Schizophonia

It would be that simple if there were no unconscious mind.

Yes but it never works. And even if it works out, there's a good chance there'll be nothing more than a date, and even if by some miracle you have sex, is she good enough to be in a relationship? How long will it last?

It doesn't matter. If deep down you believe you're worthless and don't deserve a girlfriend (among other things, of course, we ask ourselves these kinds of questions because we're too privileged to think about money), you can ask yourself as many questions as you want, doubt that it's all wrong, and know what you objectively need to do to improve your well-being, you'll continue to be blackpilled, to ruminate, and your living conditions won't change. The only thing to do is to eliminate everything that reinforces feelings of powerlessness; that's what non-dualists prescribe, and in fact, most religions do it more or less consciously. On a collective scale, as I already mentioned earlier, there are social policies. It's also a problem inherent to capitalism; why do we allow products that reinforce your learned helplessness? Because there are structures (egregors, one might say, from a non-dual perspective) that feed off you; capitalism isn't centered around your survival, your well-being, but on the survival of powerful archetypes/egregors, structures. Non-dual structural-Hegelian-Marxist metaphysics, baby. 👺

The only solution on an individual level is mental dieting. The solution on a collective level is social policies because, as I said in another thread, being sociable requires money and time.

People reflect their social circumstances.; this is one of the things I am currently learning from Marxists/structuralists that is distancing me from psychoanalysis. If you tell someone especially when they are young and highly neuroplastic that they are a shit their will act as a shit.

Actually from a non dual pov everything is conformity. Why are you playing the "hunger game"

It doesn't serve the same purpose. Psychology/behavioral therapy is a form of hygiene; learning to manage stress, having emotional support, avoiding drugs, changing one's perspective, etc. It doesn't explain why a person has idiopathic psychological problems; the moment you manipulate the subject's mental structures, their subjectivity, then it becomes psychoanalysis. A psychiatrist is basically a psychologist who is studying medicine and can prescribe drugs. It is less obvious to talk about psychoanalytic science because it is a young practice and, as I said, it implies a degree of subjectivity. There are also many people who hate psychoanalysis because some psychoanalysts have suggested that phenomena like homosexuality or autism could be curable; there is an ideological dimension to this rejection. There is also a Marxist/Structuralist critique that I find interesting even though I have not been interested in it, which does not reject subjectivity unlike some scientistic autists but rather the individualizing character of the episemiology/linguistic elements of psychoanalysis.

Idealistic nullity. Socializing requires time and money; and then there is learned helplessness.

Ah yes of course I use it on myself and others to interpret problems and it works very well. If tomorrow I find or am interested in a more efficient system, then I'll take it.

What do you mean

I'm sure you haven't studied Freud even a little bit, it's just another thing you say because you imagined it in the shower. See my response to AION. Is Ayahuasca superior to 5 MeO DMT because it's "much more complex"? No, you'll probably say that on the contrary ayahuasca's "complexity" is primitive fantasies and corrupting, and that it's with 5 MeO that you become a kangaroo alien. It's the same here.

No, it's a matter of perspective. It's by moving towards ever simpler models that we can progress towards higher levels of intelligence. It's because you no longer know how to produce ATP, how to carry out the billions of metabolic processes essential to the body, that you know how to do something like drink a cup of coffee. It seems simple to drink a cup of coffee, yet it's made possible by the most complex form of intelligence found on Earth; knowing how to produce ATP is fine for single-celled organisms. The Oedipus complex is not "widely discredited"; it is essentially closed-minded people who "find it weird" and ridicule it. There are no particular perversions in his work; he just says that the main object of love is (normally, within the framework of a mononuclear family) the mother up to the phallic phase and the internalization of the incest taboo, sometimes strange/funny speculations through dream analysis such as the "primitive horde". It's the opposite; because Jung is more complex in the sense of being less holistic, "less profound, more expansive," as Ken Wilber would say. That's why it's so popular; average people can read it easily and feel intelligent because they "have read Jung" even though it's actually very boring and useless because of its heaviness/inefficiency.

I didn't experience that, but I remember erotic dreams from before I was sexualized. I remember rolling around in paint (a bit of an anal sadist eheh) and it was exciting.

signifier of the lack*

As I've already said it's overly conceptual and even uses too much New Age jargon, It aims to be more complex and organic. Freud on the other hand is down-to-earth, simple, more fundamentalist in general. Simplicity vs Multiplicity People accuse Freud of being too influenced by the socio-cultural conditions of his time but this is only true for the Oedipus complex, and even then he specified that of course the family dynamics and environmental scenarios that accompanied psychosexual development are variable;not everyone is going to grow up in the typical model he presents but psycho-sexual development will still take place in its own way with the same potential difficulties; it is not the signifiers (daddy, mommy) that fundamentally matter but what is signified, that is to say the law/limitations or the desire. Jungian epistemology leaves much more room for these socio-cultural biases because of its organic, not to say romantic form. How do you know that x belongs to the animus and y to the anima? How do you justify attributing qualities to these respective categories? Unless you're simply saying, "Oh well, I've often seen that, it seems to be that," in which case your epistemology is mediocre, there must be an underlying system that serves as the "why" for this division. And if we have this system (the phallic position in this case), then we might as well get rid of this division. One might say that it's the same thing, but again the more we create precise concepts rather than vague and romantic ones, the closer we get to the signified.