNER of the internet. I studied the collective shadow for YEARS. Im a walking archive. It was never just mere onlineism to me. I have been THERE. Mind, body, soul. It fascinates me; the congregation of selves

@freudiansllip Spirituality rearranges reality i would say. How does psychoanalysis concern itself with reality outside the self in ways spirituality doesn't?

@tmtwzm spirituality doesn’t concern itself with reality outside the self. but psychoanalysis does. and that’s where you cannot transcend spiritually in psychoanalysis. you could feel some spark but it’s not wholly its supreme self.

psychoanalysis is the most sophisticated secular endeavor that mimics spirituality

@freudiansllip Very true. It's only a paradox tho bc it is fundamentally elusive to the empirical approach. It is indeed beyond the mind which is the whole premise of esotericism and thats exactly what psychoanalysts hate to implement

@tmtwzm brahman is the higher self. it’s infinite. beyond the human mind. so the concern of spirituality is that you also don’t chase “brahman.” because if you chase, your ego never dissolves. you witness it. you transcend it. this is also the paradox of spirituality per se.

@freudiansllip Exactly.. the self you're trying to perfect is only an object of ignorance until it's not! There are many paths that the mystics take that are indeed filled with benevolent ignorance which leads to self realization eventually. That could very easily be imitated in psychoanalysis

@tmtwzm “brahman” is realized when the self drops. in advaita vedanta, the self you try to perfect is still an object of ignorance. the realization of becoming more spiritual is not a concern but discovering that “atman” and “brahman” are.

@freudiansllip @luigi1533374 Thats the thing .. i deeply believe that we can upgrade the mind that spirituality is no longer regarded as this mystified experience. Thats where my interest in integrating the "mystical" (which basically means direct experience) and the psychological stems from

@tmtwzm @luigi1533374 spirituality is experienced beyond the mind, so it need not be explained in the usual way. any attempt to reduce it to concepts often misses its whole metaphysical depth

Psychoanalysis is the most spiritual endeavor performed by seculars

@freudiansllip There's this very popular term in pop spirituality (which im only referencing ironically for lack of better terminology) "the higher self". It's basically what u were referring to as dissolving the false self. Psychoanalysis aims to get u rooted in "the higher self" basically

@tmtwzm spirituality doesn’t mean dig your whole self but to dissolve the false self. psychoanalysis can imitate the self and ego, which become stronger with practice. it strengthens the self without transcending the ego. the contraction is visible thoroughly!

@freudiansllip @luigi1533374 I think i get what they meant by "unexplained". Like empirically speaking.. not actually unfathomable

@luigi1533374 @tmtwzm calling spirituality “unexplained” insults it.. mystery isn’t ignorance, it’s the only truth.

@freudiansllip Spirituality does dig on the self too actually. Just like psychoanalysis aims to surpass the ego, actively working the muscle of metacognition

@tmtwzm they diverse radically after their common starting point. psychoanalysis digs on self. spirituality doesn’t. it merely dismantles the illusion of ever needing to heal oneself.

@Sinkmore012493 @thejakeseevers one acknowledged it and the other could be assigned the label in retrospect (although it doesn't matter really)

@tmtwzm @thejakeseevers I don’t think Lacan or Jung are an intellectualism in lieu of experience. Jung had many mystic experiences that he based his work on. For Lacan, the esoteric can’t be understood, but he reached such conclusions using structuralism, he didn’t consider esotericism in his work.

@Sinkmore012493 @thejakeseevers Lacan's work is very nuanced to be referred to as just "structuralism" .. it was certainly advertised for secular circles tho yes which is why his work is regarded as "more reliable" in psychoanalysis today than Jung. They both however are literally esotericism 2.0

@BradBlank_ @thejakeseevers I think Lacan did a better job at adhering to the cognitive than Jung yeah. His work was still mystical at heart

@tmtwzm @thejakeseevers He is a sophist. Most of what he theorizes (minus the mirror stage) withstands contact, not only with modern psychology, but also with what was even available at the time of his work. Him and Jung have nothing in common, and Jung was, for sure, a mystic.

@BradBlank_ @thejakeseevers I dont think Lacan would call himself a mystic but if you have any "mystical" experience be it completely personal or mentored you'll pretty easily spot a similar pattern of deduction in his work. And i said deduction not conclusions bc it rly is the same but recycled

@tmtwzm @thejakeseevers I dunno what Lacan you read, but the one I read is not mystical at all. He says internal experience is irrelevant and that everything is language. That is the opposite of mysticism. Lacan is not inaccessible because he is a mystic; he is inaccessible because his ideas are bad.

@BradBlank_ @thejakeseevers Concepts like The Real which in mysticism is basically the Non Dual realm (oversimplified for the sake of a tweet) and what you mentioned about how language is everything which is referred to as the dual realm in mystical experience is exactly what i meant by "paraphrasing"

@BradBlank_ @thejakeseevers Most of his work is a parallel to the mystical (it's basically mysticism paraphrased) and he's pretty inaccessible for that very reason

@tmtwzm @thejakeseevers Lacan is not mystical at all tbf

I would love to see Ai take my job!!!!

Into one big stream. The underlying symbolic system of the chronically online. An ever flowing ocean of data for those with a third eye to see. A place we used to go that now permeates every aspect of our lives. Very mouth watering to the cerebral who cant get enough analysis.

@archifossile That makes sense. Also i can see it as a direct response to the excessive attention the male body was getting for a millennia and how it served as an oppressive tool

@tmtwzm To me it seems like It’s a new way to naturalize and suppress the arousal of women : they can’t say « I wanna have sex » willingly but « nature wants me to have sex sometimes », just as if it was not up to them

The internet is so funny cuz why would all these people care about ovulation so much. If i knew it meant that much to the masses, i woulda at least offered some science based shit not a brief passing SUBJECTIVE observation (it doesn't seem so subjective after all tho)

@thejakeseevers Lacan, Gebser, Jung etc are basically mysticism 2.0 pursuant to intellectualism rather than direct experience which is quite elusive by nature so their attempt makes total sense. Just secular esotericism basically

@tmtwzm it is kind of a direct attempt to translate the language of the soul into something manageable for the secularist

@sexonfent @luigi1533374 Im talking about "the spiritual" not psychoanalysis ! they said it's not quite lucid and might not make much sense empirically (yet), but i think it does make perfect sense just not cognitively and that is not any less "scientific"!

@tmtwzm @luigi1533374 if it didn’t it wouldn’t exist !