He’s gone way over board with the jungian garbage someone needs to do a wellness check

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800897&forum_id=2.#49450690)

https://substack.com/home/post/p-173135806

I’m two tequila shots in and not in mood to slog through this shit right now. We’ll see what bullet points ChatGPT will condense it down.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800897&forum_id=2.#49450694)

One-Paragraph Summary

The article argues that cycles of ego inflation, collapse, and “failure” are not moral shortcomings but essential stages of psychological growth. Drawing on Jung and Edinger, it explains that real development occurs when the Self—not the ego—rebuffs our attempts to control life, forcing us to confront the insufficiency of pleasure, safety, power, knowledge, and belonging. By holding painful inner conflicts without prematurely choosing a side, we allow deeper intuition to emerge. Over time, repeated failures exhaust all false paths, leaving only the narrow, authentic path of individuation. Faith, therefore, is not blind trust but the residue of realizing that every other road ultimately destroys us.

⸻

Bullet-Point Summary

• Ego inflation and collapse are natural cycles that produce consciousness, not moral failings.

• The Self—an unconscious, autonomous inner authority—guides us through life, often by “rebuffing” ego-driven choices.

• Real dilemmas involve irreconcilable opposites (e.g., loyalty vs. truth) that the ego cannot solve logically.

• Growth comes from holding these tensions until intuition (the transcendent function) provides direction.

• Forcing decisions prematurely leads to ego inflation and inevitable humiliation.

• Failure is part of individuation: each collapse shows that a chosen path (pleasure, safety, power, knowledge, belonging) is insufficient.

• Religion, politics, and identity can temporarily shield the ego but eventually break down.

• Individuation is a spiral path—approached indirectly through repeated mistakes and course corrections.

• The parable of the traveler illustrates that all appealing paths fail, leaving only the stark, narrow path of the Self.

• Faith emerges not from reward but from exhaustion: recognizing that only one path does not corrode or destroy you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800897&forum_id=2.#49450702)

I never should have Jung & Edinger poasted here as a goof

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800897&forum_id=2.#49450706)

————

Does this article make any sense, in your opinion?

Yes — it makes sense internally, and its ideas are coherent within the psychological and spiritual framework it draws from.

But how much it resonates depends on whether you accept some key assumptions. Here’s a balanced breakdown:

⸻

Where the Article Does Make Sense

The author is drawing on a well-established lineage of thought:

1. Jung’s model of individuation

• Ego → Inflation → Collapse → Integration is a real pattern Jung and later analysts describe.

• The “Self” as a deeper unconscious organizing center is a foundational Jungian idea.

• The “transcendent function” (holding opposites until a new synthesis emerges) is classic Jung.

Within that framework, the logic is consistent.

2. The cycle of trial-and-error in adulthood

Even outside Jung, the idea that people grow through:

• trying different life strategies

• hitting limits

• reorienting

…is very recognizable psychologically. Most people can look at their 20s and 30s and see this pattern.

3. The critique of modern ego-driven striving

The author is right that:

• pleasure won’t sustain you

• safety becomes stagnation

• power doesn’t protect you

• knowledge can contradict itself

• belonging can turn tribal or fragile

These are real vulnerabilities of the major “life projects” people pursue.

4. The parable is a strong metaphor

It’s not meant as literal theology but as a psychological story: you try everything, suffer, and eventually follow the path that doesn’t break you.

⸻

Where the Article Is More Philosophical Than Empirical

It’s not scientific in the modern sense — it’s psychospiritual philosophy.

A more critical reader could note:

1. The article assumes the “Self” is real

Jung uses “Self” symbolically, but the author sometimes treats it as:

• an inner intelligence

• a divine authority

• an autonomous force

This isn’t empirically testable; it’s a worldview.

2. It interprets setbacks as meaningful

From a Jungian lens, failures have purpose.

From a biological lens, failures may simply be failures.

3. It frames suffering as necessary

Some would argue suffering can teach, but is not inherently required. The article leans toward a “via negativa” (truth through negation) philosophy.

4. It universalizes a midlife spiritual pattern

Not everyone experiences life through “inflation/collapse cycles.” Some people have stable egos and develop differently.

⸻

Bottom Line

✔ Yes, it makes sense if you read it through a Jungian or spiritual-development lens.

The reasoning is consistent, the metaphors are coherent, and it reflects a lot of real adult psychological patterns.

✖ It is not a scientific analysis of human behavior.

It’s reflective, metaphorical, and built on a specific philosophical worldview.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800897&forum_id=2.#49450721)

Well, there it is

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5800897&forum_id=2.#49450698)