Schizophonia

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.

No i I explained the source of the language elements.

@AION I consider Jung being inferior to Freud or Lacan. Not holistic enough

Again Freud wasn't a sex maniac; he was just very pragmatic, dry, even a bit cynical, and quite conservative; You would have appreciated him. Not having sex doesn't have that many negative effects on the psyche, so I don't really buy into the idea that the psyche is particularly influenced by supposed sexual repression. It's William Reich the pervert you're looking for lol; he was quite obsessed and wrote about how, when he was young, he got horny watching the animals on the family farm having sex lol, how he lost his virginity in pre-adolescence with the family maid, and all sorts of things like that.

That's why even though I enjoy playing with psychoanalysis I'm going to abandon it for the benefit of mirror effect (applied non duality), which is even more simple, integral approach.

You didn't contemplate enough

And one can be quite conservative without being authoritarian. It's possible to implement policies that favor family, work, sports, that are anti-drug, anti-unskilled immigration etc without persecuting anyone or becoming illiberal.

The USSR was actually quite liberal for its time. Some people on the right are only so because the right wing has a monopoly on the fight against immigration, on a strong state, and things like that in the collective unconscious, but are actually more left-wing; or simply in opposition to a random, more or less centrist government lacking vision, sometimes corrupt. Most communist movements are very liberal (Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Titoism, Austro-Marxism...).

Because you're not taking the unconscious into account; consciously you're not just thinking about sex you're thinking about lots of different things, but unconsciously you give importance to all these things because they relate to your survival, and ultimately to sex; that's what it means. So you think making your Actualized.org videos has nothing to do with reproduction, or that it's "above" it (because of the superego?). But why do you make these videos instead of something else? "Ha ha, because it increases my consciousness and that of others, and it's good to do that." Yes, but why is it good to increase one's consciousness and that of others? "Well, because it allows us to have a more balanced life, and because it's our divine duty..." Yes, but why is it better to have a more balanced life? And why is it our divine duty? Where does that come from? What is a "duty"? What is "divine"? Why, why, and why... And so, by going back from the unconscious to the conscious, by doing the phenomenology of your different desires, you will ultimately come back to this organizing principle of libido, survival, and sexuality. In accordance with psychoanalytic epistemology. That's the martingale; that's why I don't like Carl Jung for example he doesn't go far enough; he's too "heavy," too conceptual with his stories of archetypes, animas/animus and so on; probably because, like you, he's unconsciously too puritanical to fully accept the Freudian theory of sexuality

He was no more perverse than anyone else. Btw perversion means the negation of castration. For example, I was forbidden from being a child (the feelings we project onto them, like innocence or whatever), and because this prohibition, this castration, is painful, it is denied and projected, which leads to pedophilia. I deny that there is no love between my wife and me because otherwise there would be too much disillusionment, and so I become a cuckold. Etcetc. In a sense, this is what you call "corruption." You and your posts always so polite and expressionless. It seems to me that Lacan invented the concept of "object a", but I don't really know if it's equivalent to Freud's concept of the phallus. The Oedipus complex is the childhood scenario that essentially teaches you that you must be the object of someone else's desire in order to have them. It's called the Oedipus complex because, for the average person who grew up in a nuclear family, the first desire is usually for the mother, and the father tend to be seen as a rival. The same applies to a girl, although apparently the dynamic is more bisexual. Of course, that's potentially the case. I'll probably do a V2 with different language elements. A generally simpler epistemology to understand.

I should become a militant for the far right party of my country. It's not a joke i could easily get a deputy/"congressman" job at 7500 euros per month and maybe become at least a little known lol. Become an european deputy is even easier and won even better like almost 10k before income tax.